PDA

View Full Version : Got a minute to support American jobs?


T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 11:50 AM
Let your feelings be known on the outsourcing of American jobs and National Security with this online petition:

http://www.house.gov/tiahrt/tanker_survey.htm

In case you haven't heard: Airbus [a French company subsidized by the French government] has won a $35-$40 Billion dollar contract over American company Boeing. See details here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25288

Air Force Rejects Made-in-America
by Robert Maginnis

Last Friday, the Air Force awarded a European firm $40 billion contract to replace America’s aging airborne refueling fleet. That decision effectively outsources thousands of American jobs to a firm subsidized by a foreign government and could further reduce our industrial manufacturing base. This deal encourages Europeans to continue underfunding their own security and should become a presidential campaign issue.

The Air Force has been seeking a replacement for its fleet of Eisenhower-era KC-135s for decades with increasing desperation. They realize that without the tanker fleet at full operational status, US ability to project power around the world is reduced from the speed of a jetliner to the speed of a ship.

Friday, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne announced “…that the development and procurement of up to 179 new KC-45A tanker aircraft is awarded to the Northrop Grumman Corporation.” Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman is teamed with the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS), the maker of Airbus planes, to build airborne refueling tankers based on the Airbus A330-200 airframe. EADS beat Chicago-based Boeing for the contract despite the fact that Boeing has been supplying refueling tankers to the US Air Force for nearly 50 years.

No doubt our tanker fleet needs to be replaced. The average airplane in the fleet is 44.2 years old and a Pentagon official stated, “The fleet’s readiness, reliability and availability are in decline and costs to maintain the fleet are going up.” The service currently flies 471 KC-135R/T tankers, 59 KC-10s and another 85 KC-135Es which will be retired by 2009.

An Air Force officer said it wasn’t until after 9-11 and the conflict in Afghanistan that the Air Force made tankers a top priority. The early part of the Afghanistan war highlighted how important tankers were in an operational environment where American aircraft – fighters, bombers and transports – couldn’t land in many nations enroute to the conflict. Prior to the war, the glamorous F-22 Raptor and the C-17 Globemaster, crown jewels to the Air Force, kept tankers on the back burner.

Few details are known about why the Air Force chose the Northrop-EADS team over Boeing. Air Force officials have yet to debrief the two companies on their proposals, and those debriefings may stir up a lawsuit by Boeing to overturn the Air Force decision.

Air Force General Arthur Lichte of Air Mobility Command, said the larger size of the European aircraft was important: "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload." But the formula that’s critical is the right mix of offload capability and numbers of tankers. A greater number of tankers offers more operational flexibility than fewer with more fuel.

Another consideration could be that Boeing’s aircraft, the KC-767, was designed in the late 1970s and by the time the Air Force bought a significant number, few other customers would be flying the basic aircraft, making the cost of parts and maintenance upgrades more expensive.

The problem isn’t whether the EADS aircraft can do the job but rather that it’s primarily foreign-made. Surprisingly, Secretary Payton acknowledged that the issue of shipping jobs overseas was not “taken into consideration.”

Suprisingly, neither was it significant to the Air Force that EADS has no track record with air-to-air refueling and their fueling boom, a critical component, has only started testing.

EADS claims the KC-30 project will produce 2,000 new jobs at an assembly facility in Mobile, Alabama and support 25,000 jobs at 230 US companies in 49 states. Boeing contends its KC-767 program would have supported 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers.

Given that a sizable portion of the Boeing product would be produced in China, Japan and Italy, perhaps the Air Force’s acquisition teams did consider the American content in both competitors’ proposals.

An active duty Air Force pilot familiar with tanker operations said “… as an American officer I’m pretty angry. I find it unforgivable that we have done this. It seems to me that with the competing aircraft pretty close in capability we ought to tilt very favorably toward the American company.”

He suggested that a common view among his peers is that “… our Air Force leadership has simply lost its way … This sad tale of the tanker acquisition, from Darlene Druyun till now, has typified the confused, misguided, and haphazard direction our generals have been on for nearly the last decade.” In 2004, Druyun admitted to favoring Boeing in the tanker deal while acting as an Air Force weapons buyer and, at the same time, negotiating a job contract with the company. She was sentenced to nine months in prison.

Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace industry analyst with Teal Group in Virginia, said of the decision to favor EADS over Boeing that “There’s always the chance that the Air Force wanted to distance themselves as much as possible” from the Druyun situation.

The Netherlands-based EADS - a group that includes Russia - was formed in 2000 by a merger with German, French and Spanish firms. Less than half of EADS’ stock is publicly held, while the majority is owned by a “Contractual Partnership” which includes the French and Spanish governments.

