Bad Blood between Congress/Pentagon Derailing Boeing Tanker Lease Deal

[tnitsuj]

from Reuters

At least lawmakers from across the Spectrum see this deal as what it really is, a ripoff of the American taxpayer. If the Pentagon want's to subsidize Boeing, they should come right out and say that is thier intention.

Ridiculous.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I wonder what the Daschle household is doing with this

I've been against this and infact posted about this a while back. This is just plain stupidity. The lobbists seem to control everything now - it needs to end. I don't care which side of the isle it comes from.

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from Reuters

At least lawmakers from across the Spectrum see this deal as what it really is, a ripoff of the American taxpayer. If the Pentagon want's to subsidize Boeing, they should come right out and say that is thier intention.

Ridiculous.

While this is a nice deal for boeing, it is also a nice deal for us as well. This deal allows us rapidly replace the tankers we have now that are 40 years old. The operational saving of retiring the older tankers will make up for the added cost of the lease. As money becomes availabke from operational saving we will be able outright purchase the tankers.

Remember these tankers can carry more fuel longer distances. Also they will use common off the shelf parts share by industry and spend few day per year in maintnance.

Some deal needs to be made quicky to replace the fleet of tankers we have now.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from Reuters

At least lawmakers from across the Spectrum see this deal as what it really is, a ripoff of the American taxpayer. If the Pentagon want's to subsidize Boeing, they should come right out and say that is thier intention.

Ridiculous.

While this is a nice deal for boeing, it is also a nice deal for us as well. This deal allows us rapidly replace the tankers we have now that are 40 years old. The operational saving of retiring the older tankers will make up for the added cost of the lease. As money becomes availabke from operational saving we will be able outright purchase the tankers.

Remember these tankers can carry more fuel longer distances. Also they will use common off the shelf parts share by industry and spend few day per year in maintnance.

Some deal needs to be made quicky to replace the fleet of tankers we have now.

I don't think the fight is about buying them(well part of it was) but the way we were paying for them. The lease option would end up costing us Billions more than just outright purchasing. From what I've read the speed of delivery won't be affected by the way we pay.
As much as I wasn Boeing to stay a viable company, i don't think that allowing them to milk us with outrageous lease totals is the right way

CkG

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from Reuters

At least lawmakers from across the Spectrum see this deal as what it really is, a ripoff of the American taxpayer. If the Pentagon want's to subsidize Boeing, they should come right out and say that is thier intention.

Ridiculous.

While this is a nice deal for boeing, it is also a nice deal for us as well. This deal allows us rapidly replace the tankers we have now that are 40 years old. The operational saving of retiring the older tankers will make up for the added cost of the lease. As money becomes availabke from operational saving we will be able outright purchase the tankers.

Remember these tankers can carry more fuel longer distances. Also they will use common off the shelf parts share by industry and spend few day per year in maintnance.

Some deal needs to be made quicky to replace the fleet of tankers we have now.

I don't think the fight is about buying them(well part of it was) but the way we were paying for them. The lease option would end up costing us Billions more than just outright purchasing. From what I've read the speed of delivery won't be affected by the way we pay.
As much as I wasn Boeing to stay a viable company, i don't think that allowing them to milk us with outrageous lease totals is the right way

CkG

While I agree we should not subsidize boeing, I dont think the deal is as bad it sounds. There is problem purchasing 100 $200M tankers at once(a one time $20Billion purchase puts a strain on the air force budget). The lease allows them to roll in over time and purchase the tankers as the tanker operations drop.

BUt yoru right an outright purchase would likely be cheaper..

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
from Reuters

At least lawmakers from across the Spectrum see this deal as what it really is, a ripoff of the American taxpayer. If the Pentagon want's to subsidize Boeing, they should come right out and say that is thier intention.

Ridiculous.

While this is a nice deal for boeing, it is also a nice deal for us as well. This deal allows us rapidly replace the tankers we have now that are 40 years old. The operational saving of retiring the older tankers will make up for the added cost of the lease. As money becomes availabke from operational saving we will be able outright purchase the tankers.

Remember these tankers can carry more fuel longer distances. Also they will use common off the shelf parts share by industry and spend few day per year in maintnance.

Some deal needs to be made quicky to replace the fleet of tankers we have now.

I don't think the fight is about buying them(well part of it was) but the way we were paying for them. The lease option would end up costing us Billions more than just outright purchasing. From what I've read the speed of delivery won't be affected by the way we pay.
As much as I wasn Boeing to stay a viable company, i don't think that allowing them to milk us with outrageous lease totals is the right way

CkG

While I agree we should not subsidize boeing, I dont think the deal is as bad it sounds. There is problem purchasing 100 $200M tankers at once(a one time $20Billion purchase puts a strain on the air force budget). The lease allows them to roll in over time and purchase the tankers as the tanker operations drop.

BUt yoru right an outright purchase would likely be cheaper..

I don't think anyone is talking about handing Boeing a check for $20 billion and saying give us a bunch of airplanes. That has never been done before in a major aircraft aquistion. Payments are made over the life of the contract as the aircraft are delivered and accepted (which will take many many years).

The GAO, the CBO, and numerous investigations by House and Senate commitees have concluded that the lease option serves no purpose but to enrich Boeing at an enormous extra cost to the taxpayer. Purchasing aircraft (the way we have always done it before is definately cheaper according to all these investigations, yet for some reason the Pentagon wants to lease them).

It appears that a few influential people in the DOD and some congressmen/senators who have Boeing constituencies want to put money in Boeings pocket rather than getting the most cost effective deal for the US taxpayer.

I hope they squash this as a lesson to anyone else who tries this sort of crap.

 

[tnitsuj]

Remember thes outrageous leasing deals are one of the reasons a lot of Airlines are in such difficulty now. Boeing has been pushing the leases rather than purchases since the 1980's and private industry is realizing that in the long run they aren't that great a deal. This is why some of the most profitable/successfull airlines these days (Southwest, Jet Blue, Virgin, etc. shun the leases).

So if they can't lease planes to the private sector, they will turn to the government. Great scam.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

I don't think anyone is talking about handing Boeing a check for $20 billion and saying give us a bunch of airplanes. That has never been done before in a major aircraft aquistion. Payments are made over the life of the contract as the aircraft are delivered and accepted (which will take many many years).

The GAO, the CBO, and numerous investigations by House and Senate commitees have concluded that the lease option serves no purpose but to enrich Boeing at an enormous extra cost to the taxpayer. Purchasing aircraft (the way we have always done it before is definately cheaper according to all these investigations, yet for some reason the Pentagon wants to lease them).

It appears that a few influential people in the DOD and some congressmen/senators who have Boeing constituencies want to put money in Boeings pocket rather than getting the most cost effective deal for the US taxpayer.

I hope they squash this as a lesson to anyone else who tries this sort of crap.

Exactly. This shouldn't have even gotten this far, but atleast it's put this out in the open for Americans to see. Hopefully this puts lobbists on notice that their cash cow(gov't) isn't going to give them free reign of their teet.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Maybe if Boeing offered $3,000 cash back and FREE floor mats with every 767? What would it take to get you USAF flyboys to fly one of these babies home today?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Maybe if Boeing offered $3,000 cash back and FREE floor mats with every 767? What would it take to get you USAF flyboys to fly one of these babies home today?

I want the rust-proofing/undercoating too.!

CkG