An Airbus Tanker?

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker

Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.

Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>
Good morning, Jay... it's time to wake up.

We have as many, if not more "outsourced military" in Iraq than soldiers.

--
Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:46:00 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21>:

>Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

If you consider Halliburton doing the troops' laundry, Blackwater
doing security, and 50,000 Peruvian mercenary fighters in Iraq, it
would seem that the US has been outsourcing the military for some
years now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5333896
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/17/eveningnews/main636644.shtml
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/05/1078464637030.html
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=401463
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060828/scahill

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
> _tanker
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

About time.

Bertie

[eatfastnoodle]

On Mar 1, 8:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote innews:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
> > _tanker
>
> > Whooo-weee. *The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> > Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>
> About time.
>
> Bertie

The congress couldn't or wouldn't stop outsourcing of other sorts of
jobs. I highly doubt they are gonna stop outsourcing of military
contract jobs. Plus, they got lawmakers from two states behind their
back.

[Blueskies]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Idiot...we have been outsourcing the 'military' for years!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

eatfastnoodle > wrote in
:

> On Mar 1, 8:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> innews:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950
> @attbi_s21:
>>
>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_for
>> >ce
>> > _tanker
>>
>> > Whooo-weee. *The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>
>> > Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>>
>> About time.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The congress couldn't or wouldn't stop outsourcing of other sorts of
> jobs. I highly doubt they are gonna stop outsourcing of military
> contract jobs. Plus, they got lawmakers from two states behind their
> back.
>

Mkay, Sure they';re not in front of their back or behing their front?

Bertie

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 07:11:31 -0800 (PST), in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks, eatfastnoodle > got double
secret probation for writing:

>Plus, they got lawmakers from two states behind their
>back.

As opposed to the ones in front of their back?

--

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:50:01 +0000 (UTC), in the land of
alt.usenet.kooks, Bertie the Bunyip > got double secret
probation for writing:

>eatfastnoodle > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mar 1, 8:34*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>> innews:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950
>> @attbi_s21:
>>>
>>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_for
>>> >ce
>>> > _tanker
>>>
>>> > Whooo-weee. *The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>>
>>> > Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>>>
>>> About time.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> The congress couldn't or wouldn't stop outsourcing of other sorts of
>> jobs. I highly doubt they are gonna stop outsourcing of military
>> contract jobs. Plus, they got lawmakers from two states behind their
>> back.
>>
>
>Mkay, Sure they';re not in front of their back or behing their front?
>
>Bertie

Bastige.

--

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:46:00 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in <s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21>:

> >Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

> If you consider Halliburton doing the troops' laundry, Blackwater
> doing security, and 50,000 Peruvian mercenary fighters in Iraq, it
> would seem that the US has been outsourcing the military for some
> years now.

Most of the mundane has been done by civilians since the 60's.

The Beetle Bailey stuff of troops peeling potatoes, doing guard duty
and KP ended about 1965.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Billy[_3_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
>> _tanker
>>
>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>
>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>
> About time.
>
> Bertie
At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Billy > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:
>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
>>> _tanker
>>>
>>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>>
>>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>>
>> About time.
>>
>> Bertie
> At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
> manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
> The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
> The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
> Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
> As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.
>

About time too.


Bertie

[Blueskies]

"Airbus" > wrote in message ...
> Completely agree!
> The Europeans showed fantastic bargaining prowess, when the dollar/euro
> conjecture should have made their bid nearly untenable. By offering production
> jobs in the US they sweetened their offer, while making good on their offer to
> their own shareholders of increasing production activity in the dollar zone.
> Good show - and a considerable move forward for all.
>
>
>


ahhh, yes, for the coalition...almost forgot...

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

Yee-ha!

I see an airplane upgrade in my future.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Airbus[_4_]]

Completely agree!
The Europeans showed fantastic bargaining prowess, when the dollar/euro
conjecture should have made their bid nearly untenable. By offering production
jobs in the US they sweetened their offer, while making good on their offer to
their own shareholders of increasing production activity in the dollar zone.
Good show - and a considerable move forward for all.





In article >,
says...

>You can bet that the procurement was squeaky clean, with the previous
>scandals during the tanker lease fiasco. Reports are that the
>Northrup/EADS bid scored first in every major category: Can carry more
>payload, more passengers, uses less fuel, higher availability, lower
>maintenance cost, etc. etc. In short, it's a better airplane.
>
>As far as outsourcing, consider that at one time EADS claimed to have
>more US content in their proposal than Boeing. Whether you believe that
>claim or not, it's clear that Boeing had a substantial international
>content in their proposal, and that it wasn't a pure US deal.
>
>Remember that the 767 was originally developed as a partnership between
>Boeing, Japan, and Italy. Many of the parts are made in those
>countries. Who do you think has already bought some of the 767 tankers,
>and why?
>
>Finally, if you expect the Europeans to continue to purchase US arms,
>rather than develop their own, then you had better accept the fact that
>we need to buy some of their products to keep everyone happy. If they
>can compete on capability and price, then it's a good deal. Especially
>since they will be setting up passenger aircraft manufacturing in the
>US. With the low US dollar, that puts people to work in relatively
>high-tech jobs.

