U.S. Gives Plane contract to Airbus

As a patriot I wonder what the military was thinking when it awarded a contract with Airbus from France. A country which doesn't openly support the USA. However we do have an Americian company Boening which by the way employ's Americians. Look at the lost revenue for an Americian bussiness and the loss of wages for Americian workers. THIS IS WRONG!!!
Will we be leting China biuld our fighters next?????????????????
My wife is very upset & intends to let her elected officials know.
What do you think, is she wrong???

Yes. First of all Airbus isn't "French". It's a European conglomerate. Parts of the plane are going to be built in France yes, but also in the UK, and Spain IIRC. It's going to be built in Mobile Alabama, so why is this a Bad Thing?

Boeing had the option of changing their bid repeatedly and didn't. if they hadn't screwed up the first time this contract was awarded maybe we'd have new tankers already. The Airbus design beat the Boeing design hands down.

reply to post by barmshadow84


It's Northrup Grumman and AirBus on the contract. Their design had larger fuel capacity, larger palate carrying capacity and larger troop carrying capacity. They had a better and more favorable design than Boeing. And it will be assembled in the U.S.

As for Boeing's 787, most of the parts are made in Japan and Italy, yet assembled in the US.

What's the difference? Where's the outcry on that?

Ok this is for every out there knocking this decision by the USAF.......AS A KC-135 BOOM OPERATOR, I think we got the better of the two aircraft. I can't wait to operate the new system. Boeing's 767 just wasn't good enough plane and simple, and honestly unless you have to fly on this system, which I believe I'm the only one (correct me if Im wrong), your opinion while valid really doesn't matter. So move on whats done is done. Attitudes like yours barmshadow84 are whats going to keep me flying in 50 soon to be 60 year old aircraft.

reply to post by BoomerX


BOOMERX Thats why I asked this question, With ATS here an open forem we can as members ask & find out true info, and make rational descisions. We in the general public have no idea whats realy going on untill we hear it in the liberal press & we have to figure out whats really going on.
I didn't have the oppertunity of talking with someone like yourself till now.
I'am gald you posted & your here.
Also thank you for serving in the Military it's men like you helping to keep our freedoms.

One more example of the economic takedown of America. NAFTA on roids.
It is shameful in my humble opinion. And with the euro as it is, we'll be paying 120 dollars for a screw, for which we are.

Yeah, you're right. We should have ordered the inferior plane, with more outsourcing, and fewer long term jobs, because it was built by Boeing and they're an American company and that's all that matters right?

The US should have the best. We should not buy planes from Boeing just because they are an american company. The plane they were offering is outdated has less fuel capacity and it will be hard to find parts for this plane when repairs are needed down the road when it is already on its way out.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by bakednutz]

barmshadow84 sorry if I came across harsh but it just seemed like everyone was crying foul when thats just not the case. Another point I would like to bring up that Boeing and their lobbyist don't want you to know is the joint cargo aircraft they won the bid for. The airframe is made in Italy, just as the KC-45's airframe is made in France. No one cried when they teamed up with a European company. Also no really new jobs would have been created for the 767 it already has a production line in Everrett, WA. EADS will be building a new plant in Alabama thus creating several new jobs. I'm actually ashamed of the way boeing is handling this situtation. It really disgust me.

The 767 was designed in the early 70's along with its brother the 757. The 757 has already been discontinued, so offered this older vintage design was not the best of decisions by Boeing. In addition to that, airlines are no longer buying the 767 because it is known to be a gas guzzler in comparison to newer models.

The A330 design is bigger than the 767. In fact it is closer to the 777 in capacity. Boeing should have offered the much newer 777 as a tanker. This certainly would have been a larger more modern option, though the price tag would have been quite high.

In this case, maybe the A330 decision will get Boeing to stop relying on their laurels.

wow, i'm a bit surprised. last i heard (almost exactly one year ago) Airbus was upset that the way the contract was written, that it favored Boeing. i guess i should have kept up to date with it.

Apart from the technical motives for granting the contract to Airbus over Boeing, there should also be considered that competition should be fair.

Boeing and Airbus have been argueing that the US and French government have been illegally subsiziding each respective company.

Isn't this a good start of honest conpetition?

Moreover, I agree with the others. Our defense forces should get the best equipment possible. Holland, for instance, uses US fighter jets over European ones as they were simply superior to the European ones (now the Eurofighter Typhoon matches the F-16).

Put aside your national pride.

Thanks.

Posting as a patriot as well, the worst thing for our forces would have been a competition "cooked" from the start with a fix in for Boeing.

The USAF told Boeing that the 777 was too big for their requirements, but they NEVER told Boeing that the 767 was just right......only that it was closer to what they wanted. Boeing took that to mean that the 767 was a shoe-in and their own internal analysis had determined what the USAF wanted before even the USAF knew it themselves.

The KC-30 is bigger than the 767, but not near as much larger as the 777 is to both of them. NG-EADS banked that the USAF might be looking for something that could replace both the KC-135 and the KC-10 with a single airframe, that the additional cargo ability of the -30 would be appealing, and that the USAF was not attempting to forward-base their tankers to the degree the requirements might suggest because, well, they had never done that.

Boeing's protest sounds week and whiney, like the smart kid in school who got bested on a test by the class underachiever, and the GAO should by all rights uphold this decision and let the USAF and NG-EADS move on with the business of replacing our 4-decade old tanking airframes.

Besides, adding another first-rate aircraft assembly and manufacturing base in the U.S. can't be anything but good. EADS is now contemplating moving additional production, over the KC-45 order, to the Mobile facility for other military and commercial customers for the A330 series. Tell me how that is a bad thing......

With modern technology being so high tech its also to costly to develope and market ....increasingly the choices are not between home grown companies, but foreign companies if you want true competition. In most countries we already by most of our armaments abroad...at least back in the 1970s we started to insist on some manufacturing to be done 'in country' so as to benifit from jobs.

I believe boeing is fighting the government trying to get the contract back, we will see what comes out of this in the next couple of months

How many items in your home are 'Made in China'? How much of your clothing?

I'd bet a lot, but nobody complains about that...

reply to post by barmshadow84


"Liberal press"! Hahahaha! People still believe this rubbish? Get real.

As a patriot I wonder what the military was thinking when it awarded a contract with Airbus from France. A country which doesn't openly support the USA. However we do have an Americian company Boening which by the way employ's Americians. Look at the lost revenue for an Americian bussiness and the loss of wages for Americian workers. THIS IS WRONG!!!

Is this just an issue for you with military planes, or do you also object to US airlines buying foreign airliners ?


[edit on 9-4-2008 by Mogget]