Petition the Air Force Tanker Contract

[Steveair]

http://murray.senate.gov/tankers/index.cfm

 

[guppygoshawk]

You know better....................why?

 

[AirBadger]

Why would you make a petition to buy an airplane that is from the USAF's perspective, inferior? By signing this petition, you throw away the factual basis for their decision in exchange for a political agenda.

 

[The_Russian]

Personally, I am concerned about the strategic interests of our country. Why rely on parts from a foreign land?

 

[pilotyip]

We do already

Personally, I am concerned about the strategic interests of our country. Why rely on parts from a foreign land?

767 parts are built in Japan, England, and France. The KC-45 will be a Grumman/Northrop (sp?) adventure built in the US with over 50% US content. 50% of the A-330 built in Europe is US Content. There are no boarders in manufacturing.

 

[Visceral]

I'll bet Boeing thought this was in the bag. When allowed to, the Air Force chooses what it needs better than politicians and special interest groups.

 

[stonewall]

I agree...sounds like the right choice was made.

 

[The_Russian]

767 parts are built in Japan, England, and France. The KC-45 will be a Grumman/Northrop (sp?) adventure built in the US with over 50% US content. 50% of the A-330 built in Europe is US Content. There are no boarders in manufacturing.

Wow, I had no idea! BTW, I did not petition.

What about the flight deck on the KC-45? Will it be Airbus style ergonomics, or will it be a real plane that our boys can fly?

 

[ekuflyer]

Just sent Senator Murray the e-mail bellow:

I was just as shocked as everyone else when the Air Force announced its decision. However, I believe your judgment may be clouded. The Air Force chose the aircraft that best fits its mission and is best suited to defend our country. So, please don't let politics try to sway a change. I would like to see Boeing get to build the tankers here in the US by union workers just like everyone else, but unless they can build the KC-45 under contract, then EADS, Northrop/Grumman must be chosen. The consumer (US Air Force) wants the best product. When you buy a car, you want the best product, whether that’s a Toyota Camry (built in KY) or a Ford Taurus (built in Chicago, IL).
Defense procurement should not be tied to job creation or job protection in any way. The best product should win, no questions asked.
So I ask you to support the Air Force leadership's decision, and not cost the taxpayers more money, by dragging this out any more.

Thank you for your service,

************************

 

[Steveair]

Airbus products are not built as well as Boeing. A friend of mine worked as Mechanic at America West and concurred. When I was based in Denver, Frontier was having a lot of mechanical problems. In the winter, the brakes often locked and didn't permit the tires from rotating. I'm not sure if the 330 has the same problem or not. You get what you pay for.

Despite where the product is built, the profits still go to the parent company. I'd like my tax dollars going to Boeing.

From what I've been reading, it sounds like the Air Force wanted something larger than the 767 but neglected to inform Boeing of this.

The KC-135 has operated & adapted diligently since it entered service in 1957. You can't honestly expect that an Airbus will last 50+ years... unless Airbus offered the USAF a deal like Jet Blue... Forget C checks and we'll give you a sweet deal on a new plane... Personally I buy things that last.