I see, and you expected her to say "Northrop Grumman wasn't the best value to the government but we liked the font in their proposal better"
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Boeing Tanker: Beans, Bullets, Oil, and politics .. and did we mention: politics ??
- Thread starter Morgan81
- Start date
I see, and you expected her to say "Northrop Grumman wasn't the best value to the government but we liked the font in their proposal better"
No, but the point is that the government should buy what it gets the most value for. This is the cold hard economic REALITY of a global economy. Everyone should buy what they get the most value for not just because they think it comes from a certain country.
This whole view that Boeing somehow deserves the contract because they're American is stupid and unrealistic.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Spending X percent more for a US built product that keeps profits HERE not going to a country that may choose to supply our opponents..
Profits at Boeing go to shareholders all over the world.
wait- france is supplying our enemies?!?!
That works fine until we're involved in something the French don't like (and keep in mind the line between their government and industry is thin indeed) and they decide that we really don't need any of those replacement baskets or whatever.
We're going to have to live with this tanker for 50 years if the 135 is any precedent and I would feel better if it were a native product. When is comes to a blender or some other consumer good I don't care where it comes from.
Random8145
Registered User
I disagree. If the whole world was one big free-market and we all were friends just engaging in free trade, then I can see that.
But when it comes to the national defense, outsourcing is a no-no IMO.
The cold economic reality is GMC and Ford and Chrysler should just move their manufacturing operations overseas. But they are too important to the U.S. economy, and the U.S. heavy industry capability, so that is not allowed.
I view it the same with aircraft.
By your standard, the cold hard reality is Airbus should be out of business and not even in existence. The only reason they continue to exist is because the European Union subsidizes them. They subsidize them because they view Airbus as important to the EU, but economically, from a pure free-market standpoint, Airbus shouldn't exist.
We in America have the same problem I believe with a few of our defense-related industries as well, which are heavily subsidized as well I believe.
America needs to support its own industry, especially those relating to defense, or what's left of it, and if we allow a foreign company to supply our defense, we should demand they move the manufacturing operations to AMERICA.
A global, free-market economy is fine IMO, and I definitely support free-trade, but nothing in economics is absolute, there are always some exceptions here and there.
I view the national defense as one of them.
What about the various Ford/GMC manufacturing plants shutting down across the US over the years and the respective companies opening up plants in Mexico? Are these guys not legally allowed to do this? History would suggest otherwise...
Which is interesting, considering NG and Airbus are putting the plant in Mobile, AL. Anyone know the exchange rate between the US dollar and Confederate dollars? I keed... But you're right that economics is a sticky issue and cannot always be looked at and applied realistically in the same normative sense we would like to.
In most cases no. But then why would we want to pattern ourselves off the French.
Actually, the Germans have bought and fielded plenty of American aerospace and defense products.
While I'd have preferred to have an American firm win, I'm not going to say the sky is falling just because a foreign firm teamed with an American firm won the competition.
If anyone is drinking Kool-aide, it must be those who found Ross Perot's old stash in the back of the pantry. It's getting kind of stale.
WE are the biggest arms exporter in the world by a huge margin, as in a multiple of the next closest country. I don't think one deal is going to tank that advantage.
If we allow only domestic companies to compete, then in many cases, major firms will have the gov't over the barrel and rob Uncle Sam blind. Seeing as Boeing is the only remaining domestic large jet manufacturer, it would have had quite an opportunity to do so, and based on its track record, probably would have.
I really don't think Germany and France are going to embargo us anytime soon. They'd be slitting their own throats. Besides, everyone knows that France will sell anything to anybody!
That free trade is a good thing is supported by a couple centuries of economic study. Period. Anyone who says different doesn't know economics.
The fact that this is a defense contract makes a difference, but not much of one in most cases. The ARE some technologies that have to be maintained in our country, but I'm pretty sure that the ability to manufacture a tanker isn't a damn secret. As far as industrial base goes, I don't think Boeing is going away. The defense budget isn't supposed to be corporate welfare, anyway, except in dire cases.
If anyone is drinking Kool-aide, it must be those who found Ross Perot's old stash in the back of the pantry. It's getting kind of stale.
WE are the biggest arms exporter in the world by a huge margin, as in a multiple of the next closest country. I don't think one deal is going to tank that advantage.
If we allow only domestic companies to compete, then in many cases, major firms will have the gov't over the barrel and rob Uncle Sam blind. Seeing as Boeing is the only remaining domestic large jet manufacturer, it would have had quite an opportunity to do so, and based on its track record, probably would have.
I really don't think Germany and France are going to embargo us anytime soon. They'd be slitting their own throats. Besides, everyone knows that France will sell anything to anybody!
That free trade is a good thing is supported by a couple centuries of economic study. Period. Anyone who says different doesn't know economics.
The fact that this is a defense contract makes a difference, but not much of one in most cases. The ARE some technologies that have to be maintained in our country, but I'm pretty sure that the ability to manufacture a tanker isn't a damn secret. As far as industrial base goes, I don't think Boeing is going away. The defense budget isn't supposed to be corporate welfare, anyway, except in dire cases.
Boeing's horrible mismanagement of the proposed tanker lease and the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) contract was just as bad, if not worse, than NG's mis-management of the RQ-4.
Every major defense contractor has mismanaged programs in its history, we would have to exclude every one if that was a disqualifier.
Random8145
Registered User
Good point, I stand corrected; Mexico is still connected to America, so for that it isn't as big a deal.
Whoops, I missed that part; that is good that they are at least keeping the manufacturing in America.
1. While the Airbus is larger, it also burns ~20% more gas than the 767. Not really any savings when you are spending $ for the extra gas.
2. Considering that average combat offload of gas to receivers is about 70,000 lbs/tanker sortie, what advantage does the Airbus really have?
(numbers from congressional committee)
2. Considering that average combat offload of gas to receivers is about 70,000 lbs/tanker sortie, what advantage does the Airbus really have?
(numbers from congressional committee)