European governments have kept EADS afloat, sustaining more than 116,000 European jobs. US Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), whose state includes a Boeing plant, stated that European nations have provided Airbus (read EADS) “illegal subsidies.”

In 2001, Under Secretary of Commerce Grant Aldonas told a US House panel, "Airbus and other major aircraft manufacturers in Europe have a history of government ownership and control. Given this direct financial interest, European governments have undertaken steps to boost their industry’s competitiveness.”

In 2005, Peter Allgeier, the deputy US Trade Representative, indicated that European governments have forgiven Airbus debt and provided equity infusions, infrastructure support and research and development funds. These practices, said Allgeier, continued even after the Bush administration reached an agreement limiting government support for large civil aircraft programs. Allgeier said that support gives Airbus a “very significant” competitive advantage over Boeing.

A former EADS executive told this writer it was the “declared objective of Airbus to destroy, if possible the American commercial airplane dominance. With truly unfair trade practices and our nave and stupid government they succeeded in shutting down Lockheed and McDonnel Douglas leaving Boeing to slug it out on a very unlevel playing field.”

EADS would not have been able to fund its side of the tanker competition without government financial assistance. Although European government “aid” to EADS may have been invisible to Pentagon technical decision makers it should be a red flag to American workers and those concerned about the export of our industrial manufacturing infrastructure.

Apparently, Europeans have money to subsidize their aircraft industry but not enough to fund their own security. They rely on Uncle Sam’s troops, planes and ships to make their continent safe. While the US invests 4.2 percent of its GNP on defense, EADS supporters such as Germany spend only 1.5 percent.

Pentagon contracts should always favor American manufacturers with an eye on preserving our industrial base, providing our fighting forces with quality products and wisely using taxpayer money.

The tanker deal demonstrates flaws in our procurement decision making that pretends made-in-America isn’t important and gives our rich European partners another pass on being responsible security partners. Any serious presidential wannabee should show his or her true colors and stake out a position on the new tanker fleet.

blueballs
03-06-2008, 11:52 AM
The auto industry is better for it

StcChief
03-06-2008, 11:57 AM
The auto industry is better for it
an Apple and Chicken comparison.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 11:58 AM
The auto industry is better for it

Can't compare apples to oranges. Big difference between the two.

Donger
03-06-2008, 12:00 PM
So, you're against this decision?

eazyb81
03-06-2008, 12:03 PM
I wonder why this wasn't considered a potential breach of security, yet the 3COM acquisition was denied for basically the same thing.

blueballs
03-06-2008, 12:05 PM
They're building a plant in the US(CNN)
no I didn't read the article

Brock
03-06-2008, 12:05 PM
Maybe if Boeing hadn't tried to **** the government last time around they would have gotten this contract. Not to mention, they're trying to pawn off an old aircraft as a new derivative.

Donger
03-06-2008, 12:07 PM
I wonder why this wasn't considered a potential breach of security, yet the 3COM acquisition was denied for basically the same thing.

It's a flying gas station.

The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe. And it would use General Electric engines built in North Carolina and Ohio. Northrop Grumman, which is based in Los Angeles, estimates a Northrop/EADS win would produce 2,000 new jobs in Mobile and support 25,000 jobs at suppliers nationwide.

pikesome
03-06-2008, 12:07 PM
I don't like the idea either but didn't Boeing get caught bribing people not too long ago?

When our homegrown companies act like ****sticks... well, you take your business elsewhere.

Besides, the French probably slushed more money than Boeing did this time.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 12:16 PM
I don't see the problem. The military should have the best equipment available in the world. They shouldn't have to use an inferior Boeing model as some kind of affirmative action plan for big American corporations.

blueballs
03-06-2008, 12:20 PM
I don't see the problem. The military should have the best equipment available in the world. They shouldn't have to use an inferior Boeing model as some kind of affirmative action plan for big American corporations.

Ex-cellent point

BigChiefFan
03-06-2008, 12:25 PM
Slightly off topic...

These dipshit big businesses sold their souls to save a buck. I hate that so many American jobs have been outsourced-it's pathetic.

Pestilence
03-06-2008, 12:25 PM
I had a minute....but then I used it to read this worthless thread.

Donger
03-06-2008, 12:29 PM
I could have sworn that Northrup was an American company.

Iowanian
03-06-2008, 12:30 PM
Maybe Boeing should work a little harder to compete in a capitolist market by developing a better product for a better price.

Brock
03-06-2008, 12:31 PM
I could have sworn that Northrup was an American company.

It's a global company, just like all the rest of them.

