Boeing, Boeing, Gone!

[DesertFalcon]

I Boeing Aircraft Company at risk of disappearing?

Read this interesting article:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,641697,00.html

 

[Crizz]

Good read

Thanks for posting

 

[:-)]

I tend to cast a doubtful eye towards reports that contain obvious errors of fact. The author of this article forgot which aircraft ushered in the jet age. What else might he have gotten wrong?

If not for nagging doubt brought on by the Comet omission, the article might have been quite bothersome for us Boeing fans.

On second thought, it was bothersome, but I was reading bothersome news about Boeing in AW&ST last year.

 

[DesertFalcon]

Good read

Thanks for posting

Your welcome... I thought it was an important bit of information.

 

[DesertFalcon]

I tend to cast a doubtful eye towards reports that contain obvious errors of fact. The author of this article forgot which aircraft ushered in the jet age. What else might he have gotten wrong?

If not for nagging doubt brought on by the Comet omission, the article might have been quite bothersome for us Boeing fans.

On second thought, it was bothersome, but I was reading bothersome news about Boeing in AW&ST last year.

Airbus has unfair advantage in the competive market.. Government funding on the european side has made it hard for Boeing. Also, Boeing seems to have lost their vision of the Future. I am not sure they really know where to go with their engineering now?

Hopefully, they have chosen the correct strategy? We'll see.

 

[ATL2CDG]

Airbus has unfair advantage in the competive market.. Government funding on the european side has made it hard for Boeing.

You're kidding, right? What do you make of the well-publicized selection by the USAF of Boeing tankers that were overpriced, underperforming and badly designed over the Airbus product that was cheaper, more effecient and met more of the 26(?) requirements the USAF had set forth. They were wanting to 'buy American' no matter the cost; that could easily be called government support.

 

[siucavflight]

I knew that we could count on ATL2CDG to find fault with a boeing product and support the French one.

 

[ATL2CDG]

I knew that we could count on ATL2CDG to find fault with a boeing product and support the French one.

I didn't find ANYTHING wrong; I wasn't the one commissioned to do the analyses.

At the beginning of the search, the USAF created a list of, I believe, 26 criteria it wanted the tanker to meet (TO performance, avionics, etc etc). An independent commission appointed by the DOD to study the proposals found that the Boeing 767-variant only met 6 or 7 of these 'important' criteria, and that was after a major overhaul of the original design; the Airbus product met, I believe, 24 or 25 of the criteria (the original design) and their initial bid per airframe was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than Boeing's proposal. Yet, despite the apparently superiority of the Airbus product, the DOD blindly picked Boeing. The decision was apparently based on politics and bribery (a former DOD official that helped to make the decision was offered a lucrative position with Boeing afterwards). Personally, I'd prefer our servicemen and women have the best possible equipment on which to work; the Boeing product was obviously not that aircraft.

I don't care about the country (or in Airbus' case, continent; that's right, siucavflight, Airbus is a multi-national cooperation, not 'French') of origion. If the Airbus product was the inferior design, the Boeing superior and a entity selected Airbus, I would be just as disgusted. Despite your desire to make this look like an American v. European (or French) argument, in my case, it's not. It's about the government selecting an overpriced, underperforming aircraft with no just cause.

 

[siucavflight]

OK, you are right I am wrong.

 

[siucavflight]

By the way Airbus is mostly French. Just like you.

 

[ATL2CDG]

By the way Airbus is mostly French. Just like you.

Hey, three-year-old!

I was born and reared in East Tennessee. My father's family has been in the US since the late 1600s and my mother's since the late 1700s. Based on the geneaology that I've studied, I've got little to no French ancestry.

In any case, if you think that labelling me 'French' is an insult, you're wrong again. I guess you're used to it by now.

 

[siucavflight]

I already said you are right and I am wrong. Isnt that enough for you. You are right Boeing is far less quality than the scarebus. Ask anyone in the service which aircraft they would rather be working on.

 

[ATL2CDG]

I already said you are right and I am wrong. Isnt that enough for you. You are right Boeing is far less quality than the scarebus. Ask anyone in the service which aircraft they would rather be working on.

Oh good grief!

*eye starts to twitch*

From the requirements that the USAF itself put forth, the Airbus proposal does seem to be a wiser choice that the Boeing. However, you seem to imply that I think Airbus, in general, is a better product than Boeing. To be honest, I don't know enough about either to say one is better than the other. Obviously, the attractiveness of any particular aircraft is based upon the needs of the operator and as such, one may see a 737NG as the best thing in the world; another may worship the A320 family. Anyone who flattly says "A is better than B" or "B is better than A" is apparently very narrowsighted.

