Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS.

Did The United States Air Force make the RIGHT decsion to award the Air Refuling Tanker Contract worth $30 Billion to Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS. And offshore approximently 90,000 new jobs overseas, or should Boeing an Americna Based Company have been awarded the contract since Boeing had been the Contractor for the Air Force since 1957 and keep these jobs in American, by 2012 the contract will increase in value to over $100 Billion Dollars and more jobs, was this the correct move by the Air Force??

Sure why not?
In a global society protectionism isnt really benefiting anybody and the contract was won by an American company AND a European one. Manufacturing takes place in Europe and assembly in the US afaik.
Why does 51 years of being an Airforce contractor make it better than something Northrop and EADS can make? The Airforce did make a good solid investigation on what would be the best deal and the best product that they could get. If the Boeing product wasnt as good as the other option then why should they choose that one?
Nobody wants to have or use an inferior product no matter what it is and especially the military imho.
Choose the best product and the other competitors needs to make their product better to compete.
Price isnt everything.

I agree that protectionism is wrong... and that's exactly why EADS (Airbus) shouldn't be awarded the contract. Their ability to undercut Boeing's bid is, in part, due to government subsidies. Historically... French subsidies... and awarding any US military contract to a French company... well it grates on me. France has a history of ignoring US manufactured aircraft for no other reason than not 'Made in France'. Regardless of price. So why should we accommodate them in any manner?

As far as quality is concerned... time will tell.

Boeing rocks in comparison to what Airbus produces commerically... but that's strictly a lay opinion.

And... there is apparently a question as to whether the Northrop-EADS bid meets the Airforce's stated needs. If Northrop convinced the Airforce to select them on grounds that are different than what the Airforce put in their 'request for bid' then by the rules... everyone must be allowed to bid on the new conditions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

I agree that protectionism is wrong... and that's exactly why EADS (Airbus) shouldn't be awarded the contract. Their ability to undercut Boeing's bid is, in part, due to government subsidies. Historically... French subsidies... and awarding any military contract to a French company... well it grates on me.

As far as quality is concerned... time will tell.

Boeing rocks in comparison to what Airbus produces commerically... but that's strictly a lay opinion.

---

Boeing did annouce today 3-10-08 that they are apealing the decsion, not sure if they have any chance
not to mention the loss of all those jobs in a very struggling economy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

Sure why not?
In a global society protectionism isnt really benefiting anybody and the contract was won by an American company AND a European one. Manufacturing takes place in Europe and assembly in the US afaik.
Why does 51 years of being an Airforce contractor make it better than something Northrop and EADS can make? The Airforce did make a good solid investigation on what would be the best deal and the best product that they could get. If the Boeing product wasnt as good as the other option then why should they choose that one?
Nobody wants to have or use an inferior product no matter what it is and especially the military imho.
Choose the best product and the other competitors needs to make their product better to compete.
Price isnt everything.

---

true but it is the manufacutring that will cost United States all those jobs, granite it is a combination of a US & Foreign Companies but all the work is being done over seas it is still offshoring all the jobs that Boeing would have kept here

the Unites States lost 65,000 jobs in Februaury here, the most in 1 month since 2002, the n the governement decides to take a $30 Billoin dollar Military contratc and send that over seas for producation, another 9,000-10,000 lost to over seas companies and by 2012 the contratc could exceed $100 billoinin value than many more lost potential US jobs, potenial meaning idf they wherebuilt here we would have the work and not off shore it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

Boeing did annouce today 3-10-08 that they are apealing the decsion, not sure if they have any chance
not to mention the loss of all those jobs in a very struggling economy

---

Well... I wouldn't mention it... :dont: That's irrelevent imo.

With that attitude, we wouldn't have half the jobs in the automotive industry that we do today... specifically because most "foreign" cars sold in the USA are made in the USA.

Besides... those are my tax dollars and I want best value for my tax dollars... but... not to support the French government.

Damn... I've gotten involved in another stupid conversation. Granite? That's not a typo. It's the wrong word.

No need to censure me.... I'll leave these thread voluntarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Damn... I've gotten involved in another stupid conversation. Granite? That's not a typo. It's the wrong word.

No need to censure me.... I'll leave these thread voluntarily.

---

no need to call me stupid even if you feel that way, and i say that if that remark was direct to me, as oppsed to someone else
if it wasn't directed at me my apologies, if it was it was uncalled for i may not be as bright and intellecual as you but i do not consider myself stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mkemse

no need to call me stupid even if you feel that way, and i say that if that remark was direct to me, as oppsed to someone else
if it wasn't directed at me my apologies, if it was it was uncalled for i may not be as bright and intellecual as you but i do not consider myself stupid

---

Stupid conversation.

stupid is an adjective describing the noun... conversation.
A conversation takes two people. So no... I didn't call you stupid.

You misquote (me elsewhere)
You misrepresent (what I say)
You apologize to get off the hook (for sloppy writing)

Bye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Stupid conversation.

stupid is an adjective describing the noun... conversation.
A conversation takes two people. So no... I didn't call you stupid.

You misquote (me elsewhere)
You misrepresent (what I say)
You apologize to get off the hook (for sloppy writing)

Bye

---

bye

Let's close this thread for a day or two..ok?