InsideFlyer.com [English] United States InsideFlyer.uk [English] United Kingdom InsideFlyer.de [German] Germany InsideFlyer.no [Norwegian] Norway InsideFlyer.se [Swedish] Sweden InsideFlyer.dk [Danish] Denmark InsideFlyer.nl [Dutch] Benelux
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by auh2o, Feb 24, 2011.
| Print Topic
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! We are so, so happy.
Good to see you Sweetie. XOOXX
Not happy! I live in the city that was not awarded the contract.
I am sorry for you Westsox, but happy for Seattle and for us. This is a great shot in the arm.
Someone had to win. It should not have taken so many years for this to be settled. Our goverment at work...
Interesting quote in a related article from Wednesday..
they still can appeal within 10 days after the briefing. so don't be so happy yet but i do hope boeing get the contract
Well I certainly hope the award sticks. We really need the money.
People try to pretend that our city is diversified and independent these days, but we are still hugely financially dependent on Boeing--to the tune of something like one out of every five jobs.
While I don't care who won other than hopefully the best deal, this has to be the longest most protracted procurement in history. For crying out loud, ten plus years to do this
from what Ive read and its not a ton, it does appear that uncle same was going to give it to boeing no matter what and like many organizations, they backed their way into giving it to boeing when they didn't expect such a tough proposal from EADS
as someone said, its not over yet but EADS may just want to get out of the US market relating to defense as its just not going to happen for them
whether that is good or bad we wont know for decades
And there was me thinking it would go to Airbus
The Air Force will make it up to EADS by selecting the A380 as the new Air Force One. LOL
But seriously, I'll have to go back and refresh my memory, but I thought an EADS partnership was selected to do the new Marine One helicopters (although I think the program was scrapped).
from what was being shown on EuroNews... the Airbus A350 project has been on life support for the longest time in Europe, where the government is the only thing that keeps the project alive.
Washington state is thrilled.
Washington, DC is thrilled that the constant radio ad warfare between Boeing and Airbus (I refuse to call them EADS) is finally over.
Boeing site for the NewGen Tanker
interesting piece from the Everett Herald
A winner and a loser in tanker battle? It's not so clear-cut
Why winning could be good for Boeing
1. It keeps EADS out of the U.S. defense business for the foreseeable future. EADS likely will have to wait until the next tanker round, dubbed KC-Y. Analysts previously suggested the winner of this contest would have a leg up for KC-Y with the Defense Department. Then again, when it comes to the Air Force and tankers, the analysts predictions have been all wrong.
2. Boeing will increase its technological edge. The award gives Boeing reason to pursue new advances in refueling technology, which doesn't come cheaply.
3. Jobs, jobs and more jobs. Boeing has refused to distinguish between "jobs created" and "jobs supported." In this economy, it doesn't matter. Take one look around the 767 line in Everett and you'll find plenty of people who are glad their jobs will saved by Boeing's win,
4. Other contracts. The U.S. Air Force's pick of Boeing's tanker over EADS' tanker should give the 767 a boost in competitions in other countries. Just ask Boeing's Jim Albaugh, who late last year predicted: "Once we win this, we'll build more. We'll be building these for air forces around the world."
5. 30 billion dollars. Boeing leaders have been adamant about turning a profit on this venture. As long as the company sticks to plan, the tanker should help Boeing recoup some of the cash it lost when the company dropped the ball on the 787.
Why winning could be bad for Boeing
1. Fixed cost. One of Northrop's concerns about the contest was the Air Force's decision to go with a fixed cost contract, which theoretically means Boeing won't be able to come back and ask for more money if costs skyrocket.
2. Failure to execute on the first 18 tankers could put Boeing at the mercy of a Congress that has been growing increasingly impatient with cost overruns and tardiness in defense contracts.
3. Engineering drain. Boeing has a lot to balance in terms of engineering resources through the end of the decade. Work is still being done on the 787 and 747-8 programs, while the design of a new 737 and upgrades on the 777 are waiting to be completed.
Why losing could be good for EADS
1. Goodwill. The Air Force wanted a competition. By bidding even after its former partner, Northrop, dropped out, EADS helped the Air Force have its competition. "You have to know that they generated some goodwill with the Air Force," said Scott Hamilton, analyst with Leeham Co, after the Air Force's announcement.
2. Financial drain. Many industry observers thought EADS would have to cut its price so low on the tanker that the company wouldn't come out ahead financially on the project. And EADS already has two money-sucking programs in the A380 and A400M.
3. EADS forged political allies in the South. Those allies won't be afraid to hold Boeing's feet to the flames if the company falls short on deadlines or cost.
Why losing could be bad for EADS
1. EADS gets goodwill with the U.S. Defense Department for competing, but it doesn't get a foothold in the industry.
2. EADS and Airbus still lack a U.S. manufacturing base. Not only would a U.S. presence be a good strategic move, but it also would allow EADS to combat the troubles it faces by being on the losing end of the euro to dollar exchange.
3. If EADS was able to be profitable on the tanker, that money could offset losses on the A380 and A400M programs.
4. The loss could put EADS at a disadvantage in some international tanker contests.
5. For the Gulf Coast, EADS' loss means the highly anticipated stream of jobs won't arrive
We knew it would end this way. Too bad that the Air Force ends up with a tanker that is 30 years out of date before the development even begins. It will fit right in with the B-52's though. Honestly has not the sell-by date for airborne tankers and manned bombers passed? Is this just was way to waste more money on the very concentration that Dwight Eisenhower warned us all about?
Crazy, old design/planes or not those are some amazing planes.
Which ones? The 767 or the Airbus? I do not think either one makes sense to buy, but if I were spending money I would want the newest and most efficient technology. They'll be around for many decades. Thus, I'd opt for an A350 or a B787 mod.