Time to Back Boeing

I was doing some research on the net when I had came across this article.
If I were to actually personally choose a forum topic to put this under, I would chosen "Conspiracy" because of it's ramifications on the USA and the people of our country that has already lost there jobs from out sourcing to different institutions around the world .
Another bothersome issue over this whole ordeal is that Bush is giving the opposing people of the USA a chance to get our hard earned tax dollars and if it weren't enough these places consist of Germany and France, all European locations out of the place where the original contracts for so much revenue should've stayed, the US of A.
G.W. Bush Jr. has made consistantly, mistake after mistake. I know he is making his basis of his decision on the demise of the FIA Satellite that our Government opted to shoot down after complications , which was Boeing's brain child, but he could of atleast went with JPL or Lockheed. I know there would've been several different avenues to travel instead of going there.
In the article, it explains how the chosen industries have more people to get the job done yadda-yadda crap. Since the falling of their satellite Boeing has fallen to less than a seventh of it's employees and the country is in a very noticable recession/crash of financial institutionable fund's being out sourced to people that are trying to get there part in the great melting pot kmown as the United States of America. So, while we go down, we are feeding the perverbial war machine in other countries.

The Boeing Company yesterday filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office against the Bush administration‘s decision to award the U.S. Air Force’s contract for a new medium range air tanker to Northrop Grumman and its European partner, the French and German-controlled European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company for their KC-45A rather than Boeing‘s KC-767. The $35 billion decision to buy 179 aircraft -- expected to grow to a $100 billion commitment to buy 600 in all-- came as a bombshell to Boeing and has rocked the U.S. aerospace industry.

This just really nags my thoughts on what is what in our country. GW cries and goes to the very people that are , in some way or another , anti-american!!!!

I went through the archives and didn't find a thread this ever being posted and I believe it deserves the attention of all right minded people.
"Rant Done."

Source of entirity to story;
www.humanevents.com...

I thought Boeing was in pretty tight with the big muckety mucks.

What could have caused this fall from grace?

Would it have anything to do with not wanting to sink American dollars in such a project? When we back such a move (the gov) do they deal in our currency?

AS you already know interestedalways, I have some real bad gut feeling's about the event's that are currently in play , both for my country and mainly for the grunts that put in their 9 to 5' that are , or should I say will be getting their pink slip notices that they no longer have employment, which at hand , does affect the economy as a whole. I have been through the trials and errors of loosing the perverbial "Good Job" and if these people that work for Boeing are ridiculed for the advent of the FIA satellite scenario, it is quite possible they may be construde as "Part of the bauchery team" there fore making it even harder on hard honest worker's.
I see you are the only one to have posted and it is greatly appreciated.

See you on the threads!!

I would think this step would be just as significant if say, all the Fords would be moving to Germany to be made by Volkswagon.

There are alot of people on this board in the aviation field it seems by the turnout in some of the other threads I visit, I am surprised they haven't come to speak out thier take on this.

reply to post by interestedalways


Maybe because its a non issue, I dont want my countries forces using inferior equipment because it happened to be made in the UK.

I want them to be using the best, no matter where it came from. Where does it end, would you like soldiers to be using inferior armour because it was made in the US or better armour because it was from abroad? Do you buy a US made car that handles like crap and is unreliable to get a German or Jap car?

Maybe Boeing would have got the contract if they made a better product?

reply to post by Flyer



Actually it is the 44,000 jobs and other revunue a company of this size brings to the communities it is active in that concerns me.

We are already in dire straights as far as jobs go. I just hate to hear of more potentially being lost.

I also thought there may be a security issue with other countries manufacturing them, but I am sure they would have that aspect covered.

For your information:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No conspiracy here, the Airbus product was just better than the Frankentanker.

Yes let's back Boeing and their "American" jobs.

Oh wait, let's take a look at the 787 they're so far behind on and where the parts are coming from.