And yes, I will grant you that most servicemen and women would prefer to 'work on' a Boeing aircraft for nationalistic/political/familiarity reasons. However, when considering a multi-billion dollar purchase, I would think the government should look at more than just what Maj. Smith likes; performance, ability to meet mission criteria, flexibility in operations, costs and much more should come into play.

 

[siucavflight]

I was going to keep my mouth shut. But now you really made me angry. How dare you ask that our government give a multi-billion dollar contract to a "European company" when they can give it to an American based company, helping American citizens to feed their families. Are you in favor of putting Americans out of work?? Or just dont care about them? This country already imports too much and export too little. The last thing that we need to do is to give billions of dollars to another country when we could invest it in American companies.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

And what about the fact that when the owners of Airbus don't want to sell parts to the US goverment due to political reasons, then who's in the lurch?

Plus there are reasons you might want to buy something other than the specifications outlined by the US goverment and the pricetag. The US goverment intially didn't want the P-51.

 

[ATL2CDG]

I was going to keep my mouth shut. But now you really made me angry. How dare you ask that our government give a multi-billion dollar contract to a "European company" when they can give it to an American based company, helping American citizens to feed their families. Are you in favor of putting Americans out of work?? Or just dont care about them? This country already imports too much and export too little. The last thing that we need to do is to give billions of dollars to another country when we could invest it in American companies.

Well, when the one and only American company competing for the contract offers a substandard product that, after several redesigns, still doesn't meet even half of the criteria laid out, then I say choose on quality; national defense is NOT something to take lightly.

Sure, I want every American to have a job (heck, I would like one at this point), but purpose of the DOD proposal was to find a safe, reliable, efficient way to refuel military aircraft, NOT employ a certain group of people. If you want to government to directly support employment causes, then let's return to an FDR-type series of programs. However, I will not support our government choosing a subpar product vital to national defense just because they want to employ a couple hundred Washingtonians. If Boeing wants business, it needs to design and offer a product that meets the requirements laid out. Either we're socialist or we're capitalist.

 

[ShawnC]

ATL2CDG,

There are other issues to consider such as ramp and hanger space. Along with delivery dates. The A330 is a much bigger aircraft, that doesn't have an approved cargo door yet, it's also much longer, and greater wing span, that might restrict it from the smaller bases (ramp space wise) that the KC-135 operates out of.

Also combines that with the fact that Boeing already has contractors in place to do the airliner to tanker conversion, the A310MRTT is still being delayed because they can't even get the hose pods set up correctly, one wonders how long it would take for them to do an install of the electronic boom that the USAF wants for the KC-767.

Boeing on the otherhand already has done installs of a similar system (on the Dutch KDC-10's) what would be configured on the KC-767.

Now there are of course other political issues, like no Congress man from Washington would survive to serve another term if they voted for an A330 tanker, along with parts issues that have been pointed out. The French have a large stake in Airbus and have shown that they are willing and have in the past prevented spare parts from being sold to countries who they disagree with politically.

 

[enigma]

ATL2CDG, do ya think that your previous anti-American stand may be putting your credibility on this issue in question? You most likely think that you are pro-American, but most of us would beg to differ.

With that said, I agree that our government needs to put the best equipment in our troops hands, BUT we didn't win the Second World War with the best equipment. If you've studied much you will agree that we didn't have the best: tank, fighter plane (land or carrier), battle ship, aircraft carrier, etc. (more on this later).

We won because we outproduced the opposition. We didn't win with tankers bought from weak allies, nor airplanes, tanks, etc.

I firmly believe that we need to maintain a US based manufacturing capability if we intend to maintain our ability to protect ourselves. I'd rather pay double for a US manufactured tanker, than I would buy a critical system from a country that can't be counted upon. That includes all countries other than us BTW.

But that's just me, I'm still ticked off that the Army bought Barrettas.

enigma

The best: tank - Tiger, from Germany
fighter - Messerschmidt 262, from Germany
carrier fighter - Zeke, from Japan (they never adopted tactics that utilized their advantages)
battle rifle - German, I forget the designation, but Kalishnakov copied major parts of it. FN FAL'l know!
aircraft carrier - British, with armoured decks.
battleship - Japan, the Yamato was truly awesome.
submarine - Germany
missile - Germany, V2

We had the best: intelligence and message interception network (along with the Brits)
production capability
leadership, civilian and military
bomb, Little Boy, and a leader who wasn't afraid to use it.

 

[310]

I think ANA (japan) ordered 50 7E7's.... Go Boeing Go

 

[SuperFLUF]

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with the US government only wanting to purchase US products with the US taxpayer's money. I would be shocked if any of the EU governments placed a big Boeing order, its called national pride and it goes both ways.