Saggysack
03-06-2008, 12:32 PM
Boeing offered an older airframe equiped with older technology. They got beat out. Welcome to capitalism.

FD
03-06-2008, 12:33 PM
I don't see the problem. The military should have the best equipment available in the world. They shouldn't have to use an inferior Boeing model as some kind of affirmative action plan for big American corporations.

Exactly. Get the best product for the best price. These are our tax dollars their spending and I have no desire to see mine wasted because of pointless favoritism.

Donger
03-06-2008, 12:33 PM
I don't see the problem. The military should have the best equipment available in the world. They shouldn't have to use an inferior Boeing model as some kind of affirmative action plan for big American corporations.

The Air Force should have accepted the aging 767 because Boeing needed the order to keep the model flying. And, the Air Force should have decided on the 767 because Americans need jobs. They shouldn't have chosen an airframe manufactured in another country...

I find it slightly ironic that people are arguing against using a foreign company that is subsidized by the French (and other) governments for the airframe, yet want the Air Force to select an inferior airframe so that an American company is propped up and jobs are protected.

Dylan
03-06-2008, 12:34 PM
Done!

BigRedChief
03-06-2008, 12:41 PM
A bigger scandal is the taxpayers giving tax breaks and corporate welfare to companies that turn around and move thier jobs outside of the U.S.

A company has a right to outsource its I.T. jobs to India, Asia wherever on the cheap, fine and dandy. But don't expect to recieve tax payer monies to help you do that.

dtebbe
03-06-2008, 01:01 PM
Maybe if Boeing hadn't tried to **** the government last time around they would have gotten this contract. Not to mention, they're trying to pawn off an old aircraft as a new derivative.

Exactly. I think Boeing was sure they were going to get the contract and got their asses handed to them because of it.

From what I understand they are going to build them in the US (ie. US jobs) and of coarse all the factory support folks will be mostly US people because of the security clearance they will probably need. There will be plenty of US jobs associated with either contract. There is a reason all the airlines are not buying the 767....

DT

vailpass
03-06-2008, 01:06 PM
I could have sworn that Northrup was an American company.

Not to nitpick but we spell it "Northrop".

Donger
03-06-2008, 01:15 PM
Not to nitpick but we spell it "Northrop".

Darn it. I always do that.

InChiefsHell
03-06-2008, 01:34 PM
Slightly off topic...

These dipshit big businesses sold their souls to save a buck. I hate that so many American jobs have been outsourced-it's pathetic.

Indeed, but lets face it. Americans don't want to pay the price for goods (which would be probably 4x what they are now because of Union wages etc...) We're greedy bastages in this country, we want our cake and eat it too..."Keep jobs here, but keep shit affordable" on one hand and "Tax the piss out of corporations" on the other...something has to give.

Brock
03-06-2008, 01:50 PM
Indeed, but lets face it. Americans don't want to pay the price for goods (which would be probably 4x what they are now because of Union wages etc...) We're greedy bastages in this country, we want our cake and eat it too..."Keep jobs here, but keep shit affordable" on one hand and "Tax the piss out of corporations" on the other...something has to give.

Yeah, damn americans, they're not willing to work for a bowl of rice per day like the chinese are.

vailpass
03-06-2008, 01:53 PM
Darn it. I always do that.

It's easy to do.
I had a business that was aquired by NG a couple of years ago. I misspelled 'Northrop' through the entire process, even had to have a document re-done because it was invalidated due to incorrect spelling of the principal's name.

Rooster
03-06-2008, 02:00 PM
Done. I live in Wichita so I'm a little biased.

InChiefsHell
03-06-2008, 03:10 PM
Yeah, damn americans, they're not willing to work for a bowl of rice per day like the chinese are.

OK, sure...but tell me where I'm wrong?

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:31 PM
Sen. Maria Cantwell, Washington Democrat, said estimates show that the (Airbus) contract would generate about 25,000 U.S. jobs mainly in Alabama about 20,000 less jobs than if Boeing built the tankers.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:33 PM
California Rep. Duncan Hunter, who is the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said the decision by the Air Force only benefits the coffers "of the European governments."

Mr. Hunter added that it is the "same European governments that are unwilling to support us in the global war on terror and, over the last few months, refused to provide even an additional 100 soldiers apiece for Afghanistan operations," adding that the U.S. is sending 3,200 additional Marines to Afghanistan while the Europeans take $35 billion in American taxpayer contracts.

Iowanian
03-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Sounds like Boeing needs to fire and replace some design engineers and marketing people along with management.

