Bad day for Boeing

[erj-145mech]

Airbus will have final assembly of the KC-330 in Alabama.

No, the KC-45 will have final assembly in KBHM. The Air Force is not buying KC-330's.

 

[erj-145mech]

Just what we need. Foreign built tankers for our military. What's next, foreign pilots to fly them?

And the ATR is built where?

 

[WNC Flyer]

Maybe if members of your service hadn't taken bribes from Boeing (and gotten caught) you would have already had an American tanker.

If you're a card carrying US citizen, shouldn't this read "our service".

Any chances this deal will get blocked in congress like the Boeing lease deal?

 

[Kharma Police]

If you're a card carrying US citizen, shouldn't this read "our service".

Any chances this deal will get blocked in congress like the Boeing lease deal?

"Card carrying US citizen"?!? That's kind of ironic since Europe has its citizens carry national ID cards. But yes, since I do pay taxes then it is "our" Air Force; and "no", I do not like it stealing from me.

 

[WNC Flyer]

The KC-45A Tanker is based on the EADS A330 MRTT (Multi Role Tanker Transport). [blah blah blah] This latest success in a series of competitions worldwide confirms the EADS-based military tanker as the best solution available on the market. Following its purchase by the Royal Australian Air Force, the MRTT solution has been officially ordered by the Royal Saudi Air Force and the UAE Air Force, as well as selected by the Royal Air Force of the UK.

http://www.eads.com/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/EADS/20080229_eads_kc-30.html

It appears that the KC-45 will be flown by the world's biggest air froces.

 

[USC***]

Northrop Grumman is a US company and most of the jobs will be Americans working on it all over the country. With assembly in Alabama. The NG/Airbus design was by far better as it carried more fuel than Boeing's version. It also can carry troops and heavy equipment. Boeings version of the tanker did neither. Seems like a no-brainer. Boeing could have modified their design, but thought that they would get the contract because they are big bad "Boeing." In my opinion, they got cocky and lazy and lost.

Check it out at:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/

 

[piav8r]

Yeah, that's great. McCain worries about a $300 million bridge to nowhere and a few billion on a military tanker contract, but he's a-ok with spending a few trillion on a failed war. Yep, that's fiscal responsibility for ya.

$300 million dollar bridge to nowhere? I must be missing something.... What the heck are you talking about?

 

[PCL_128]

$300 million dollar bridge to nowhere? I must be missing something.... What the heck are you talking about?

You must not be watching many of McCain's speeches. He talks constantly of the so-called "bridge to nowhere," which was a proposed bridge to connect Ketchikan, AK with Gravina Island. The project would have cost $320 million supplied through congressional earmarks. McCain and some others raised holy hell about it and got the project killed. Meanwhile, the Iraq war is now projected to cost us $3 trillion. While McCain worries about a million here and a billion there, he's more than willing to throw trillions into the toilet that is the Iraq war.

 

[Nado]

If you google Ted 'The internet is a bunch of tubes' Steven R-AK you will see about his $300 million bridge to nowhere in AK.

As for the decision, you don't think the matter of Darleen Druyun and Boeing CFO Michael Sears doing a turn in prison for defrauding the US Govt do you-

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1103/112403cdpm1.htm

Focus on the real problem hear, corrupt Boeing officials, that influenced the decision.

 

[LJDRVR]

I'm still upset about us awarding a contract to an American Company that is selling a foreign designed and built airplane. Our Aviation industry is one of the few remaining crown jewels of American Industry.

But I've been doing research into this and one thing is starting to become clear:

The KC-45 is an outstanding tanker that will serve our military well, while the KC767 was an ill-conceived Boeing profit strategy that has many problems and is not a very capable tanker at all. (Bad flutter issues that haven't been resolved, and serious payload/range issues, especially when compared to the competition.)

So what do we want? Boeing profits and success, or for our military to once - get the right airplane for the mission?

I vote the AF should get the best airplane. Boeing has nobody to blame but themselves.

 

[UALjan15]

Was a 777 tanker ever looked into? I know it would dwarf the KC-135 and approximate the size of the KC-10, but I'm not sold on the need for a small tanker anyway. Seems like when it comes to tankers, more is always better. More fuel, range, cargo payload, etc. Probably not ideal for Boeing, as their 777 production line is plenty busy whereas the 767 line....not so much.

 

[dtfl]

No, the KC-45 will have final assembly in KBHM. The Air Force is not buying KC-330's.

\

KBFM

Brookley, ie Mobile Downtown..not Birmingham

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

I, too, am not happy about us giving a huge contract away to a foreign country, especially when we should be doing everything possible to keep the jobs here in the states. I mean, buying foreign aircraft for our military??!?!!? What the.......! I've always admired and liked Boeing products.
Having said that, I believe that Boeing deserved this rude awakening. Their arrogance killed the deal. The bottom line is that Boeing had a way inferior product, period! Our aircrew deserve the best and Boeing tried to collect what they thought would be easy government cheese. JMHO.

 

[erj-145mech]

\

KBFM

Brookley, ie Mobile Downtown..not Birmingham

Thanks for the correction, fircken spastic fingers!

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

No, the KC-45 will have final assembly in KBHM. The Air Force is not buying KC-330's.

Well FWIW they are peddling the KC-30. When I first saw the ad sign outside of Scott I thought that Boeing sure looks like an Airbus!