Comments on: Bush Hands Out Jobs. Overseas

By: nellieh

nellieh — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 22:26:00 +0000

Maybe we can go back to ‘French Fries and French Toast and French twists.’ Maybe Szarkoczy offered him a threesome.

By: Tula Connell

Tula Connell — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:13:59 +0000

Hi, All: We just posted an item on a rally by more than 300 Boeing workers and the Washington State congressional delegation, Gov. Christine Gregoire and others to call on the Air Force to get a reality check on their decision to send American jobs and national security and trade secrets to a foreign competitor in the form of the $40 billion re-fueling tanker contract.

Kathy Cummings from the Washington State Labor Council sent it to us here:
http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03.....nker-deal/

By: Jkat

Jkat — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:13:09 +0000

i don’t like it simply for the idea that ideological differences or sudden military excursions unforseen could disrupt or shut off supplies .. spare parts .. etc .. it’d be a hell of a mess if if the UE got submerged again .. and the suppliers of our airframes and such were “behind enemy lines”..or incapable of producing because of ideological disputes as to the goals of our gov’t .. much like squabbles over extradition treaties etc .. and yeah .. the answer is .. ‘wel lthe world is different now that it was in times past” .. to which my reply is .. who can predict the future with any reliability .. i simply hate the idea of being dependent on foreign concerns as a supplier of our military hardware .. the potential for complication is always lurking .. more or less .. with unforseen and unpredictable outcomes ..

parochial ..view .. yes .. i admit it freely ..

but then again there’s that idea that the current companies are less than desirable in terms of actually assembling and finishing a product .. on time .. within budget ..whether that is because of the client changing the design and mission parameters .. or whatever .. it seems to be a universal constant in this sector for the past thirty years .. regardless of how simple the initial deal might have been ..

still it boils down to this .. our manufacturing base.. in terms of military aircraft .. (actually in this case .. it’s civilian aircrsft adapted to another role eh) .. is hopelessly tied to and dependent upon the continuation of current and projected conflicts .. the phrase “endless war” comes to mind ..

yeh .. i know .. quaint considerations .. parochial views .. color me old school .. our war making/enabling machines base of manufacture and design should be based within our national boundries .. for quite natural and historically sound reasons .. i might add ..

i’m bigoted somewhat i suppose .. but i for one don’t like the idea of slaving our capacity for national defense and deployment to the whims of the average frenchman .. or his factories ..

silly me ..eh ??

By: chetnolian

chetnolian — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:27:59 +0000

And the reason is the one Dakine01 suggests.

By: dpny

dpny — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:26:49 +0000

My dad actually works for one of the subcontractors on the new presidential helicopter, which is currently hugely over budget. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it cancelled in the next budget.

By: chetnolian

chetnolian — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:25:41 +0000

Good to see it’s the same the world over!

By: chetnolian

chetnolian — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:24:13 +0000

Yes, and that’s why your President will eventually fly in a helicopter designed in the UK and Italy, I’m proud to say.

I don’t think it is as bad as you suggest. International collaboration is complex and difficult, and does cost a bit at the outset, but it does share the pain of development costs. After far too many years in the aviation industry, it’s good to see the USA as a collaborative player. We Europeans have been doing it for years.

By: dpny

dpny — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:20:39 +0000

Both sides are definitely complicit, and apparently I didn’t make that clear. The problem also lies with the way the Pentagon manages the projects, which is about the least efficient way possible. The whole system is broken.

By: chetnolian

chetnolian — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:18:49 +0000

Nope. Boeing are claiming the USG increased their size requirements, but NG didn’t, indeed couldn’t unilaterally increase their size. Both offerings are derivatives of airliners. Boeing’s is based on the 767, and NG’s on the A330. The A330 is simply bigger than the 767.It’s a much newer design as well. Boeing may be a bit unlucky in the way the airliner market has gone.Following the A300 and the 767, Airbus went for a slightly bigger twin (A330), and a four engined design (A340) while Boeing built the 777, which really is too big for the tanker programme.

By: dakine01

dakine01 — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:17:45 +0000

One very major reason why weapons systems of all types wind up over budget and behind schedule is Change Orders where the customer decides they want something to be all things to all situations and load so much crap onto the plane, that it becomes virtually impossible to build.

And the companies promise all the world in order to get the contract so, yes both sides are complicit but maybe not for all the reasons you’ve laid out.