KC-330 AKA Airbus Tanker

[bullmastiff]

http://www.kc330.com/index.jsp

[aloft]

It'll be just sad if the KC-330 comes to pass, but I fully expect it will as just one more skirmish in the GOP's war on the middle class. Workers at Boeing don't need their jobs, let em work at Wal-Mart.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
It'll be just sad if the KC-330 comes to pass, but I fully expect it will as just one more skirmish in the GOP's war on the middle class. Workers at Boeing don't need their jobs, let em work at Wal-Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about buying the better product, be that Boeing or Airbus, not about any GOP war. Boeing would've had the 767 gig secured had they not screwed it up this last go around with the female AF acquisitions chief.

[mpenguin1]

[ QUOTE ]
It'll be just sad if the KC-330 comes to pass, but I fully expect it will as just one more skirmish in the GOP's war on the middle class. Workers at Boeing don't need their jobs, let em work at Wal-Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the GOP, this has to do with Boeing's way they placed their bid and their illegal payoffs.

[bullmastiff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It'll be just sad if the KC-330 comes to pass, but I fully expect it will as just one more skirmish in the GOP's war on the middle class. Workers at Boeing don't need their jobs, let em work at Wal-Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about buying the better product, be that Boeing or Airbus, not about any GOP war. Boeing would've had the 767 gig secured had they not screwed it up this last go around with the female AF acquisitions chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike,

She is or did serve time, correct?

[WIPilot]

it would be so sad to see an airbus in USAF colors.

[mpenguin1]

I doubt very much you will see an Airbus Tanker anytime soon, no matter what news stories are out there....

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It'll be just sad if the KC-330 comes to pass, but I fully expect it will as just one more skirmish in the GOP's war on the middle class. Workers at Boeing don't need their jobs, let em work at Wal-Mart.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about buying the better product, be that Boeing or Airbus, not about any GOP war. Boeing would've had the 767 gig secured had they not screwed it up this last go around with the female AF acquisitions chief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike,

She is or did serve time, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Darleen Druyn. She was helping Boeing with contracts in order to secure a job for herself and her daughter when she finished service with the AF. Every contract she's negotiated in the past 10 years is currently under review by the AF and the GAO. She's been sentenced to, I believe, 10 months in prison.

This has nothing to do with GOP or any other partisan political stuff like that. Boeing screwed up, plain and simple. Corporate greed got the best of them as well as Ms Druyun.

Now they're paying for it.

What is everyone's big deal about "a sad day if an Airbus is in USAF colors"? None of you seem to care that British AV-8A/C model Harriers were in Marine Corps colors, or that French Aerospatiale Dauphin helos are in US Coast Guard colors, or that British Aerospace T-45 Hawk trainers are in US Navy colors. So what gives?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...1_sears16.html

Links here:

http://www.pogo.org/p/x/archivecontr...tml#conbailout

What's so bad about the USAF using an Airbus? Airbus competes with Boeing, the best deal wins.

[aloft]

[ QUOTE ]

What is everyone's big deal about "a sad day if an Airbus is in USAF colors"? None of you seem to care that British AV-8A/C model Harriers were in Marine Corps colors, or that French Aerospatiale Dauphin helos are in US Coast Guard colors, or that British Aerospace T-45 Hawk trainers are in US Navy colors. So what gives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, cuz those companies' American competitors weren't on their death bed like Boeing is? If "buy American" is good for the American people, it's good for the American people, ya dig? Screw Airbus, they get enough corporate welfare from European governments.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What is everyone's big deal about "a sad day if an Airbus is in USAF colors"? None of you seem to care that British AV-8A/C model Harriers were in Marine Corps colors, or that French Aerospatiale Dauphin helos are in US Coast Guard colors, or that British Aerospace T-45 Hawk trainers are in US Navy colors. So what gives?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, cuz those companies' American competitors weren't on their death bed like Boeing is? If "buy American" is good for the American people, it's good for the American people, ya dig? Screw Airbus, they get enough corporate welfare from European governments.

[/ QUOTE ]

No different than the corporate welfare Boeing gets from the USA.

I could care less how much a company is on their "death bed". If they make their bed, then they sleep in it. If Boeing wants to get the contracts, they better have the better product and not be doing things illegally.

It's the same BS argument, aloft, that people use to keep unneeded military bases open just to maintain jobs at the base, and the local town. Local towns shouldn't depend on a base for their economy, and bases shouldn't be used as an economic engine. They're there for national defense, and if they have no mission anymore and are not needed, then they're gone; since all they're doing is porking away money with their existance.

And people wonder why we have no $$$ to upkeep our military planes and systems, and why there's no money for anything new. Sheesh.

[bullmastiff]

I could care less what company is used. I only care about getting the job done.

[aloft]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the same BS argument, aloft, that people use to keep unneeded military bases open just to maintain jobs at the base, and the local town. Local towns shouldn't depend on a base for their economy, and bases shouldn't be used as an economic engine. They're there for national defense, and if they have no mission anymore and are not needed, then they're gone; since all they're doing is porking away money with their existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great...so bankrupt Boeing, bankrupt the communities around all those unnecessary bases. What then, exactly, is the military left to defend? Hint: it ain't turf.

We're rapidly on our way toward being a highly polarized society: people who can barely afford to shop at WalMart, and people who wouldn't be caught dead shopping there. Is that what you swore to defend? Refresh my memory: what does Article 1 of the Code of Conduct have to say on the matter?

