Lawsuits gone wild!

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

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:08:07 -0900, Scott Skylane
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:
/snip/

I would expect, that the contract would be awarded based on price, not
on "experience, work force, all of that."


Good grief, Dighera, are you really *that* naive???


Yah, I know what you mean, but we can hope.



That answers that.


Bertie

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:49:45 -0800 (PST), AJ
wrote:

(From Aero-News.net

Washington Guv Raises Possibility Of Legal Action If KC-X Doesn't Go
To Boeing
Gregoire Believes Hometown Team Will Win Contract

At this writing, Boeing hasn't lost the US Air Force's KC-X contract
to provide the service with new tankers just yet -- and many analysts
feel a Boeing win over a team comprised of EADS and Northrop Grumman
is all-but assured. But that didn't stop the governor of Washington
from threatening a possible legal protest if Boeing is denied the
contract.

So much for the analysts: As of the 29th Boeing lost Re "Aviation
Week". www.aviationweek.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article ,
Roger wrote:

At this writing, Boeing hasn't lost the US Air Force's KC-X contract
to provide the service with new tankers just yet -- and many analysts
feel a Boeing win over a team comprised of EADS and Northrop Grumman
is all-but assured. But that didn't stop the governor of Washington
from threatening a possible legal protest if Boeing is denied the
contract.

So much for the analysts: As of the 29th Boeing lost Re "Aviation

Maybe it'll be a 2 out of 3 match....

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

"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.......

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

John Smith writes:

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.

Airplanes are not computers. Thirty-year-old designs can still be perfectly
suited to a task. You don't have to design a brand-new aircraft for every
bid, and in fact it's not a very good idea to do so.

Kingfish writes:

You don't consider composite construction a new development?

It's just an incremental weight reduction.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

John Smith writes:

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.

Airplanes are not computers.

BOGGLE!


Breakthrough, fjukkwit!


Bertie

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