Warbird Information Exchange

I was going to let this one go, but after watching all the angry Boeing
workers "venting" on the news last night I just can't.

I was as amazed as anyone when EADS won the competition. I've
always believed we were the best in the aerospace business. Then
I reard and read the angry name calling - the "French Fries" ,implying
folks from AL and MS are somehow inferior workers, and so on.
It reminded me of something.

This stuff didn't start Fri when the Air Force made their announcement.
It started thirty years ago when people started buying Toyotas and
Hondas instead of Chevies and Fords. It started when people began
to prefer Sony over Magnavox, GE, and Curtis-Mathes. We used to
have a steel industry in this country, an optics industry, clothing and
furniture manufacturing plants. The list is endless. Remember when
Kodak was the worlds largest producer of cameras and film?

I wonder how many of those angry Boeing folks went home in their
Toyotas after their protests and turned on their Sony TVs to watch
themselves. Maybe they even took their Cannon or Minolta camera
to snap a few pix of their "Buy American" demonstration. They got
angry when it was THEIR JOB on the line. I was in the car business
for 35 years and I watched what has happened there. It was not hard
to see it elsewhere from that perspective.


At this point I don't know if the process is reversable. I sure hope
it is. But I do know one thing - we are the ones who are going to
have to stop it. We are the ones who have to build better products
and then we need to buy them. And not just airplanes folks......

If EADS has a better airplane then that's what I want Randy and our
other folks tanking from. I have reservations about the whole thing
but I believe there is a bigger lesson to learn here. We should all
heed it.

Yea, I know it's off topic but it needed to be said.

If the competition was truly fair and wasn't decided as a punishment to Boeing for past transgressions, I truly agree. For so many years though I have heard comments that one company was chosen over another to even the balance of contracts to maintain competition in the industry, not because the product was really the best. Over the years you could almost predict the winner using this methodology. Ifthis selection was made to maintain competition, it is a misguided approach and will undoubtedly lead to unintended consequences for the taxpayer and the warfighter both.

I think it's a shame our government see's fit to send more jobs and TAXPAYERS money (100 BILLION) out of the country. our dollar is at an all time low, our manufacturing jobs have just left the room AGAIN.
all I can say is thanks for nothing

Steve

One should read the Pentagon Paradox, very interesting read on why we got stuck with the F/A-18. Great look inside the military politics.

And then read The World is Flat.

Bill.

This contract is worth up to $40B... not $100B. Also, the lions share of the work (in dollars) will actually be done here in the USA. Much of Boeings sub-contractors are outside the USA (read China!), with mostly just final assembly being in the USA. Final assembly for either aircraft is being done in the USA. So what's the difference in terms of "Made in the USA". Which one actually has more USA-made content? I think you'd be surprised to see that there is little difference between the two in terms of jobs for US workers.

The K-45A can carry more fuel, and further than the K767. It also has a the capability of carrying a substantial cargo payload, while carrying fuel, whereas the K767 cannot. This is a substantial advantage, especially when doing squadron deployments overseas. I would have thought that alone was a dealmaking factor. It was certainly pertinent to our own Randy Haskin, an F-15E driver.

Regardless, healthy competition is a valuable thing. It will make Boeing come up with a better product, at a better price next time. I bet you that the next part of the tanker procurement goes to Boeing. They really needed to develop the 777 as a tanker, not the 767. I would be surprised if this isn't a real option in the near future... I've already seen concept drawings.

Richard

_________________
Richard Mallory Allnutt - Photography - http://www.rmallnutt.com

Richard, I ask that you re-check your sources. 15% of the 767's structural and major components are sourced from outside the US. Those parts are Japanese in origin. As well, if you want to get down to it, the microchip itself may be manufactured in China, but the avionics box is put together by an American at Honeywell here in the States and the lion's share of the money from the purchase of that box from Honeywell by Boeing goes back into the America economy.

A pertinent point worth remembering - it matters somewhat where things are produced, assembled, and sold, but it matters most where corporate HQ is.


Back o/t - we have priced ourselves out of the manufacturing business. The vicious cycle of increased consumables, drives demands for increased wages (union & non-union alike, although I'm not a fan of unions), which causes products to cost more, which raises cost of living, etc. We cannot afford to pay our workers enough to live and still turn a profit on our products.

I'm a "buy American" to max extent possible kind of guy - all of my major purchase items are USA with the notable exception of consumer electronics. Why? There simply are no quality USA consumer electronics anymore - even at premium prices for inferior product.

_________________
Daddy always said, "If yer gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough" and I'm one tough sonofagun!

The Canadian-US Trade study of March 2005 notes that the 727 used about 2% foreign components, the 777 used 30% and the 787 will use 70% foreign built components.
VL

From what I heard, is that originally it was just given to Boeing, to help bail out the failed 767 project that didn't sell well with the airlines.


That just shows you that someones pockets were filled up the chain to keep that under raps.

Then someone complained that they were not following the proper procedures and had to legally have open bids for it. Airbus has a better platform and better capabilities to support a multi-national and multi-divsion forces between the U.S. Armed Forces.

It made sense in terms of flexability to go with Airbus. It holds more fuel, it is a better airframe, it has Naval and Air Force refueling capabilities in one shot and it can carry better loads than the 767. They simple have a better product.

Paul -

I am not sure how you can call the 767 program a failed program. Production started in 1982 (25+ years ago) and 950+ have been made. Is it dated, yes, but that does not mean it was not a successful product for all of those years. The A330 was first produced in 1993 and 515+ have been delivered with 870+ in total ordered.

I think the real question is how Boeing has become so disconnected from the customer (USAF) and not provide a better product worthy of a win. On the flip side, the USAF bid requirements seem to have kept Boeing from offering the 777 which frankly is a closer match size wise to the A330 MRRT but apparently a bit too big to meet the bid requirements.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Both airplanes apparently met the contract specifications. Boeing considered their entry a better value.