Thread: They're kidding, right?????

Tweet

Originally Posted by NTFDAY

I'd almost give that some thought, but they don't let you have guns down under.

I had a job once where I had to carry a gun every day...People kept shooting at me all the time!!!! Anyway, I like hot rods and race cars a heck of a lot better then guns anyhow!!!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I had a job once where I had to carry a gun every day...People kept shooting at me all the time!!!! Anyway, I like hot rods and race cars a heck of a lot better then guns anyhow!!!!!

I sort of expected that type of reply and I respect you for it. The other problem is that they drive on the wrong side of the road.

Originally Posted by NTFDAY

I sort of expected that type of reply and I respect you for it. The other problem is that they drive on the wrong side of the road.

I just really have no desire to go back to it..... My experience with shooting people is that it never really solves the problem....Heck, in this country you'd run out of bullets long before you got the problem solved anyway!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I just really have no desire to go back to it..... My experience with shooting people is that it never really solves the problem....Heck, in this country you'd run out of bullets long before you got the problem solved anyway!!!!!!

That's a very valid point.

I believe I heard that a contract like that here could bring as many as 45,000 jobs. I just don't get it.

Originally Posted by TedIII

I believe I heard that a contract like that here could bring as many as 45,000 jobs. I just don't get it.

yes but bottom line is the old mighty dollar. Its more profitable to give those jobs to a underpaid 45,000 people in another country.

Can't remember when I last voted FOR someone instead of AGAINST someone in our presidential elections. Makes one wonder why even take the time.

yes this state is going to be reeling from that goof-up. we probably just lost a bunch of jobs.


control a nations money, and you control the nation. the fedral reserve is a crinimal cartel.

I must say it will be interesting to see what happens after the next WTO meeting with regards to the arguments before the council regarding subsidies paid to Airbus by the French and German governments over the past couple decades.

See, for a long time, Airbus has been subsidized by the French and German governments to compete with Boeing. It, in fact, is how they finally overtook Boeing in Aircraft sales......they essentially gave their airplanes away at a price Boeing wasn't able to compete with a lot of times. The difference was covered by the European tax base.......Boeing and the US Government have both filed suit against Airbus and the EU to eliminate the subsidies as they claim they are unfair trade practices. Airbus and the EU have always claimed that Boeing also receives subsidies in the form of U.S. Government military contracts that Airbus has had no access to.....that is, until now.

Maybe this is the one time in my life that I'll choose (possibly being naive here) to be a little optimistic and say, you know what, this story may not be over quite yet.

There may be something brewing here that might end up reversing the award of this contract or being the end of Airbus.....they may have painted themselves into a bit of a corner here.

Considering Airbus' stock took a 25% hit in one day when they announced a pretty significant delay in delivering their new A380 to their customers than originally anticipated. Furthermore, as a result of penalties they've had to pay the airlines to not lose their contracts, it is rumored that they now have to sell close to 460 of their new airplanes to break even, when their original figures were closer to 245. So far, they have only received orders for a little over 130. They essentially bet the company on that horse, and they may be in a bit of trouble there.

Boeing on the other hand has orders for over 450 of their new 787's. A bit more solid footing and that's the horse their betting on.

Don't get me wrong, if Boeing has the same kinds of setbacks that Airbus has had, then they'll be in the same boat on equal footing with them. But, just from a standpoint of where things are right now financially for the two companies, if Airbus was forced by the US Government to give up their subsidies to maintain the tanker contract......well, then Boeing may be at quite a distinct advantage suddenly in the commercial market coming out the other side of this.

All that being said, I'm sure Boeing is upset about the awarding of the contract and may very well file a protest that could catch the attention of those in congress. I'd also say that as a result of all of this, the heir apparent Republican nominee for Pres, will have a bit of explaining to do because of this whole deal.

While he can truthfully say that his argument was with a previous tanker contract, one in fact, that turned out to have some scandelous issues, I'm sure the Democratic nominee (and a few engineers/machinists in a few states) probably won't simply let him off the hook that easy. He'll end up taking a bit of hit on this one before it's all over I think.

Regardless of what happens in the end, one thing is certain, I'll be watching it all unfold with a great deal of interest.

Cheers,
Dutch

Boeing just got caught resting on its laurels when it counted. It's about performance as much or more than cost and the other plane delivered. End of story. Or do we want to endless attempt to justify why lack of performance of the Boeing ship failed this or that or even cost lives in the future?

As I understand it McCain did not lobby on the behalf of anybody. What he did was insist that the contract not simply be sole sourced to Boeing and it go through a competative procurement process which is supposed to happen anyway.

Although it is not exactly making friends within DOD, Boeing is well within its right to contest the outcome and now the air force will review the whole ball of wax again over the next 100 days and make sure they made the right decision. This decision by the way is based upon technical, managerial, and fiscal content and not what John McCain wants. He is not a proposal reviewer, and there are many of those people involved.

I understand the resentment to send things over seas but I personally don't have a problem with any of this. We compete for all our contracts down here for DOD. NG is going to get tons of money from this and if the French make a better product than perhaps Boeing will get a little better. Competative procurement is what keeps everyone technically and fiscally honest.

Kitz

Yep. Now in some cases there is enough money to build two or more prototypes and have the contractors duke it out with the hardware. I guess that was not in the cards for this particular procurement. But then in the end maybe it could be since it is being contested?

Kitz

My friend works for Pratt Whitney as an aeronotical engineer. He's worked for Lockeed Martin as well in the past. It seems these contracts come and go all of the time, like the new version of the Harrier Jet Fighter, that both Boeing and Lockeed Martin are designing together. The engine is being worked on by Pratt Whitney. Pratt Whitney also has several joint ventures with other companies like Rolls Royce(jet engines). I think the american car analogy fits well here, where our cars made in the US have more Japanese, Korean and Mexican and some Canadian parts, than they do American. Some Japanese cars like Toyata are assembled over here with many American parts. Its all very confusing.
I know in the aerospace industry, this is the case. When my friend worked for Lockeed, he was working on the Atlas 3 rocket. After he finished there, he said the engine for the rocket was Russian! Go figure!
I am sad when I think that the US has so many well educated people looking for employment, that this would not factor into sourcing a airplane contract. My friend had tough times finding a job when his contract at Lockeed ended. The jobs in this field come and go with projects. A project like this is huge for people's livelyhoods!

Originally Posted by Firechicken

See, for a long time, Airbus has been subsidized by the French and German governments to compete with Boeing. It, in fact, is how they finally overtook Boeing in Aircraft sales......they essentially gave their airplanes away at a price Boeing wasn't able to compete with a lot of times. The difference was covered by the European tax base.......Boeing and the US Government have both filed suit against Airbus and the EU to eliminate the subsidies as they claim they are unfair trade practices. Airbus and the EU have always claimed that Boeing also receives subsidies in the form of U.S. Government military contracts that Airbus has had no access to.....that is, until now.
Cheers,
Dutch

Let's see, I believe this scenario has played before.
Some thirty years ago Zenith claimed the same thing over the Japanese practice of dumping electronics, particularly television sets, in the United States. The main difference is that our government and courts sided with the Japanese and Zenith went to Mexico and went belly up.
At the time this wasn't a national security issue as I think this one will become. On the other hand try and find a consumer electronic device solely manufactured in the United States and owned by an American company.
We've been sold down the river and we are to blame.

because the top three candidates want to collapse the economy onto itself and creat a northamerican union just like europe.