[Jay Somerset]

What nonsense! The "Europeans" did not submit the bid. The prime
contractor was Northrop Grumman -- an American company. EADS is merely
a subcontractor (aka teaming partner).

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:38:20 -0800, Airbus > wrote:

>Completely agree!
>The Europeans showed fantastic bargaining prowess, when the dollar/euro
>conjecture should have made their bid nearly untenable. By offering production
>jobs in the US they sweetened their offer, while making good on their offer to
>their own shareholders of increasing production activity in the dollar zone.
>Good show - and a considerable move forward for all.
>
>
>
>
>
>In article >,
>says...
>
>>You can bet that the procurement was squeaky clean, with the previous
>>scandals during the tanker lease fiasco. Reports are that the
>>Northrup/EADS bid scored first in every major category: Can carry more
>>payload, more passengers, uses less fuel, higher availability, lower
>>maintenance cost, etc. etc. In short, it's a better airplane.
>>
>>As far as outsourcing, consider that at one time EADS claimed to have
>>more US content in their proposal than Boeing. Whether you believe that
>>claim or not, it's clear that Boeing had a substantial international
>>content in their proposal, and that it wasn't a pure US deal.
>>
>>Remember that the 767 was originally developed as a partnership between
>>Boeing, Japan, and Italy. Many of the parts are made in those
>>countries. Who do you think has already bought some of the 767 tankers,
>>and why?
>>
>>Finally, if you expect the Europeans to continue to purchase US arms,
>>rather than develop their own, then you had better accept the fact that
>>we need to buy some of their products to keep everyone happy. If they
>>can compete on capability and price, then it's a good deal. Especially
>>since they will be setting up passenger aircraft manufacturing in the
>>US. With the low US dollar, that puts people to work in relatively
>>high-tech jobs.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

[[email protected]]

On Mar 2, 8:16 am, John Smith > wrote:
>
> Um... have you taken a look at the "domestic" content in Boeing
> airplanes in the last 20 or so years?
> Boeing has become a "US-company" in name (mostly), with a large
> percentage of components and sub assemblies outsourced to overseas
> companies to sell airplanes in those countries.

Cessna should have offered the SkyCatcher as an option. Instead of one
big, heavy ship, use the swarm technique. You can't shoot 'em all
down!


plus it's made in China -- good deal all around.

Dan

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:25:54 -0600, Billy > wrote:

>Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:
>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
>>> _tanker
>>>
>>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>>
>>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>>
>> About time.
>>
>> Bertie
>At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
>manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
>The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
>The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
>Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
>As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.

Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?

And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US industrial
base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw in an
economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies for a
bonus.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:13:36 -0500, John Smith > wrote:

>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"
>> www.thunderchief.org
>> www.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>Ed, I am currently reading
>"FIRST IN LAST OUT: STORIES BY THE WILD WEASELS"
>First Person Stories By Wild Weasel Pilots, EWOs and their Associates
>The Society of Wild Weasels
>
>I picked it up at the National Museum of the United States Air Force
>bookstore.
>It's a great read and companion to the other books about the F-105's
>that flew in SEA.

Ed Rock compiled the book. He was an instructor of mine when I went
through F-105 training and then became one of the first contingent of
F-105F Wild Weasels that deployed to Korat in the summer of '66. He
finished his 100 mission tour that year, then stayed in the Weasel
business from then on.

He was back at Korat with me in '72 for Linebacker flying the F-105G
Weasel as commander of the 561st WWS. I see him every couple of years
at a River Rat reunion.

The book is a good anthology, but suffers from inconsistency in
writing style because of the multiple sources. It remains, however,
all true and a great source of oral history of the Weasel program.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[eatfastnoodle]

On Mar 2, 9:28*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:25:54 -0600, Billy > wrote:
> >Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> >>news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:
>
> >>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
> >>> _tanker
>
> >>> Whooo-weee. *The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> >>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>
> >> About time.
>
> >> Bertie
> >At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
> >manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
> >The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
> >The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
> >Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
> >As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.
>
> Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
> in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
> of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?
>
> And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US industrial
> base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw in an
> economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies for a
> bonus.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogspot.com

One problem might be Boeing being knocked out of the market for
military aircraft. Boeing lost to Lockheed Martin on the JSF contract.
Now Boeing lost to EADS on the tanker deal. Basically Boeing is shut
out of the two biggest air force contract over the next 20-30 years.
Will the blow be severe enough to convince Boeing that it's not worth
it any more to stay in the market? Too much consolidation happened
during the 90s, now we are stuck with less and less competition in the
military contract market, can you imagine how horrible it would be if
the air force had to rely on pretty much everything on Lockheed Martin?

