How Boeing steered tanker bid

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

David Hartung wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

But if you had to choose, you'd rather buy military equipment from
France instead of China, no?

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/h...0403291311.htm
Mullaly noted that the essential parts of approximately 3,400 Boeing
aircraft in service worldwide today were assembled in China, occupying
one-third of the whole Boeing fleet.

-HJC

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster
by an american corporation. you think all US designed cars are built
in the USof A. the Chevy camaro before they were dicontinued were alll
built in Canada.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:48:55 -0800, Lyle wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)


by an american corporation. you think all US designed cars are built
in the USof A. the Chevy camaro before they were dicontinued were alll
built in Canada.

I'm sorry, but I was referring to the previous poster who objects to
things being built by other nations (like the Canadians), not who
designed them or who owns the company - otherwise we'd be into most of
the M-4/M-16A3/A4 production being by FNMI, along with the M249/M240
production also by FNMI, or the XM8 being designed from the G-36 by a
HK team working with ATK.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard schrieb:

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

So? Boeing had to start once at scratch, too. And Airbus is currently
working on it for the RAF.

Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman

"Roman J. Rohleder" wrote in message
...
Alan Minyard schrieb:

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

So? Boeing had to start once at scratch, too. And Airbus is currently
working on it for the RAF.

That is the point. The USAF considered the development of a refueling boom
as a high risk item for the proposed schedule. Boeing on the other hand not
only invented the thing and has vast experience in them has already
completed the KC-135 boom re-design for the 767 tanker.


Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:49:31 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago), and the Canadian conversions to
transport/tanker that are on order.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster