everyone is saying that it needs to be built by americans, what mobile, al. ain't part of america? what pisses me about this, like reschke, that certain officials in high government are in the same town as boeing's headquarters. also, which team had a plane up and flying to test thier design. sorry guys, it just pisses me off. i was hoping to be one of the 35,000 people hired on.
THEY WERENT BEING BUILT IN MOBILE ONLY ASSEMBLED from preassembled pieces! Big difference between the two. Airbus was building the planes in Europe and shipping them to US to be assembled and finished as tankers.
Boeing will create more jobs than EADS would have and Boeing has actually stated the near exact amount of new jobs it would need to support the tanker program. It was over 30,000 while EADS was only saying 10,000-20,000. EADS was also supposed to build this assembly line two years ago for the A330F and its still not there.
Boeing has delivered 4 already to Japan and the first of four to Italy. The A330 tanker has yet to see service and just last month suffered a complete boom failure and detachment from the plane. Boeing has been doing this for 60 years, twice as long as Airbus has even been making planes.
Lets get real people and quit being so dang greedy. Your region doesn’t deserve the jobs any more than any other place in this country. We all are in the same boat together as a country. My local region lost millions of jobs in the 70's when the steel industry shut down because everyone else in the country had to get their steel cheaper from china. We didn’t go around saying we need the jobs more than anyone else and support a deal that would cost all US taxpayers more money because we needed the jobs. Instead we built up our region with new industries and companies that are successful and are now leading in their respective markets. Sorry if it sounds harsh, I’m just tired of reading post from all the people in Alabama supporting the KC-45 because it would bring them jobs, not because of it being the better tanker for the mission, which it wasn’t. The only reason it won the last time was because NG/EADS had the grading criteria changed to favor a larger aircraft, which if it hadn’t been changed, they weren’t going to bid. Plus the KC-767 won over the airbus aircraft back in 2002 with the initial contract.
This competition was to replace the KC-135, not the KC-10. The KC-330/45 or whatever you want to call it is larger than the KC-10 in every dimension but doesn’t even hold as much fuel as the KC-10. If an airline wants to replace a 707 (for example) on a near 1-1 capacity basis they aren’t going to go buy a A330. They would buy a 737-800. The 767 is already larger than the KC-135 but fits its capabilities and then some the best and was the cheapest option. The entire competition was for the Cheapest KC-135 sized plane. Boeing was cheaper, meaning your taxes aren’t going to be raised to support the larger and un-need KC-45.