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 09:02:47 -0800 (PST), eatfastnoodle
> wrote:

>On Mar 2, 9:28*am, Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>
>> Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
>> in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
>> of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?
>>
>> And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US industrial
>> base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw in an
>> economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies for a
>> bonus.
>>
>> Ed Rasimus
>> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>> "When Thunder Rolled"www.thunderchief.orgwww.thundertales.blogspot.com
>
>One problem might be Boeing being knocked out of the market for
>military aircraft. Boeing lost to Lockheed Martin on the JSF contract.
>Now Boeing lost to EADS on the tanker deal. Basically Boeing is shut
>out of the two biggest air force contract over the next 20-30 years.
>Will the blow be severe enough to convince Boeing that it's not worth
>it any more to stay in the market? Too much consolidation happened
>during the 90s, now we are stuck with less and less competition in the
>military contract market, can you imagine how horrible it would be if
>the air force had to rely on pretty much everything on Lockheed Martin?

A good question, but based on narrow assumptions. First, Boeing is
well established and doing quite nicely with transport contracts for
current and future airliners. So, not in jeopardy of near term demise.
Then you don't acknowledge that Northrop/Grumman is a significant
player in the defense industry. They have not only survived, but
prospered as a development company and a very diversified defense
contractor. Rather than wither away after loss of YF-17, failure of
F-20 and loss in A-9 and YF-23, they grew into a R&D house for
advanced UAV technology, incorporated a huge warship building company,
succeeded in avionics with merger with Litton, and then joined forces
with Grumman--a company that had been building canoes and truck bodies
for survival. Add some satellite and missile contracts to the mix and
you've got a huge alternative to LockMart.

Additionally consider the incredible amount of symbiotic linkage among
aerospace contractors. While I was working for Northrop in Hawthorne
CA on ATF, the production facility there was churning out the last of
the F-5s, but also building fuselage sections for Boeing 747s, and
tail assemblies for MacAir F-18s. In the ATF program, Northrop was
teamed up with MacAir on the design and Boeing was added to the mix
when they joined McD.

Incestuous a bit, but it makes for stability in the industry.

We'll never go back to the heyday of multiple system developments we
saw in the '50s and into the '60s, but with current research costs and
risk that isn't possible.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Tex Houston[_2_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:13:36 -0500, John Smith > wrote:
>
> Ed Rock compiled the book. He was an instructor of mine when I went
> through F-105 training and then became one of the first contingent of
> F-105F Wild Weasels that deployed to Korat in the summer of '66. He
> finished his 100 mission tour that year, then stayed in the Weasel
> business from then on.
>
> He was back at Korat with me in '72 for Linebacker flying the F-105G
> Weasel as commander of the 561st WWS. I see him every couple of years
> at a River Rat reunion.
>


Ed Rock is one of God's great gentlemen and a real treat to be around. To
bad he lives in Saint Louis or I would see more of him.

Regards,

Tex Houston

[John Weiss[_2_]]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>
> Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
> in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
> of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?

OTOH, many/most of those jobs are likely to be merely transferred from McBoeing
to NorGrumLockMart. Where else are they going to find experienced, current
airplane builders?

The "bad" part of that aspect is that many of those workers will not want to
move from Seattle to Alabama, but may be forced to do so, with unemployment the
only other option when Boeing shuts down the 767 line.


> And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US industrial
> base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw in an
> economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies for a
> bonus.

That is a "good" part of it. Let's hope the "goods" outperform the "bads"...

[Eeyore[_2_]]

Ed Rasimus wrote:

> Billy > wrote:
> >Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >> "Jay Honeck" wrote in
> >>
> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
> >>> _tanker
> >>>
> >>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
> >>>
> >>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
> >>
> >> About time.
> >>
> >> Bertie
> >At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
> >manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
> >The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
> >The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
> >Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
> >As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.
>
> Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
> in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
> of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?
>
> And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US industrial
> base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw in an
> economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies for a
> bonus.

Ah, a RATIONAL response at last !

Graham

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Eeyore > wrote in
:

>
>
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>
>> Billy > wrote:
>> >Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> >> "Jay Honeck" wrote in
>> >>
>> >>>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_
>> >>> force _tanker
>> >>>
>> >>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>> >>>
>> >>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>> >>
>> >> About time.
>> >>
>> >> Bertie
>> >At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
>> >manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
>> >The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
>> >The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
>> >Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro
>> >crap. As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.
>>
>> Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
>> in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
>> of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?
>>
>> And, we add a new aircraft manufacturing facility to the US
>> industrial base thereby diversifying our production capability. Throw
>> in an economic binding to a necessary European consortium of allies
>> for a bonus.
>
> Ah, a RATIONAL response at last !
>

Like you'd know, planespotter.


