• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Bit of a Slap . .

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Americans will be pissed when they find out John McCain had a hand in this. Although his part was noble, this is the political season.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,083
188
106
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...0629/787assemblers.gif

I know that the rudder and a bunch of other parts are currently made in "CHINA!!!" But the above graph does not show that for some "unknown" Reason....

Besides for the engines can someone point out all the Jobs the USA is getting from Boeings new work model? Yeah made here in the USA? Guess again...

 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,365
471
126
Was that the same contract where Boeing was trying to have the USAF lease tankers for far far more than buying them outright?

Why do people keep thinking giving contracts to US companies will guarantee US jobs? They'll go for parts whereever they're cheapest, have the best tax breaks, or have the greatest experience, then they'll ship the parts here and put the whole thing together. Thats just the way things are going to work.

 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Am I the only person who noticed the fact that Boeing already had the contract back in 2003, but lost it because corruption charges were filed and they received heavy fines for procurement fraud? Two of their executives received jail time, including their CFO, and their CEO resigned soon after.

How is this a slap against Boeing? Do you guys often give this much sympathy to companies that lose contracts because they defrauded the public?
Now tell the rest of that story,

The head AF Procurment Officer at the time asked Boeing for favors, first to hire her children and later to offer her a mega job when she retired from the AF.

While Boeing was totally in the wrong, their officials may have done things they wouldnt have done had they not been asked to break the rules in risk of being penalized by the AF.


scandal
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Was that the same contract where Boeing was trying to have the USAF lease tankers for far far more than buying them outright?

Why do people keep thinking giving contracts to US companies will guarantee US jobs? They'll go for parts whereever they're cheapest, have the best tax breaks, or have the greatest experience, then they'll ship the parts here and put the whole thing together. Thats just the way things are going to work.
Well for one thing, any profits stay within the US and the company will use that money to build an sell other products.

Also R&D money will to some extent stay within the US.

Assembly will likely be in the US - again a source of local jobs.

The more times money circulates within the local economy the better it is for the local economy even if some of the money eventually goes overseas to suppliers etc.

 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Nice! Competition means lower prices for taxpayers.
Actually, the Boeing tankers cost $35 million less than the one being made by EADS/Northrop Gruman. :roll:

This has absolutely nothing to do with competition.
The Air Force went for quality over dollar savings.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Zorba
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We all know how well that worked out too.
You mean with the A380 already in service while the 787 just got pushed back another year to early 2009?
It got pushed back from May 2008 to Beginning of 2009, how is that another year? That is 8 months. The A380 was delay for two years. Why do you hate Boeing and American jobs so much?

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Nice! Competition means lower prices for taxpayers.
The KC-30 will cost more than the KC-767 per aircraft. Not to mention more to fly and operate.

Originally posted by: ericlp
ignorance is bliss I guess...

Do you really think if Boeing got the deal then it would have been made by American workers? Don't know where you got your info, but Boeing business model is that most of the parts are made all over the world and just assembled here in the USA. I highly doubt that Boeings tanker would have been made in the USA.
The majority of the 767 is built in the US by US employees. The conversion would've also been done in the US by US employees. Now the 767 line will likely be closed in the near future and those jobs will never come back.

Also, very few large sections of the A330 are made in the US. That 60% US part is a completely load of BS, unless they are counting connectors.
I did limited gathering on Wiki and it appears the EADS aircraft will cost 2x as much and carry less fuel. Not to mention the wing refuelers are optional from what it seems, while the Boeing ones are superior. Correct me if I am wrong.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080229...orce_tanker.html?.v=15

Oh and the 60% figure people here in this thread seem to be throwing about is ridiculous.
"The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe."
It's using GE engines, but MOST of the assembly work will be done in Europe, period.
 

crystal

Platinum Member
Nov 5, 1999
2,424
0
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...0629/787assemblers.gif

I know that the rudder and a bunch of other parts are currently made in "CHINA!!!" But the above graph does not show that for some "unknown" Reason....

Besides for the engines can someone point out all the Jobs the USA is getting from Boeings new work model? Yeah made here in the USA? Guess again...
We are talking about the tanker right (767)? That link is for 787. Totally different animals.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I just love how people can be dancing on the grave of a contract when they bemoan the death of manufacturing here.
Here's why we're dancing:

(1) Assembly of the tankers will be in the US, with majority US-made parts.

EADS announced it would put a plane assembly plant in Mobile, Alabama, if the company won the contract.
Link

But Northrop and EADS recognized how important the role of jobs and domestic content would be, and they pledged to build the Airbus A330-based tankers in Mobile, Ala., by expanding EADS engineering facilities there. The Northrop/EADS team says the project will create 1,500 to 2,000 jobs and support 25,000 others and include 60% domestically produced parts.
Link

(2) Citizens are pissed at Boeing for the corruption scandal concerning the 767-based tanker.

We get jobs and Boeing gets payback for its shady dealings. Besides, its not like Boeing doesn't have plenty of work. Boeing will make a ton of $ on the 787, which if I recall is beating the crud out of Airbus in contracts awarded.
With the exchange rates and crazy EU unions (see the a380 fuck up), it's no wonder EADS will build these things in right-to-work state.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm one of those horrible nationalists who believes our government should not be doing a single dime of business with foreign companies. America should be spending American tax dollars in America, buying American made products, made by American workers who spend their American money in America...unfortunately, buying Chinese made goods...it doesn't matter if the plane is made by a company in a NATO country, nor if they build a plant in Bum-Fuck Alabama where workers may earn $9.00/hour...the government should NOT be buying foreign made...IMO, it's UN-AMERICAN!
Right to work scores again? I'm all for the government buying the best deal, it's cheaper on my taxes.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,895
11,102
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We all know how well that worked out too.
You mean with the A380 already in service while the 787 just got pushed back another year to early 2009?
The first 787 delivery actually has been delayed a total of nine months, pushing it into the 2009 calender year. The A380 got delayed two years and the freighter version died on the vine.