FD
03-06-2008, 03:33 PM
Sen. Maria Cantwell, Washington Democrat, said estimates show that the (Airbus) contract would generate about 25,000 U.S. jobs mainly in Alabama about 20,000 less jobs than if Boeing built the tankers.

They definitely chose the right company if they can do the same job with half the number of workers.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:36 PM
They definitely chose the right company if they can do the same job with half the number of workers.

No, you read that wrong. 20,000 less AMERICAN workers. Most of the plane would be built in Europe and then pieced together here.

FD
03-06-2008, 03:38 PM
No, you read that wrong. 20,000 less AMERICAN workers. Most of the plane would be built in Europe and then pieced together here.

Well at least they don't have brown skin! That would really get my panties in a bunch!

Iowanian
03-06-2008, 03:42 PM
Should American Airforce personell be forced to use substandard planes that American taxpayers overpay for, in effort to create these additional jobs?

I'm all for American Jobs, but as a taxpayer, I want our troops to have the BEST equipment for the best price.

Donger
03-06-2008, 03:43 PM
No, you read that wrong. 20,000 less AMERICAN workers. Most of the plane would be built in Europe and then pieced together here.

You support the notion that the Air Force should have taken this into account when selecting an airframe?

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:43 PM
Well at least they don't have brown skin! That would really get my panties in a bunch!

:rolleyes: Brown skin? You must have the wrong thread. IF ignorance is bliss, you must be VERY happy. In case you hadn't noticed, the American economy could use a little support. Those 20,000 Airbus employees won't be putting many of their Euros back into the American economy.

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 03:44 PM
Sorry, I don't see sticking our troops with an inferior airframe to provide corporate welfare for Boeing.

Not to nitpick but we spell it "Northrop".

So you're no longer working the Mendoza account for Luckup?

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:46 PM
You support the notion that the Air Force should have taken this into account when selecting an airframe?

And you don't? It's all part of the big picture.

Suprisingly, neither was it significant to the Air Force that EADS has no track record with air-to-air refueling and their fueling boom, a critical component, has only started testing.

FD
03-06-2008, 03:47 PM
:rolleyes: Brown skin? You must have the wrong thread. IF ignorance is bliss, you must be VERY happy. In case you hadn't noticed, the American economy could use a little support. Those 20,000 Airbus employees won't be putting many of their Euros back into the American economy.

Maybe it would be better for the economy if we dont, as a policy, throw taxpayer money away on inferior products.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:48 PM
Sorry, I don't see sticking our troops with an inferior airframe to provide corporate welfare for Boeing.

Nothing inferior about it. Hopefully, Congress will rectify this and we'll see our troops using superior American aircraft while supporting the U.S. economy.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:49 PM
Maybe it would be better for the economy if we dont, as a policy, throw taxpayer money away on inferior products.

We'll see what proves to be inferior after the Senate committee sorts this out.

Suprisingly, neither was it significant to the Air Force that EADS has no track record with air-to-air refueling and their fueling boom, a critical component, has only started testing.

Donger
03-06-2008, 03:50 PM
And you don't? It's all part of the big picture.

Suprisingly, neither was it significant to the Air Force that EADS has no track record with air-to-air refueling and their fueling boom, a critical component, has only started testing.

No, I don't. I expect my government to pick the best aircraft for the best price, not which one will generate the most American jobs.

What are you, a communist or something?

Iowanian
03-06-2008, 03:50 PM
Obviously, Airforce flight engineers and decision makers felt that the other airframe was SUPERIOR enough and a better price to select it. I'll wager they didn't flip a coin or purposely try to screw Kansas Airplane builders.

FD
03-06-2008, 03:52 PM
We'll see what proves to be inferior after the Senate committee sorts this out.

Suprisingly, neither was it significant to the Air Force that EADS has no track record with air-to-air refueling and their fueling boom, a critical component, has only started testing.

I'll trust the experts making these purchases, and are accountable for their decisions, over someone on an internet message board as to what was actually better.

And to call a group of pandering politicians sucking up for free airtime and feel-good "Go USA" quotes "sorting this out" is comical.

Brock
03-06-2008, 03:54 PM
Nothing inferior about it. Hopefully, Congress will rectify this and we'll see our troops using superior American aircraft while supporting the U.S. economy.

It's not a superior aircraft. There is no way it can be.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 03:55 PM
Obviously, Airforce flight engineers and decision makers felt that the other airframe was SUPERIOR enough and a better price to select it. I'll wager they didn't flip a coin or purposely try to screw Kansas Airplane builders.

Only time will tell. We'll see what the Congressional review finds. Hard to believe that Boeing didn't meet or exceed the RFP guidelines.