Bertie

[Ed Rasimus[_1_]]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:44:39 -0800, "John Weiss"
> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>>
>> Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
>> in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
>> of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?
>
>OTOH, many/most of those jobs are likely to be merely transferred from McBoeing
>to NorGrumLockMart. Where else are they going to find experienced, current
>airplane builders?

The news reports I've seen on the issue use the phrase "25,000 NEW
jobs" which heavily implies that there isn't a counter-balance of
25,000 old jobs lost. Since Boeing isn't short of assembly work on
backlog orders for 7-3/5/6/7-7 airframes and with a raft of orders on
the spindle for 787 it seems reasonable.

But, if not, this has always been the case in the aerospace industry.
>
>The "bad" part of that aspect is that many of those workers will not want to
>move from Seattle to Alabama, but may be forced to do so, with unemployment the
>only other option when Boeing shuts down the 767 line.

I'm not sure how hard a sell that would be--let me see, lower cost of
living, sun-shine more than five days a year, reduced level of
welfare-statism, reasonable housing markets, etc. etc. Might have to
consume less fresh salmon and more Appalachicola oysters, but most
folks could cope with it.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Somerset wrote:
> What nonsense! The "Europeans" did not submit the bid. The prime
> contractor was Northrop Grumman -- an American company. EADS is merely
> a subcontractor (aka teaming partner).

Technically, yes, but from what I've read they are basically building
the entire airframe. It isn't clear what Northrop Grumman's role is
other than final fitment for delivery and probably they will provide the
service and support. Anyone find anything detailed as to what they are
doing vs. EADS?

I'm not sure it matters as I don't think this award will stick,
especially not during an election year and one in which the economy is
struggling.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:25:54 -0600, Billy > wrote:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>> news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21:
>>>
>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force
>>>> _tanker
>>>>
>>>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>>>
>>>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>>> About time.
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> At a time when Americans have few good paying jobs and little
>> manufacturing, of any sort left, this is a traitorous move.
>> The Boeing design would help stimulate our economy.
>> The Boeing design is actually better. Our Military didn't make a
>> Military decision. A political descision was made to buy the Euro crap.
>> As the dollar continues, to fall the cost, to us, will go up.
>
> Lets see, we've got engines made in the US, assembly of the airframe
> in Alabama, and avionics/support systems built by Northrop. Estimates
> of 25,000 US jobs created by the program....how is that bad?

It is only 65,000 fewer jobs than what the Boeing option is claimed to
provide.

Matt

[Ian B MacLure]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

[snip]

> It is only 65,000 fewer jobs than what the Boeing option is claimed to
> provide.

And of course Boeing' claims should be taken at face value?

IBM

[Ol Shy & Bashful]

On Mar 1, 7:46*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_for...
>
> Whooo-weee. *The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay
The US Coast Guard has been flying the Italian Agusta for
years ......... Bell has been producing in Canada and Korea for
years .......
This is nothing new.

[Matt Whiting]

Ian B MacLure wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> It is only 65,000 fewer jobs than what the Boeing option is claimed to
>> provide.
>
> And of course Boeing' claims should be taken at face value?
>
> IBM

I never suggested anything of the sort.

Nope, all claims from both competitors should be reviewed carefully and
penalty clauses considered if these claims are important to the
contract. The Air Force has already said that jobs aren't a
consideration for them. And I tend to agree with that position even
though it shows the typical political naivete of the top military brass.

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

> The Air Force has already said that jobs aren't a
> consideration for them. And I tend to agree with that position even
> though it shows the typical political naivete of the top military brass.

"naivete"? Come on... Jobs can't be an award criteria. Of course
the military brass has to publically state that jobs aren't a consideration.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"john smith" wrote:

> Dan Luke wrote:
>> Yee-ha!
>> I see an airplane upgrade in my future.
>
> I was going to ask if you had your application filled out. :-))

Heh.

I was talking about business opportunity. My company installed the automatic
HVAC control system in EADS' new engineering building already built at
Brookley Field (Mobile Downtown Airport). We should have the inside track to
do future buildings.

I'm thinking Cessna 400. ;^)

This also makes final my decision to move my airplane across the bay to
Fairhope. EADS will probably swallow up the space where it's currently tied
down under shelter at BFM.