Boeing manufactures the 787's tail fin at its plant in Frederickson, Washington, the ailerons and flaps at Boeing Australia, and fairings at Boeing Canada Technology. For its entire history, Boeing has guarded its techniques for designing and mass producing commercial jetliner wings. For economic reasons, the wings are manufactured by Japanese companies in Nagoya such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries; the horizontal stabilizers are manufactured by Alenia Aeronautica in Italy; and the fuselage sections by Vought in Charleston, South Carolina, (USA), Alenia in Italy, Kawasaki Heavy Industries in Japan and Spirit AeroSystems, in Wichita, Kansas, (USA).[27] The subcontractors are all designing with Catia V5.[2]

The passenger doors are made by Latecoere (France), and the cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door are made by Saab (Sweden). Japanese industrial participation is very important to the project, with a 35% work share, and many of the subcontractors supported and funded by the Japanese government.[28] On April 26, 2006, Japanese manufacturer Toray Industries and Boeing announced a production agreement involving $6 billion worth of carbon fiber. The deal is an extension of a contract signed in 2004 between the two companies and eases some concerns that Boeing might have difficulty maintaining its production goals for the 787.[4] On February 6, 2008, TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, a subsidiary of the Tata Group (India) announced a deal to deliver floor beams for the 787 from their factory at Mihan, near Nagpur, India to assembly plants in Italy, Japan and the United States.[29][30]

Messier-Dowty (France) builds the landing gear and Thales supplies the integrated standby flight display and electrical power conversion system.[4] Honeywell and Rockwell-Collins provide flight control, guidance, and other avionics systems, including standard dual head up guidance systems. Future integration of forward-looking infrared is being considered by Flight Dynamics allowing improved visibility using thermal sensing as part of the HUD system, allowing pilots to "see" through the clouds.[4]

Connecticut (USA)-based Hamilton Sundstrand provides power distribution and management systems for the aircraft, including manufacture and production of Generator Control Units (GCUs) as well as integration of power transfer systems that can move power from the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and the main engines to the necessary parts and machinery of the aircraft. Cold weather test of the APU took place in Alaska.

en.wikipedia.org...

All Boeing is doing is letting other countries build parts for them, and then assembling them in the US. Odd, that sounds remarkably like what Airbus is doing. The KC-45 just flat out beat the KC-767. Boeing counted on their long term relationship with the military and coasted through the competition, and blew it big time. Now they have to pay the price for it.

The number of jobs that Boeing claims they would have created is a joke. All they would be doing is building the planes on their currently running (yet closing soon) 767 line, and modifying them at another location. There is no way that they would have created 44,000 jobs to build the number of tankers the USAF is buying.

[edit on 4/21/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by interestedalways
I would think this step would be just as significant if say, all the Fords would be moving to Germany to be made by Volkswagon.

There are alot of people on this board in the aviation field it seems by the turnout in some of the other threads I visit, I am surprised they haven't come to speak out thier take on this.

This would be like Ford making an inferior product and Volkswagen offering a better, more efficient product that would be assembled atleast in part in the States.

I feel for Boeing (slightly), but there are good reasons the Airbus was chosen. Including how long the respective types will be in commercial service. Also don't discount the Boeing scandal preceding this. It be a slap on the wrist for the tampering.

All other things being equal, I'd like to see Boeing with the contract and a platform built in the States. But all things aren't equal, and rarely are.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by _Del_]

They chosse the best product for the right cost. Boeing is so far behind globally on all projects it would not be correct to give them another project which they couldn't delivery on time.

Most of the work will still be done in the states so were is the problem?

There are ample jobs in Australia in the aviation industy send them our way!!

You all make very good pointsd for the reasons of why the US is outsourcing for the parts.
The thing is "Why not create a facility here instead of having to rely on the delivery of such items? Do they also have some kind of patent enfringement clause?
There are plenty of good thinkers here in the USA, why not utilize and design something bigger and better? So to speak. I do believe we have the most agile and agressive piece of aeronautical equiptment by way of stealth, so why couldn't it be nknocked down from combat ready to transportable friendly in the tech. of building something similar? I know Boeing is a flighty company to deal with, but like I said before, there are some real brainiacs out there that are just putting it on paper and never getting any notority for their intuitive innovations.
Here on ATS I have posted and chatted with some very knowledgable individuals, I do stand beside myself for conductive criticisms, and I know there is a company or an institution that has too be out there ready to dig into such delimmas as creating our own aircraft in our own backyard.

The thing about stealth though is why? You'll end up with a tanker/transport costing 10 times what it does now, for no reason. The KC-45 is a perfect fit for what the USAF is looking for. Stealth is for entering combat zones. You NEVER send a tanker into an area where it can be shot at. They're WAY too valuable of an asset. About the only thing more valuable is an AWACS.

As for building parts and shipping them in, that's what ALL the manufacturers do now. It's a global industry to build planes. All of the main production and modification is going to be done in Mobile, AL though. So in the end it IS helping the US with jobs.

[edit on 4/21/2008 by Zaphod58]

Iam sorry Zap.
I wasn't intending on stealth for an answer to the proble.
Should of been more precise in my explanation.

