jetcareers - View Single Post - KC-330 AKA Airbus Tanker

MikeD · December 1st, 2004, 02:20

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aloft, you sound like one of the pork-barrel Senators from the hill. "I support base closings......just not in my district."

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful Hoss, let's not get personal...this is just friendly, spirited debate.

Speaking of Del Rio or any number of similiarly situated communities, were civic leaders to plan as you suggest, it's quite likely that the military would find this arrangement unsatisfactory. A place like Del Rio wouldn't exist without Laughlin, and yet if the town DIDN'T exist, far more taxpayer-funded infrastructure would be necessary on-base. You can't fault the townies and WalMart for providing that infrastructure, then crying foul when you deny them return on their investment. Do you know of ANY stateside installation with ZERO civilian community built around it? Where are the civil service types and their families gonna live/shop/eat/educate? Not on base. Ergo, every military installation REQUIRES civilian development outside the main gate, and since it's a military requirement, the military's gotta pay for it now or later. Such government-funded development isn't unheard of; Wendover, Utah and Page, Arizona are but two examples of government-developed communities.

As to the next-gen tanker, it's really not a matter of which airframe is better, but which is more cost-effective (i.e., less expensive). And with the subsidies Airbus gets from the European community, that's not a fair fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all good friendly, spirited debate! I was just providing a simple parallel.

Of course every base has civilian town/infrastructure around it. And the $$$ that bases provide the community are the icing on the cake for the city. The city ponies up like you say, and so does the base. But it should be well known in the back of everyone's mind just what the base exists there for: a contribution to national defense. Local economies ride on the wave of this mutual benefit. But that wave may or may not be permanent, that's the simple reality. A town would be wise to plan for this contingency and not toss all their eggs in this basket. Sure, recognize that it's good while you've got it and take what you can for it; but it wouldn't be wise, IMO, to base your entire economy on it.

Boeing and Airbus both get subsidies. But the best airframe that does the mission the best should get the job, not the one that's simply the cheapest to procure. Boeing may very well have the better product, or Airbus might. That's what we need to base our buying on, not simply who is the lowest bidder.

December 1st, 2004, 02:20	#20
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: KC-330 AKA Airbus Tanker [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Aloft, you sound like one of the pork-barrel Senators from the hill. "I support base closings......just not in my district." [/ QUOTE ] Careful Hoss, let's not get personal...this is just friendly, spirited debate. Speaking of Del Rio or any number of similiarly situated communities, were civic leaders to plan as you suggest, it's quite likely that the military would find this arrangement unsatisfactory. A place like Del Rio wouldn't exist without Laughlin, and yet if the town DIDN'T exist, far more taxpayer-funded infrastructure would be necessary on-base. You can't fault the townies and WalMart for providing that infrastructure, then crying foul when you deny them return on their investment. Do you know of ANY stateside installation with ZERO civilian community built around it? Where are the civil service types and their families gonna live/shop/eat/educate? Not on base. Ergo, every military installation REQUIRES civilian development outside the main gate, and since it's a military requirement, the military's gotta pay for it now or later. Such government-funded development isn't unheard of; Wendover, Utah and Page, Arizona are but two examples of government-developed communities. As to the next-gen tanker, it's really not a matter of which airframe is better, but which is more cost-effective (i.e., less expensive). And with the subsidies Airbus gets from the European community, that's not a fair fight. [/ QUOTE ] It's all good friendly, spirited debate! I was just providing a simple parallel. Of course every base has civilian town/infrastructure around it. And the $$$ that bases provide the community are the icing on the cake for the city. The city ponies up like you say, and so does the base. But it should be well known in the back of everyone's mind just what the base exists there for: a contribution to national defense. Local economies ride on the wave of this mutual benefit. But that wave may or may not be permanent, that's the simple reality. A town would be wise to plan for this contingency and not toss all their eggs in this basket. Sure, recognize that it's good while you've got it and take what you can for it; but it wouldn't be wise, IMO, to base your entire economy on it. Boeing and Airbus both get subsidies. But the best airframe that does the mission the best should get the job, not the one that's simply the cheapest to procure. Boeing may very well have the better product, or Airbus might. That's what we need to base our buying on, not simply who is the lowest bidder.