--
Dan
T-182T at 4R4

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:

> Jay Somerset wrote:
>> What nonsense! The "Europeans" did not submit the bid. The prime
>> contractor was Northrop Grumman -- an American company. EADS is
>> merely a subcontractor (aka teaming partner).
>
> Technically, yes, but from what I've read they are basically building
> the entire airframe. It isn't clear what Northrop Grumman's role is
> other than final fitment for delivery and probably they will provide
> the service and support. Anyone find anything detailed as to what
> they are doing vs. EADS?
>
> I'm not sure it matters as I don't think this award will stick,
> especially not during an election year and one in which the economy is
> struggling.
>
I wouldn't bet on that. The reality is that there are no purely "American"
products of the complexity of an automobile. Boeing has outsourced the
manufacturing of most of its airframes as well, and only does some final
assembly and fitting out here. So, in the eyes of the purchaser (e.g. U.S.
Government) there is no significant distinction between these two bids.

Neil

[John T]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

No doubt about the political consideration, but I have to ask about "The
Grape." (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/fuel_truck.htm) Why didn't you buy a
junked American truck? Surely you could've found one for a similar price if
you'd just kept looking. Isn't this the same concept just scaled up to
transport category?

I'm with you on the preference to "buy American," but as a taxpayer, I want
the best deal for my money. Unfortunately, that sometimes means buying
something from a foreign provider. This does border on a whole web of issues
that starts with the question of "who will provide the materiel during times
of war?" but I'm not going there. Suffice it to say we all need to start
thinking of a global economy - which in a strategic sense actually has a
dampening effect on conflict even if it does ruffle the occasional
nationalistic feather or two.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[akjcbkJA]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mar 2, 8:16 am, John Smith > wrote:
>>
>> Um... have you taken a look at the "domestic" content in Boeing
>> airplanes in the last 20 or so years?
>> Boeing has become a "US-company" in name (mostly), with a large
>> percentage of components and sub assemblies outsourced to overseas
>> companies to sell airplanes in those countries.
>
look at the safety card on your average Boeing. It say assembled in the US,
not manufactured in the US.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:46 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_for...
>>
>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>
>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Jay
> The US Coast Guard has been flying the Italian Agusta for
> years ......... Bell has been producing in Canada and Korea for
> years .......
> This is nothing new.

Don't confuse him with facts.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
use.com:

> Ol Shy & Bashful wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 7:46 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_for
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>>
>>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>>> --
>>> Jay Honeck
>>> Iowa City, IA
>>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>> Jay
>> The US Coast Guard has been flying the Italian Agusta for
>> years ......... Bell has been producing in Canada and Korea for
>> years .......
>> This is nothing new.
>
> Don't confuse him with facts.
>

You could confuse him with the instructions on how to open a milk carton.


Bertie

[Jack G[_2_]]

The Military can make contract decisions based on performance and technical
issues. Congress will approve/disapprove funding based on political
issues. Guess where the power is.

For me the issue is not jobs or where the work will be done but rather the
ultimate cost to the tax payer due to the declining international purchasing
power of the US dollar -

Jack G.




"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Ian B MacLure wrote:
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> : [snip]
>>
>>> It is only 65,000 fewer jobs than what the Boeing option is claimed to
>>> provide.
>>
>> And of course Boeing' claims should be taken at face value?
>>
>> IBM
>
> I never suggested anything of the sort.
>
> Nope, all claims from both competitors should be reviewed carefully and
> penalty clauses considered if these claims are important to the contract.
> The Air Force has already said that jobs aren't a consideration for them.
> And I tend to agree with that position even though it shows the typical
> political naivete of the top military brass.
>
> Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>

They did quite a while ago already. DoD had to reopen the bid, IIRC,
because of irregularities favoring "local" bidders.

Also, the thing is going to be built in Alabama.

Oh, and in case you didn't hear: The president will be choppered around
in a European design Marine One shortly, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Blueskies]

"Ol Shy & Bashful" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 1, 7:46 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_for...
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay
The US Coast Guard has been flying the Italian Agusta for
years ......... Bell has been producing in Canada and Korea for
years .......
This is nothing new.



The USCG is flying Flacon jets also. The president will be flying around in Westland helicopters soon...

[Blueskies]

"John T" > wrote in message m...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>>
>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>
>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>
> No doubt about the political consideration, but I have to ask about "The Grape."
> (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/fuel_truck.htm) Why didn't you buy a junked American truck? Surely you could've found
> one for a similar price if you'd just kept looking. Isn't this the same concept just scaled up to transport category?
>
> I'm with you on the preference to "buy American," but as a taxpayer, I want the best deal for my money. Unfortunately,
> that sometimes means buying something from a foreign provider. This does border on a whole web of issues that starts
> with the question of "who will provide the materiel during times of war?" but I'm not going there. Suffice it to say
> we all need to start thinking of a global economy - which in a strategic sense actually has a dampening effect on
> conflict even if it does ruffle the occasional nationalistic feather or two.
>
> --
> John T
> http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
> http://sage1solutions.com/products
> NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
> ____________________
>
>

No problem at all with me buying chinese or mexican stuff or other imported stuff, but as far as our military, we need
to maintain the capability to produce these core items in country, unless of course we are going to be sure that the
euros become a part of the US of A. It is pretty odd that no new states have joined the union in the last almost 50
years. Maybe it is time to ask more to join? hmmm, Puerto Rico said no....

