Lawsuits gone wild!

"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excessive taxpayer dollars for an outdated product.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.

On Feb 28, 8:16*pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:

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.

You don't consider composite construction a new development? (787,
A350XWB) Granted, neither of the KC-X entrants is a composite design
but it's a stretch to say not much has changed in 50 years. A big leap
happend when turbojets were replaced by efficient turbofans, for one
example.

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.

If the KC-30 is picked they will be assembled in Alabama. Many other
states will share in the work from the new contract. It's all on
Northrop Grumman's KC-30 site.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/...ts/impact.html


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.

No argument here, although the reason for $700 hammers/toilet seats/
etc (aside from non-competitive bids) is that they usually have to
meet some particular milspec, which means they aren't available
commercially and are made in low quantities. This is not conducive to
low cost.

Kingfish writes:

You don't consider composite construction a new development?

It's just an incremental weight reduction.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Kingfish writes:

You don't consider composite construction a new development?

It's just an incremental weight reduction.


Nope, wrong again, fjukkwit.


Bertie

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message . ..


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.




It was announced today that the KC-30 (derived from the Airbus A-330) has won the "competition."

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:12:02 -0500, "Blueskies"
wrote in
:



It was announced today that the KC-30 (derived from the Airbus A-330) has won the "competition."


Northrop Grumman and the maker of Airbus planes beat out Boeing
Co. to win a $35 billion government contract to build up to 179
military refueling planes, the Air Force said Friday.The selection
of Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and its European-based
partner, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., came as a
surprise to industry and government officials.It is a big blow to
Chicago-based Boeing, which has been supplying refueling tankers
to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and had been widely expected
to win the deal.The contract positions EADS to break into the U.S.
military market in a big way. And it opens up a huge new business
opportunity for Northrop Grumman. In after-hours trading, shares
of Northrop climbed $3.74 to $82.37, while Boeing's stock price
fell $2.59 to $80.10.The Northrop-EADS refueling tanker, the
KC-45A, "will revolutionize our ability to employ tankers and will
ensure the Air Force's future ability to provide our nation with
truly global vigilance, reach, and power," Air Force Gen. Duncan
J. McNab said in a statement.
(AP Online 04:37 PM ET 02/29/2008)

Mo

http://cs.schwab.com/clicker/cli?req...myaaaaarhjaztx
----------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:55:13 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

It is a big blow to
Chicago-based Boeing

heh Maybe someone remembers Meigs.

- Andrew

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 18:16:51 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 05:55:13 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:

It is a big blow to
Chicago-based Boeing

heh Maybe someone remembers Meigs.

Maybe they remember the big kick back scandal between Boeing and the
Air Force procurement a few years back.

- Andrew
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Blueskies" wrote in message ...

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message . ..


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.




It was announced today that the KC-30 (derived from the Airbus A-330) has won the "competition."



Heard later it is to be called the KC-45A...

bogus.......