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's the same BS argument, aloft, that people use to keep unneeded military bases open just to maintain jobs at the base, and the local town. Local towns shouldn't depend on a base for their economy, and bases shouldn't be used as an economic engine. They're there for national defense, and if they have no mission anymore and are not needed, then they're gone; since all they're doing is porking away money with their existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great...so bankrupt Boeing, bankrupt the communities around all those unnecessary bases. What then, exactly, is the military left to defend? Hint: it ain't turf.

We're rapidly on our way toward being a highly polarized society: people who can barely afford to shop at WalMart, and people who wouldn't be caught dead shopping there. Is that what you swore to defend? Refresh my memory: what does Article 1 of the Code of Conduct have to say on the matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bankrupt Boeing? Are you serious? If Boeing goes bankrupt, it's no one's fault BUT THEY'RE OWN. THEY are the ones that manage their own future.

Are you telling we should buy an inferior product simply because it's "made in the USA"?

Are you telling me that unneeded bases and excess infrastructure should be kept open just to keep jobs going? At what cost? Equipment readiness? Because that's exactly what's going on right now. There are SO many pork bases eating up our cash out there that we need BRAC more than ever.

A community that has a base nearby should damn well plan it's financial future without the base taken into account. The bse is merely icing on the cake. Again, the base is there for national defense, it does NOT exist to provide jobs for the local economy....that's merely a fringe benefit. The mission of DOD is not to provide employment to small town-USA that fails to plan for it's own future. Show me where it's a decree of the DOD to be a welfare provider, via jobs, contracts, or otherwise.

A good town plans it's future. Victorville, California was so afraid of George AFB closing in 1992, yet is doing far better today than it ever was when the base was there. Why? Because they marketed Southern California International Airport and utilized it in their business plan.

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

Frankly, Aloft, as someone that uses military equipmenton a daily basis, I'm tired of not having parts and of planes that barely hold together because the money needed for them is tied up in pork barrel projects like 767 con-job lease deals (read: Boeing corporate welfare and kickbacks) and unneeded military infrastructure kept around just so Del Rio, Texas can have people working.

[bullmastiff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, Aloft, as someone that uses military equipmenton a daily basis, I'm tired of not having parts and of planes that barely hold together because the money needed for them is tied up in pork barrel projects like 767 con-job lease deals (read: Boeing corporate welfare and kickbacks) and unneeded military infrastructure kept around just so Del Rio, Texas can have people working.

[/ QUOTE ]



Damn right!!!!! Everytime I launch as spare I think about that [censored]. Or when I watch MX have to Can from another jet

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, Aloft, as someone that uses military equipmenton a daily basis, I'm tired of not having parts and of planes that barely hold together because the money needed for them is tied up in pork barrel projects like 767 con-job lease deals (read: Boeing corporate welfare and kickbacks) and unneeded military infrastructure kept around just so Del Rio, Texas can have people working.

[/ QUOTE ]



Damn right!!!!! Everytime I launch as spare I think about that [censored]. Or when I watch MX have to Can from another jet

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is corporate welfare so evil for Airbus, but so correct for Boeing? That's got to be the biggest double-standard of the whole Boeing/Airbus debate from the Boeing side.

[aloft]

[ 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/Nevada 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.

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]


A good town plans it's future. Victorville, California . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, back in 1994, I met this chick from Victorville that woul..

Oh, my bad....

Sorry.

She was bad, though!!!

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know of ANY stateside installation with ZERO civilian community built around it?

[/ QUOTE ]
K.I. Sawyer looks pretty much like that.

[MikeD]

[ 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.

[aloft]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not listening. Many of those just-outside-the-gate towns didn't exist before the base did, they were CREATED to support it. It's not a chicken-and-egg thing.

[SteveC]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not listening. Many of those just-outside-the-gate towns didn't exist before the base did, they were CREATED to support it. It's not a chicken-and-egg thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

When the base's usefulness is done, the town goes bye-bye.

The same thing happens all across the country every year. There is a small town near me, population around 10,000, and Electrolux is closing a plant that employes something like 2,700. Numerous other suppliers are closing their doors at the same time. That town is going to be hurting for a while. Care to donate your tax dollars to keep that plant going?

Take a look at Flint, Michigan for another example in the private sector.

Why should small towns that spring up to support an armed forces base be any different?

[MikeD]

Towns that base their economy on the local base are indeed making an investment. But like every other investment, there's the inherent level of risk associated. That risk is the base closing.

BL is, we don't have the money, the need, or the ability to maintain the cold-war era size and base structure that we did during the Reagan era.

[MikeD]

[ QUOTE ]
Such government-funded development isn't unheard of; Wendover, Utah/Nevada and Page, Arizona are but two examples of government-developed communities.

.

[/ QUOTE ]

Page, AZ was originally created for a specific purpose.....to house the workers building Glen Canyon dam. That project wasn't going to last forever. What's the government's obligation once the stated purpose for the town has been achieved? IMO, it's on it's own thereafter if it wants to survive.

[jtrain609]

Sawyer (Oscoda), as Steve points out, is the perfect example of a stateside facility with NOTHING around it. Sawyer was an old SAC base and was shut down when? Early 90's?
There isn't anything except for tree's for 30 miles and the local town might have 2,500 people there (if that). Oscoda hasn't fallen into Lake Huron yet, and there are still people there.