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-03-01 05:46:00 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > said:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

Yeah. They should have bought an all-American plane like the 767, even
if the wings and fuselage are built by Canadair, Fujitsu, and Kawasaki.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-03-05 14:33:40 -0800, "Blueskies" > said:

>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> m...
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>> news:s6dyj.56659$yE1.14950@attbi_s21
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>>>
>>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>>
>>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>>
>> No doubt about the political consideration, but I have to ask about
>> "The Grape." (http://www.alexisparkinn.com/fuel_truck.htm) Why didn't
>> you buy a junked American truck? Surely you could've found one for a
>> similar price if you'd just kept looking. Isn't this the same concept
>> just scaled up to transport category?
>>
>> I'm with you on the preference to "buy American," but as a taxpayer, I
>> want the best deal for my money. Unfortunately, that sometimes means
>> buying something from a foreign provider. This does border on a whole
>> web of issues that starts with the question of "who will provide the
>> materiel during times of war?" but I'm not going there. Suffice it to
>> say we all need to start thinking of a global economy - which in a
>> strategic sense actually has a dampening effect on conflict even if it
>> does ruffle the occasional nationalistic feather or two.
>>
>> --
>> John T
>> http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
>> http://sage1solutions.com/products
>> NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
>> ____________________
>>
>>
>
> No problem at all with me buying chinese or mexican stuff or other
> imported stuff, but as far as our military, we need to maintain the
> capability to produce these core items in country, unless of course we
> are going to be sure that the euros become a part of the US of A. It is
> pretty odd that no new states have joined the union in the last almost
> 50 years. Maybe it is time to ask more to join? hmmm, Puerto Rico said
> no....

We have not been able to supply our military without imported materials
and weapons since before the end of WW II. The Boeing 767 tanker was
mostly made in Canada, Japan and China. And then there is the problem
with raw materials, which come from all over the world.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2008-03-01 05:46:00 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > said:

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>
> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?

The more interesting question is, if the Air Force wanted a bigger
tanker, why did they discourage Boeing from offering the 777?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Matt Whiting]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>
>> Jay Somerset wrote:
>>> What nonsense! The "Europeans" did not submit the bid. The prime
>>> contractor was Northrop Grumman -- an American company. EADS is
>>> merely a subcontractor (aka teaming partner).
>> Technically, yes, but from what I've read they are basically building
>> the entire airframe. It isn't clear what Northrop Grumman's role is
>> other than final fitment for delivery and probably they will provide
>> the service and support. Anyone find anything detailed as to what
>> they are doing vs. EADS?
>>
>> I'm not sure it matters as I don't think this award will stick,
>> especially not during an election year and one in which the economy is
>> struggling.
>>
> I wouldn't bet on that. The reality is that there are no purely "American"
> products of the complexity of an automobile. Boeing has outsourced the
> manufacturing of most of its airframes as well, and only does some final
> assembly and fitting out here. So, in the eyes of the purchaser (e.g. U.S.
> Government) there is no significant distinction between these two bids.

Maybe, maybe not. If Boeing commits to providing 3X the domestic jobs
as does Northrop Grumman/EADS, then once the constituents start calling
their congress critter you never know what will happen.

Kind of like Florida and Michigan talking about a "do over" to help
elect Billary. It isn't over until it's over as a famous philosopher
once said. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>
>
> They did quite a while ago already. DoD had to reopen the bid, IIRC,
> because of irregularities favoring "local" bidders.
>
> Also, the thing is going to be built in Alabama.
>
> Oh, and in case you didn't hear: The president will be choppered around
> in a European design Marine One shortly, too.

I'm not sure about the shortly part. Rumor is that this program is way
behind schedule...

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-03-01 05:46:00 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_force_tanker
>>
>>
>> Whooo-weee. The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>>
>> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?
>
> The more interesting question is, if the Air Force wanted a bigger
> tanker, why did they discourage Boeing from offering the 777?

Because of the kick-backs from Northrop Grumman. Do you really not
understand these things? :-)

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:34:34 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>once the constituents start calling their congress critter you
>never know what will happen.