Hey it happens to all of us. But it's not really a "problem" though. Like I said, ALL aircraft manufacturers, whether it's Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, or Cessna have parts and pieces built somewhere else, and shipped in.

I actually skimmed through the RFP for the KC-45 (I don't recommened it for most people because it's really really really long), and after seeing the announcement for the contract, the Airbus proposal beat Boeing's Frankentanker hands down in every single category. It also has the advantage of having been flown almost as proposed, with the boom having actually undergone testing. Boeing proposed a 767 using parts from three different models, and a refueling boom that STILL hasn't even been built, let alone tested. Boeing has the KC-767 that they built for Japan, and are building for Italy, but the proposal for the USAF was a totally different animal. Airbus on the other hand has the KC-30 they are building for Australia, and several other countries that is very similar to what they proposed for the USAF with the same refueling boom. So their aircraft has been undergoing flight testing, and their refueling boom works already.

To put it bluntly Boeing got outsmarted, and now they're whining about it, and using legal action to claim that they got cheated out of the contract. One of the big things being used by them is the fact that Airbus is "French", and costing American jobs. Which is a total joke. Their aircraft cost just as many jobs by having huge portions built overseas.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I actually skimmed through the RFP for the KC-45 (I don't recommened it for most people because it's really really really long), and after seeing the announcement for the contract, the Airbus proposal beat Boeing's Frankentanker hands down in every single category.

I have been around the ATS for a bit, and I have highly regarded your input for the intellectual side of converstion, ecspecially your knowledge of militery and domestic aircraft and weaponery, your one of the best as far as I am concerned.
Guess my point was that we are in some deep crappola with our current state of affairs, all the way down the line, touching or involving everything from wars to recession. Should've researched a bit deeper for the thread, just jumped to a really bad conclusion without the knowledge of the "why'" it ws taking place. Thanks for your explanation and extrodinary ability of finding the factsd for the book's!

I will be more of an investigator before the next time I post a thread Zap.

By the way, to avoid reading the RFP for the KC-45 , what was the big reason for the out sourcing of the fuel tanker?

It was a bigger airframe than the KC-767, but still fit the proposal, and can get into all the areas that the KC-767 can. It allows the USAF to carry more fuel, more passengers, more cargo, and be all around more flexible than the KC-767 would have.

Btw, thanks for the compliments. It's nice to be appreciated.

[edit on 4/22/2008 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
To put it bluntly Boeing got outsmarted, and now they're whining about it, and using legal action to claim that they got cheated out of the contract. One of the big things being used by them is the fact that Airbus is "French", and costing American jobs. Which is a total joke. Their aircraft cost just as many jobs by having huge portions built overseas.

By bringing more facts than the article supported shed light in ways that a clearer picture could be seen. I had no idea boeing had just had some shady dealings in the recent past.

I was also very concerned about the jobs being outsourced, yet when I think about it boeing claimed they would be losing 44.000 jobs, they never said the jobs were all here in the states at this time.

This has been a good discussion., thanks for tolerating my lack of knowledge in my earlier posts.

I don't know if I'd stop at calling the original KC-767 deal just "shady". They were going to be charging the USAF billions to LEASE their planes, with the option to outright buy them for hundreds of millions more after several years. And then the person that negotiated the contract suddenly became a Boeing exec. Along with her son IIRC.

As for the lack of knowledge, I've been following this for a long time now. I used to help work on the KC-135s from time to time, so I know how old they are and how badly they need replacing. This has definitely been an interesting discussion, and I'm glad it stayed civil.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Even though that i do not know the exact transaction's that had taken place for the endeavour, it does sound slightly off kilter for the individual that became an exec. and having their son IIRC.
With the blowing dollar sign's for Americans today , one would think that they would bend the cost for the aspect of a long and fruitful relationship with our gov.?

I have seen a lot of childish statements here , and at the beginning of my initial signing up for the ATS forum's, I had a few bad statementsd of my own. Thing is, it was the perverbial pie in my face to find out that open mindedness and common courtousy is ones best asset for this forum. And I am, with no doubt, standing corrected with your insight, which is now mine! Live and learn, and I am doing just that.

[edit on 22-4-2008 by Allred5923]

It is great to see the research done into this post by both Zaphod58 and Allred5923.

You are both valued members to ATS and hhope to read more of your threads in the future.

I didn't know the full story as to why EADS got the contract, as I work for a sister company to them in Australia it meant we all get to keep our jobs as we will be doing the through life support of the aircrafts.

Thanks again guys.