The US Air Force

[G. Keenan]

The contract is actually to Northrup Grumman, with EADS (Airbus's parent company) as a subcontractor. EADS is based in the Netherlands, not France.

Airbus will also build commercial jetliners at the facility in Alabama, which is again good for US jobs.

[G. Keenan]

I've read up on this now and it looks like Boeing just got outright beat. The Airbus plane is newer, bigger, can carry more fuel, more cargo, and is more versatile.

It also has better technology for delivering the fuel from the tanker to the fighter aircraft. Airbus actually built a new boom, a $100 million prototype, and tested it. Boeing only promised to build one after they were awarded the contract.

Also, according to the Airforce analysis the Boeing plan would have delivered 13 tankers by 2013, compared to 49 by Airbus.

This boils down to a bunch of protectionist rhetoric and Boeing complacency.

[thrill]

GK, you're being too reasonable about this. Stop it and stop it now.

[Michael]

I've read up on this now and it looks like Boeing just got outright beat. The Airbus plane is newer, bigger, can carry more fuel, more cargo, and is more versatile.

It also has better technology for delivering the fuel from the tanker to the fighter aircraft. Airbus actually built a new boom, a $100 million prototype, and tested it. Boeing only promised to build one after they were awarded the contract.

Also, according to the Airforce analysis the Boeing plan would have delivered 13 tankers by 2013, compared to 49 by Airbus.

This boils down to a bunch of protectionist rhetoric and Boeing complacency.

I read very different things (in the chicago trib which might be Boeing homers). Can you provide links?

[G. Keenan]

I've read up on this now and it looks like Boeing just got outright beat. The Airbus plane is newer, bigger, can carry more fuel, more cargo, and is more versatile.

It also has better technology for delivering the fuel from the tanker to the fighter aircraft. Airbus actually built a new boom, a $100 million prototype, and tested it. Boeing only promised to build one after they were awarded the contract.

Also, according to the Airforce analysis the Boeing plan would have delivered 13 tankers by 2013, compared to 49 by Airbus.

This boils down to a bunch of protectionist rhetoric and Boeing complacency.

I read very different things (in the chicago trib which might be Boeing homers). Can you provide links?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/busin ... bus&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/busin ... bus&st=nyt

[Michael]

Well that explains it. The NY Times hates America.

[Hungary Jack]

In this age of global capitalism where a company domiciled in one nation is like owned by individual and institutional investors from everywhere else, the nationality of the company winning the contract matters a lot less to me than the quality of the product and where the work is done.

[Popeye_Card]

In this age of global capitalism where a company domiciled in one nation is like owned by individual and institutional investors from everywhere else, the nationality of the company winning the contract matters a lot less to me than the quality of the product and where the work is done.

Since it would have brought a decent amount of money and jobs to the St. Louis area, it would have been nice if Boeing got the contract. But that's me being selfish for St. Louis.

[G. Keenan]

In this age of global capitalism where a company domiciled in one nation is like owned by individual and institutional investors from everywhere else, the nationality of the company winning the contract matters a lot less to me than the quality of the product and where the work is done.

Since it would have brought a decent amount of money and jobs to the St. Louis area, it would have been nice if Boeing got the contract. But that's me being selfish for St. Louis.

Would it? I thought it would primarily have benefited Washington State and Kansas. In any event, it isn't hurting the factory in Washington that builds 767s because they have a big backlog of commercial orders for the 767.

And Airbus is building a new factory in Alabama to build these tankers and future commercial A330s. I'm sure Alabama can dearly use such job creation.

[Popeye_Card]

In this age of global capitalism where a company domiciled in one nation is like owned by individual and institutional investors from everywhere else, the nationality of the company winning the contract matters a lot less to me than the quality of the product and where the work is done.

Since it would have brought a decent amount of money and jobs to the St. Louis area, it would have been nice if Boeing got the contract. But that's me being selfish for St. Louis.

Would it? I thought it would primarily have benefited Washington State and Kansas. In any event, it isn't hurting the factory in Washington that builds 767s because they have a big backlog of commercial orders for the 767.

And Airbus is building a new factory in Alabama to build these tankers and future commercial A330s. I'm sure Alabama can dearly use such job creation.

I'm just going by what little bit I've heard on the radio. I'll admit to not paying very good attention to it.