Right. Congress could pass another Terri Schivo bill. :-(

[Blueskies]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2008030606343216807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2008-03-05 14:33:40 -0800, "Blueskies" > said:
>
>>
>> No problem at all with me buying chinese or mexican stuff or other imported stuff, but as far as our military, we
>> need to maintain the capability to produce these core items in country, unless of course we are going to be sure that
>> the euros become a part of the US of A. It is pretty odd that no new states have joined the union in the last almost
>> 50 years. Maybe it is time to ask more to join? hmmm, Puerto Rico said no....
>
> We have not been able to supply our military without imported materials and weapons since before the end of WW II. The
> Boeing 767 tanker was mostly made in Canada, Japan and China. And then there is the problem with raw materials, which
> come from all over the world.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

Basic raw materials, yes, but 'specialty metals' must come from any one of I think 5 countries. If not you are in
violation of the US of A guvment contract as a military contractor. Fines and etc follow if you are caught. There are
other clauses that keep some core capabilities intact....

[chatnoir]

On Mar 1, 6:46*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_bi_ge/northrop_eads_air_for...
>
> Whooo-weee. *The political feathers are gonna fly on *this* one.
>
> Now we're outsourcing the military, too?> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

I think it is best that it is made in Europe!:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335471,00.html

Dad Who Burned Kids in Dryer: Thought They Could Have a Good Time
Without Money
Thursday, March 06, 2008
E-MailPrint
Share: DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
HUTCHINSON, Kan. -- A Hutchinson man is on trial this week on
charges
he put his girlfriend's 2-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son in a
hot clothes dryer.
In a videotaped interview with detectives shown in court Wednesday,
Aron Pritchard said he put the children in the dryer to show them
they
could have a good time without much money. An hour later, the dryer
had become hot and the boy had second-degree burns.
Pritchard told the detective that he didn't mean for the boy to get
hurt.
Jurors also heard from a pediatrician who testified that the burns,
combined with prior injuries including a twice-broken clavicle, could
indicate an abusive environment.
Pritchard is charged with aggravated child endangerment and child
abuse in the Nov. 28, 2006, incident.

[Blueskies]

"John Smith" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Oh, and in case you didn't hear: The president will be choppered around
>> in a European design Marine One shortly, too.
>
> Yep, just goes to show that even foreign contractors cannot produce on
> time and on price.
> Of course, it the US government would issue a contract and stick to the
> terms of the the contract instead of changing the terms immediately,
> things probably could be produced on time and on budget by the
> contractor.


rotfl

[John T]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t
>>
>> Of course, it the US government would issue a contract and stick to
>> the terms of the the contract instead of changing the terms
>> immediately, things probably could be produced on time and on budget
>> by the contractor.
>
> rotfl

If only it weren't true so it could be funny... :-/

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
http://sage1solutions.com/products
NEW! FlyteBalance v2.0 (W&B); FlyteLog v2.0 (Logbook)
____________________

[Blueskies]

"John T" > wrote in message . ..
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> t
>>>
>>> Of course, it the US government would issue a contract and stick to
>>> the terms of the the contract instead of changing the terms
>>> immediately, things probably could be produced on time and on budget
>>> by the contractor.
>>
>> rotfl
>
> If only it weren't true so it could be funny... :-/
>


Exactly, it was more of a hysterical laugh, not a funny laugh

[David Lesher]

Ed Rasimus > writes:

>>OTOH, many/most of those jobs are likely to be merely transferred from McBoeing
>>to NorGrumLockMart. Where else are they going to find experienced, current
>>airplane builders?

>The news reports I've seen on the issue use the phrase "25,000 NEW
>jobs" which heavily implies that there isn't a counter-balance of
>25,000 old jobs lost. Since Boeing isn't short of assembly work on
>backlog orders for 7-3/5/6/7-7 airframes and with a raft of orders on
>the spindle for 787 it seems reasonable.

I thought the whole reason Boeing tried to foist the Avis RentaTanker
scheme on the taxpayers was that the 767 line was otherwise going
to shut down. Has that changed or?

And sure, they're NEW jobs... for that congressional district.

As for how many will *want* to move... damn few, I bet.

Don't take this as my opposing the deal; ISTM it's a far better fit.
And I still think they should just convert more DC-10's into tankers;
there have to be lots parked in the desert...


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Hawkeye[_2_]]

Lower cost of living in Alabama? Well that will change in the short
term once the production commences. Don't be surprised if you don't
start see an influx of Eastern Europeans entering the workforce in
Alabama. The paper industry here had to source abroad several years
ago to find good well educated labor...unemployment was low and they
couldn't get them domestically.

What a culture shock Alabama is about to experience! Will the "Good
'Ole Boys" survive? Southern Fried Borsch down at the local Diner?

[Curt]

> Don't take this as my opposing the deal; ISTM it's a far better fit.
> And I still think they should just convert more DC-10's into tankers;
> there have to be lots parked in the desert...

