"John Smith" wrote in message
...
I am trying to figure out why we are willing to purchase either of two
30+ year old airframe designs to provide our air force with its needs in
the future.
There should be a significant discount below the price of a used
airframe of either of these models. In Boeing's case, all the tooling
has been paid for, the company has been in the process of shutting down
the line for several years, the suppliers already exist.
But because it is a government contract, the bureaucracy will spend
excessive taxpayer dollars for an outdated product.

Several thoughts:

1) If the airplane fits the spec, it doesn't really matter when it was
designed. Beyond that,other than exception of engine development, not a
whole lot has changed in the airliner/transport business since the KC-135/
B707 was launched 50 years ago, so calling a 767 derived product obsolete is
misleading.

2) Would you rather send those jobs overseas? I'd prefer to keep those jobs
here and have 10 or 20 thousand US citizens have good paying jobs than have
many of those jobs go overseas and have to pay unemployment for the Boeing
employees.

3) Government always spends too much money on a given undertaking. The
bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent it from buying a $700 hammer also
makes it impossible for anyone to profitably sell the government $5 hammers.