i could not find a thread on the new contract for the next generation tankers. they refuel the airplanes in the air. our goverment gave the order to airbus. boeing has always had the job and the tankers are the best in the world. its a 6 billion deal, that has gone to france. thats a lot of jobs gone! so when we get our checks for the little rebate deal, they want us to spend it on paying off bills or buy something made in america. the washington bastards!!!!!!

 

Ex-Usairways A&P mechanic here, I know all about those friggin' Airbuses...the reason I still can't hold a job in my home station even with almost eighteen years of service!

 

Boeing seemed to shoot themselves in the foot on this one.


Sounds like a lot of people will be happy in Alabama where a lot of the work will be done on the KC-30.



Goose

 

Airframes are fabricated in Toulouse where they have the big autoclave, final assembly is done in Alabama where the American GE engines, boom, avionics systems, tanks, and other systems are added to make the KC-30. Also, Boeing isn't losing any job here, they just stood to gain more jobs in Washington and Kansas.

No different than Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru, BMW, or Mercedes building assembly plants here and calling 'em American cars. $6 billion dollars? Nothing compared to the change Americans spend every year on foreign-branded cars. To the Boeing employees I would simply ask: What's in your driveway and parking lot?

In all fairness to Northrop/Grumman and EADS, Boeing did shoot itself in the foot. They were offering an aircraft that had NEVER been assembled in the configuration that was presented. We're talking using sections from various generations of the 767 aircraft that had never worked together before, must less even static or flight tested. Including new Japanese-built wings. There was never any guarantee that the aircraft would even FLY, much less be delivered on time and on budget. Northrop/Grumman submitted a bid based on an existing aircraft that already met all existing objectives and could be adapted for further roles required by the Air Force. They also guaranteed first deliveries two years before Boeing would be ready to flight-test their own offering.

The whole 767 leasing scandal has gotten way too much press. That situation didn't even involve any of the people in the KC-30 process.

 

We get our local TV from Pensacola and Mobile and they're dancing in the streets over there. Even officials in Pensacola feel this contract will bring support contractors to their area. It's about time. Average pay in Pensacola is much lower than over here.

The real mystery is will my son be flying one of these some day? We'll know soon!

 

The plane WILL be made in America (Mobile, AL). Majority of the parts will be AMERICAN MADE. Work will come for 49 states. A minimum of 25,000 NEW AMERICAN JOBS will result, with an additional 23,000 related jobs (service support jobs) due to new business in the 49 states. It's NAFTA in reverse!!!! This is a VERY good contract for the USA!

If you are into American Made products, then why do you drive an HHR...it is made in Mexico!!!! GM created jobs in Mexico when they decided to build the HHR, GM did not create jobs in the USA.

Toyota, Honda, Hyundia and BMW created NEW jobs HERE when they opened plants in the USA. Their plants and employees pay taxes IN the USA. These plants in America are good for the economy.

The facts are: The new Tanker will be made IN the USA, with 60% American Made Parts, employing people in 49 states, creating a minimum of 25,000 NEW, yes NEW jobs.

But the MOST important element about the program is that the Northrop Grumman Tanker solution meets the need NOW, not 2+ years down the road. The current fleet of tankers are very, very old and need to be replaced NOW. Boeing took their typical arrogant approach thinking they would win because they are "Boeing." And typical of Boeing, their philosophy is that since they are Boeing, "we will tell" the Air Force what the Air Force will do, and that is, the Air Force can just "wait" for the Boeing solution, one on the drawing board. The Air Force can't wait; they need the tankers NOW. Plain and simple. Boeing is now crying sour grapes because the Air Force stood up to them.

The new Tanker is good for the Air Force and good for America. 25,000 NEW jobs in America! Now that's a good thing!!!

 

Actually, in all fairness to the HHR, the Ramos Arizpe plant was built over 25 years ago, long before HHR was even on the drawing board. The HHR has a higher domestic parts percentage and employs more American workers in its construction than any vehicle built in Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, or BMW's assembly plants in the US. The HHR is merely assembled in Mexico from parts fabricated and sourced in the US.

Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and BMW also did not create any more jobs than were lost from the now "Detroit" Three when Toyota and Honda gutted Michigan in the '80s. They merely redistributed some jobs to the southern states where people were used to the lower wages and less likely to warm up to the idea of unionizing.

Be that as it may, I do applaud Northrup/Grumman on their victory and I hope it sticks. Boeing has really had the Air Force over a barrel for the last few years on the tanker issue and it's nice to see them finally give 'em the finger in the end. There's no good reason why our men and women should be struggling to maintain 50 year old aircraft that all modern airlines have phased out 25 years ago. I've known people who've had to work on the -135 series aircraft, and the occurence of close calls and lack of airworthiness of those old aircraft is frightening. Same thing goes for the old B-52. An inefficient, maintenance heavy system that has no business flying in the 21st century using the maintenance and repair resources it has dedicated to a 50 year old aircraft.

 

Amen Brother! The tanker needs to be replace NOW!!

 

I think you posted this for a reaction to the American vs, "foreign" aircraft manufacturing, but I have read about a completely different issue on the particular US Government award.......

It seems that Uncle Sam specified certain particulars in the specification when distributing this aircraft for bids.

Boeing submitted an aircraft meeting that criteria, and was not awarded the contract.

The Airbus people submitted a bit OUTSIDE of specifications, and was awarded the contract.

Based on my previous experience, this type of shananigan/hanky-panky IS NEVER DONE. All bidders are to be notified of a specification change and bids are to be resubmitted. But who knows, it's the US Government.

From the newspaper article, Boeing is thinking about utilizing the appellate process.

 

I think the way it happened was Northrup/Grumman submitted their bid using an existing EADS tanker platform that would be adapted for the Air Force specifications and actually exceeded performance specs for some of the other required specs. Boeing submitted a bid based solely on Air Force spec requirements, but that aircraft had never actually been assembled or flown in that configuration before and could not match the existing performance of the Northrup/Grumman bid.

I'm sure Boeing will wind up getting a consolation prize of being a "partner" in the process, similar to when they lost the JSF competition because they produced a bloated, slow, and inefficient product compared to the Lockheed Martin design.