That's been looked at several times. One problem is there are many
different configurations and the cost to standardize was considered
prohibitive. Even finding the equipment, avionics, etc, to standardize
would be difficult for a useful sized fleet. Most have only wing tanks with
no fuselage tanks. And DC-10s have maintained their value so they aren't
necessarily that cheap. Shame. FedEx didn't help when they started buying
up used DC-10s to convert to freighters. I don't know why they don't buy a
few as "bounce" trainers as they did with 707s > C-18s.
--
Curt
KVPS

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Hawkeye" wrote:

> Lower cost of living in Alabama? Well that will change in the short
> term once the production commences. Don't be surprised if you don't
> start see an influx of Eastern Europeans entering the workforce in
> Alabama. The paper industry here had to source abroad several years
> ago to find good well educated labor...unemployment was low and they
> couldn't get them domestically.
>
> What a culture shock Alabama is about to experience! Will the "Good
> 'Ole Boys" survive? Southern Fried Borsch down at the local Diner?

We're already used to the Krauts. Degussa Chemical has been here a long time.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[§]

On Mar 23, 9:17*pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Hawkeye" wrote:
> > Lower cost of living in Alabama? Well that will change in the short
> > term once the production commences. Don't be surprised if you don't
> > start see an influx of Eastern Europeans entering the workforce in
> > Alabama. The paper industry here had to source abroad several years
> > ago to find good well educated labor...unemployment was low and they
> > couldn't get them domestically.
>
> > What a culture shock Alabama is about to experience! Will the "Good
> > 'Ole Boys" survive? Southern Fried Borsch down at the local Diner?
>
> We're already used to the Krauts. *Degussa Chemical has been here a long time.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T *at BFM

Krauts will the the least of their worries in ALabama. Hell the
Hyundai auto plant has been having a hell of a time with decent
production and workmanship on a dam import tyupe car for godsakes,
whats its gonna be like on a aircraft.Alabama abounds with rednecks
and "others" that really have no business working on aircraft, and
odds are with equal rights and employment criteria, a bunch of idiots
will be hired on just to fill the bill of goods and meeet the
government requirements.

[Daryl Hunt[_2_]]

"§" > wrote in message ...
On Mar 23, 9:17 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Hawkeye" wrote:
> > Lower cost of living in Alabama? Well that will change in the short
> > term once the production commences. Don't be surprised if you don't
> > start see an influx of Eastern Europeans entering the workforce in
> > Alabama. The paper industry here had to source abroad several years
> > ago to find good well educated labor...unemployment was low and they
> > couldn't get them domestically.
>
> > What a culture shock Alabama is about to experience! Will the "Good
> > 'Ole Boys" survive? Southern Fried Borsch down at the local Diner?
>
> We're already used to the Krauts. Degussa Chemical has been here a long time.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM

Krauts will the the least of their worries in ALabama. Hell the
Hyundai auto plant has been having a hell of a time with decent
production and workmanship on a dam import tyupe car for godsakes,
whats its gonna be like on a aircraft.Alabama abounds with rednecks
and "others" that really have no business working on aircraft, and
odds are with equal rights and employment criteria, a bunch of idiots
will be hired on just to fill the bill of goods and meeet the
government requirements.

---------------------

It's called "Lowest Bidder".





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[John Szalay]

john smith > wrote in news:47ea4158$0$22807
:

> In today's Columbus DISPATCH newspaper (I havent't gotten to the WSJ
> yet) there is a full page color add from Boeing whining about how the
> selection process wasn't fair.
>
> I wonder how many cities this ad appears in today and how much Boeing
> spent on this campaign?
>


also appears in the the Louisville Ky Curious Journal fish wrapper..

[Stefan]

john smith wrote:

> Who are they appealling to?
....
> The average man on the street has no grasp of how commercial aircraft

It's how marketing works. Repeat something often and loud enough, and it
will eventually be perceived as reality. Worked for the Bush
administration before the Iraq war, why shouldn't it work for Boeing?

[John Godwin]

john smith > wrote in
:

> I wonder how many cities this ad appears in today and how much
> Boeing spent on this campaign?

I was also in the San Jose Murky News (Mercury-News).

--

[Ian B MacLure]

John Godwin > wrote in news:Xns9A6D696A26C94AvSvcs@
208.49.82.60:

> john smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> I wonder how many cities this ad appears in today and how much
>> Boeing spent on this campaign?
>
> I was also in the San Jose Murky News (Mercury-News).

OC Register as well I hear.

IBM

[John Keeney]

On Mar 26, 8:58*am, John Szalay >
wrote:
> john smith > wrote in news:47ea4158$0$22807
> :
>
> > In today's Columbus DISPATCH newspaper (I havent't gotten to the WSJ
> > yet) there is a full page color add from Boeing whining about how the
> > selection process wasn't fair.
>
> > I wonder how many cities this ad appears in today and how much Boeing
> > spent on this campaign?
>
> also appears in the the Louisville Ky Curious Journal fish wrapper..

John, you ever so kind to them.
I haven't called the CJ the Curious Journal in ever so long.