Donger
03-06-2008, 03:55 PM
Just an FYI, but Boeing previously won this contract. But, it turns out that one of the procurement people at the Pentagon didn't play nicely:

"In December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Druyun pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company".[7] Additional fallout included the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit and the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears."

Pestilence
03-06-2008, 04:04 PM
If it was a superior aircraft....then the Air Force would be working with Boeing. It's not...so they aren't. Get over it.

Can't you bitch about Sprint or something?

Cochise
03-06-2008, 04:04 PM
Only in the realm of government does it not matter what the quality of what you're buying is, or what it costs, but who made it.

FD
03-06-2008, 04:05 PM
Only in the realm of government does it not matter what the quality of what you're buying is, or what it costs, but who made it.

It matters to me as a taxpayer. Sure, there are exceptions, but I trust the Air Force in this situation.

CrazyPhuD
03-06-2008, 04:14 PM
The only question I have is, that since these planes are french, do they fly faster in reverse than forward?

Rooster
03-06-2008, 04:16 PM
A few issues that congress should focus on:

1. What happens if France disagrees with a future US military action. Will they suspend shipment of the airframe or spare parts? This is a tanker that will be in the USAF inventory for the next 60 years. Can the DOD predict there will be no tensions between France and the US that would cause France to boycott the US by witholding US military eqmt/parts?

2. What if the US wins its lawsuit against airbus and illegal subsidies? This airframe could be deemed by the WTO as illegally subsidized.

3. How can the DOD claim 60% of the plane is made in the US or less risky? Assembly should not be counted in that assessment - if the airframe doesn't show up, there is no assembly. The Northrup assembly plant has not even been built yet. With material prices shooting up, how can this factory be built in the next 3 years with a budget that was priced a year ago. Boeing's assembly plant has been producing the airframe for twenty years.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 04:16 PM
Just an FYI, but Boeing previously won this contract. But, it turns out that one of the procurement people at the Pentagon didn't play nicely:

"In December 2003, the Pentagon announced the project was to be frozen while an investigation of allegations of corruption by one if its former procurement staffers, Darleen Druyun (who had moved to Boeing in January) was begun. Druyun pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months in jail for "negotiating a job with Boeing at the same time she was involved in contracts with the company".[7] Additional fallout included the resignation of Boeing CEO Philip M. Condit and the termination of CFO Michael M. Sears."

That was a lease deal scuttled by John McCain. Some people, mainly Boeing employees, think that the Air Force shyed away from Boeing this time because of the bad PR associated with the previous lease deal.

Rooster
03-06-2008, 04:18 PM
The only question I have is, that since these planes are french, do they fly faster in reverse than forward?

Do you know how you can tell if a US carrier was made in France?

It has hair under its wings. :D

Donger
03-06-2008, 04:18 PM
That was a lease deal scuttled by John McCain. Some people, mainly Boeing employees, think that the Air Force shyed away from Boeing this time because of the bad PR associated with the previous lease deal.

It's John McCain's fault that a Pentagon procurement person was negotiating a position within Boeing while evaluating the KC-767?

Brock
03-06-2008, 04:18 PM
"Bad PR"? Is that what we're calling bribery and fraud these days?

Adept Havelock
03-06-2008, 04:23 PM
That was a lease deal scuttled by John McCain. Some people, mainly Boeing employees, think that the Air Force shyed away from Boeing this time because of the bad PR associated with the previous lease deal.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... :shrug:

"Bad PR"? Is that what we're calling bribery and fraud these days?

When you get caught and it impacts your future business dealings, apparently so. :shake:

beavis
03-06-2008, 04:24 PM
Stamping "American" across something doesn't make it a superior product.

Unless we learn to deal with globalization, we're going to be left in the dust.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 04:35 PM
"Bad PR"? Is that what we're calling bribery and fraud these days?

You guys are the same kind of jerks that talked people into not buying Pintos over bad PR.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 05:01 PM
It's John McCain's fault that a Pentagon procurement person was negotiating a position within Boeing while evaluating the KC-767?

I'm not blaming him. That's just what happened. I would have done the same thing. I may be wrong, but I believe that the most all of the controlling regime at Boeing during that time has been swept out.

T-post Tom
03-06-2008, 05:03 PM
You guys are the same kind of jerks that talked people into not buying Pintos over bad PR.

No, I'd definitely recommend the AMC Gremlin:

donkey_hater
03-06-2008, 06:53 PM
Why must we stimpulate the econmoy with refund checks if we send big contracts like this to a French company.:shake:One must only wonder what our goverment is thinking......Now all of the individuals out at Boeing that have been working on the tanker program are going to do what with their jobs after they deliver the last couple of 767 tankers to Japan......