Author Topic: USAF tanker deal (Read 1603 times)

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #15 on:** November 24, 2004, 09:07:22 AM »

Ohhhhhkay... it's not greed, indeed it's "being globally competitive". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #16 on:** November 24, 2004, 09:21:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Ohhhhhkay... it's not greed, indeed it's "being globally competitive". Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
-SW

Those are your words, not mine. While I'm confident that restoring shareholder value ranks right up there when making business decisions, there are plenty that do it to prevent to go under... Do you want an example? I have plenty to reference from.

AKIron · « **Reply #17 on:** November 24, 2004, 09:34:48 AM »

Humans are irrevocably competitive by nature. Whether within a nation that values free enterprise or between socialistic nations there will always be a scrambling to improve one's position. Those fooled into thinking we can all be equal if we simply give up greed or our instinct to compete will find themselves at the bottom of the struggle to survive.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #18 on:** November 24, 2004, 09:52:04 AM »

It doesn't matter how many examples you cite Ripsnort, you tried to downplay the outsourcing of certain jobs by saying that imported jobs pay more.

I clearly stated that it doesn't matter what they pay if you can't do the job while the one you could do and were good at is exported.
-SW

Ripsnort · « **Reply #19 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:00:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It doesn't matter how many examples you cite Ripsnort, you tried to downplay the outsourcing of certain jobs by saying that imported jobs pay more.

I clearly stated that it doesn't matter what they pay if you can't do the job while the one you could do and were good at is exported.
-SW

I've had 4 major career changes (involving going back to school, and training) in 26 years in the work force. Its better to know alittle about everything, than alot about one thing...

Bottom line is, you must be flexible in todays workforce. There is no "job for life" and its certain what you do today is not what you will be doing 10 years from now.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #20 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:07:46 AM »

Anyway, back to the subject matter...my prediction is that the US Government need for Aerial tankers will be reduced, and that Airbus will get some of the orders (out of a "Nation mending" mentality on behalf of the U.S. with France) and Boeing will get some orders. Either way, Boeing is the loser since we're talking that the original contract would have amounted to 20 billion!

Toad · « **Reply #21 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:11:55 AM »

Cripes ammighty.

If they don't buy all Boeing tankers, they're absolutely nuts.

Habu · « **Reply #22 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:29:00 AM »

I agree.

Airbus is just France's way of saying to the world "why buy US made planes when you can buy European ones. (Forget the ones that crashed at the airshows, we have figgured out those problems)."

The day the French airforce flys Boeing made tankers the US should consider Airbus. The game is seriously flawed and dirty. Boeing does not stand a chance in getting any business from France so why give France US government business?

Having said that I think there is not a chance in hell the US will taint it's airforce with an Airbus. I think this is just a tactic to get a better deal out of Boeing.

Naso · « **Reply #23 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:29:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Cripes ammighty.

If they don't buy all Boeing tankers, they're absolutely nuts.

Why?

Pongo · « **Reply #24 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:38:20 AM »

I agree. They have to buy boeing tankers. Get a better deal from boeing by "competing" but buy boeing.

-tronski- · « **Reply #25 on:** November 24, 2004, 10:43:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
As to Mora's question, possibly, but off the backs of the taxpayers that make up EADS...keep in mind that Airbus underbids (at a loss) Boeing consistently, since it is government subsidized, in order to take business away from Boeing, but at a cost of your tax dollars. Could be the reason why EADS countries' taxes are so high? I don't know...however competition is good, since our taxpayer dollars will be less impacted by competition.

Under a 1992 transatlantic agreement covering government support for the two aircraft manufacturers, European governments were allowed to finance up to 33 percent of Airbus's development costs for new aircraft.

The Japanese govt. is going to give the Boeing 7E7 program (a key industrial partner) substantial support through financing japanese companies which are to build 35% of the aircraft structure.
Airbus consider that only this Japanese and US govt. support makes the 7E7 project viable.

Tronsky

CavPuke · « **Reply #26 on:** November 24, 2004, 11:24:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Anyway, back to the subject matter...my prediction is that the US Government need for Aerial tankers will be reduced, and that Airbus will get some of the orders (out of a "Nation mending" mentality on behalf of the U.S. with France) and Boeing will get some orders. Either way, Boeing is the loser since we're talking that the original contract would have amounted to 20 billion!

The original deal was nothing more than "Corporation Welfare". The taxpayers were gonna get screwed to the tune of $20 Billion for the luxury of leasing some B767's from Boeing. Now don't get me wrong, I believe that Boeing should get the contract, just not at an over inflated cost to me, the taxpayer. The original deal stunk to high heaven and also showed the corporate corruption/influence peddling that is prevalent in the pentagon (cost a deputy director of the Air Force , procurement official I believe, her job and a federal conviction to boot). The book "Boyce" by Robert Coram gives a pretty good look at the disconnection between the Pentagon and the troops in the field.

Just my $.02 worth Source

mora · « **Reply #27 on:** November 24, 2004, 12:01:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
As to Mora's question, possibly, but off the backs of the taxpayers that make up EADS...keep in mind that Airbus underbids (at a loss) Boeing consistently, since it is government subsidized, in order to take business away from Boeing, but at a cost of your tax dollars. Could be the reason why EADS countries' taxes are so high? I don't know...however competition is good, since our taxpayer dollars will be less impacted by competition.

This issue will be decided by the WTO in the near future, and it might well be that AI is not the only losing party.

If anyone's interested in this subject it has been debated to the death in this site.

Staga, I didn't register and the link shows just fine.

Furball · « **Reply #28 on:** November 24, 2004, 12:09:30 PM »

They should replace those POS F-16's with Rafale's while they are at it.

mora · « **Reply #29 on:** November 24, 2004, 12:10:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
I agree.

Airbus is just France's way of saying to the world "why buy US made planes when you can buy European ones. (Forget the ones that crashed at the airshows, we have figgured out those problems)."

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Cripes ammighty.

If they don't buy all Boeing tankers, they're absolutely nuts.

Are you implying that Airbus aircraft are somehow worse aircraft? Both are pretty much equal products in almost all areas, some Airbus products are better than competing Bpeing products and vice versa. Too bad there's only 2 manufacturers these days.