The A380 isn't the direct competitor to the 787 anyway, that would be the A350 XWB (which has a service entry date a minimum of for years after the 787). The 787 is currently outselling the XWB about 2:1.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,895
11,102
136
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I just love how people can be dancing on the grave of a contract when they bemoan the death of manufacturing here.
Here's why we're dancing:

(1) Assembly of the tankers will be in the US, with majority US-made parts.

EADS announced it would put a plane assembly plant in Mobile, Alabama, if the company won the contract.
Link

But Northrop and EADS recognized how important the role of jobs and domestic content would be, and they pledged to build the Airbus A330-based tankers in Mobile, Ala., by expanding EADS engineering facilities there. The Northrop/EADS team says the project will create 1,500 to 2,000 jobs and support 25,000 others and include 60% domestically produced parts.
Link

(2) Citizens are pissed at Boeing for the corruption scandal concerning the 767-based tanker.

We get jobs and Boeing gets payback for its shady dealings. Besides, its not like Boeing doesn't have plenty of work. Boeing will make a ton of $ on the 787, which if I recall is beating the crud out of Airbus in contracts awarded.
With the exchange rates and crazy EU unions (see the a380 fuck up), it's no wonder EADS will build these things in right-to-work state.
Airbus wants to build commercial aircraft out of the same plant eventually. Their costs and the declining US dollar are kneecapping them against Boeing.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This will probably be good because in the future, it will cause boeing to try to lower their bids and cut costs. This is probably an grossly overpaid industry that needs to trim the fat anyway.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: halik

Right to work scores again? I'm all for the government buying the best deal, it's cheaper on my taxes.

How is the Airbus at 35 mil more each, cheaper on your taxes?


Replace - with + in your basic math program.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
It's a better plane for more money, but they're honest.

Integrity counts for something. My guess is that Boeing will be a little more careful before pulling another procurement scam that costs them a $35-$100 billion contract. :laugh:
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
It's a better plane for more money, but they're honest.

Integrity counts for something. My guess is that Boeing will be a little more careful before pulling another procurement scam that costs them a $35-$100 billion contract. :laugh:
Oh bullshit, better? Its BIGGER, means they will have to upgrade runways, have less tarmac storage, build bigger hangars, etc.

Moving to a modern jet should satisfiy the needs of the AF.

There is some speculation that Airbus is already 3.1 billion in the hole on this deal because of the exchange rate, AB is going to add that to this and will will pay more...lots more.

Some of you guys are retards, the loss of tax revenue from this is going to be footed by YOU! The addition of skilled workers in the hunt for a job is going to cheapen YOUR wages! Paying for unemployment, work re-training programs is going to be paid by YOU!

If you live and work in the US, this effects YOU. Maybe not directly, but indirectly you will pick up the tab for this.

5 years ago we went thru a phase where we wouldnt even call a french fry...a french fry, for a short time they we called Freedom fries. How soon we forget.




 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
Originally posted by: BoomerD
I'm one of those horrible nationalists who believes our government should not be doing a single dime of business with foreign companies. America should be spending American tax dollars in America, buying American made products, made by American workers who spend their American money in America...unfortunately, buying Chinese made goods...it doesn't matter if the plane is made by a company in a NATO country, nor if they build a plant in Bum-Fuck Alabama where workers may earn $9.00/hour...the government should NOT be buying foreign made...IMO, it's UN-AMERICAN!
I assume you're joking...?

I'm all about bringing jobs back to America, but your plan is idiotic for many, many reasons.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: bctbct
5 years ago we went thru a phase where we wouldnt even call a french fry...a french fry, for a short time they we called Freedom fries. How soon we forget.
That was probably one of the most shameful moments in American history. I can't believe you're actually using it to defend your argument.

Guess what? The French were right. No WMDs, and we're paying $400 million a day for our mistake. :laugh: As a taxpayer, I would rather deal with the French (who tried so hard to save us from our costly mistakes) than the crooks at Boeing.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: bctbct
5 years ago we went thru a phase where we wouldnt even call a french fry...a french fry, for a short time they we called Freedom fries. How soon we forget.
That was probably one of the most shameful moments in American history. I can't believe you're actually using it to defend your argument.

Guess what? The French were right. No WMDs, and we're paying $400 million a day for our mistake. :laugh: As a taxpayer, I would rather deal with the French (who tried so hard to save us from our costly mistakes) than the crooks at Boeing.
You want to talk about the deal or my rhetoric?

This is about who benefits

France
Airbus
French workers


or


USA
Boeing
American taxpayers

Choose your loyalty

 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
Originally posted by: bctbct
You want to talk about the deal or my rhetoric?

This is about who benefits

France
Airbus
French workers


or


USA
Boeing
American taxpayers

Choose your loyalty
Grumman is an America contractor, too.
 

OS

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
15,581
1
76
Originally posted by: Lothar
Oh and the 60% figure people here in this thread seem to be throwing about is ridiculous.
"The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe."
It's using GE engines, but MOST of the assembly work will be done in Europe, period.
How it will probably work is the planes will be built empty but flyable in Europe and then flown into AL where NG will do the retrofit work to convert the planes to tankers.

For those of you cheering BA's demise, I'll just say this; on a dollar basis, BA is the US largest exporter. The company single handedly and noticeably affects the US trade deficit.
There is no such thing as a perfect company, and I hope those of you never bemoan the trade deficit and the exporting of high quality US jobs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY