Air Force Picks French Airplane for Tanker Contract

[emeraldkity4]

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01tanker.html?_r=1&ref=worldbusiness&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/01tanker.html?_r=1&ref=worldbusiness&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m wondering if the McCain connection is going to help or hurt his bid for the White House?</p>

<p>

“This isn’t an upset,” said Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area research group. “It’s an earthquake.”</p>

<p>The Air Force decision is also a surprise ending to a protracted contracting process that went on for nearly a decade and became mired in scandal and international politics.</p>

<p>Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, scuttled an earlier attempt by the Air Force to award the contract to Boeing, opening the door for the Northrop-Airbus bid.</p>

<p>Senator McCain’s campaign spokeswoman referred calls to his Senate office, which could not be reached for comment.

</p>

[mini]

<p>“SO we are having the potential of a $100 billion contract of taxpayer money going to a company based in France.
How does the American public benefit?”</p>

<p>We already have more than that contracted to a company - Halliburton - based in Dubai, on a no-bid basis.</p>

[1of42]

<p>

@emeraldkitty4

I prefer spending my money at local companies, because then the money stays local, Flora and Fauna books for example instead of Barnes and Noble.
SO we are having the potential of a $100 billion contract of taxpayer money going to a company based in France.
How does the American public benefit?

</p>

<p>The American public benefits because the government spends less money than it otherwise would on the tanker contract, leaving the additional funds to spend on programs that would directly benefit the American public. It’s nice to assume that simply because an American company won a contract the American public will benefit from the spillover, or that since a French company won it the American public is somehow getting screwed, but that is simply not the case. While Boeing and other similar American manufacturers bidding on big contracts would love to have you believe that sending a contract overseas is murder for the economy, it’s not.</p>

[mini]

<p>Well, it does mean that the profits are repatriated elsewhere. But that’s what globalization does.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>well at least we know the military isn’t a stranger to dealing with cost overruns
[U.S&lt;/a&gt;. Pays Millions In Cost Overruns For Security in Iraq - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/11/AR2007081101378.html]U.S”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/11/AR2007081101378.html)</p>

<p>[Windfalls</a> of War - The Center for Public Integrity](<a href=“http://www.publicintegrity.org/WOW/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=31]Windfalls”>http://www.publicintegrity.org/WOW/bio.aspx?act=pro&ddlC=31)</p>

<p>[US</a> War Contracts Top $25 Billion: Study - CommonDreams.org](<a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/20/5359/]US”>http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/20/5359/)</p>

[1of42]

<p>The thing is, it’s not necessarily true that US company profits stay in the US either… mostly, they end up offshore. So we can, for the most part, regard the foreign repatriation of those profits as not a particularly large loss to the American economy.</p>

<p>On a related note, mini, you seem to always be harping on globalization. What exactly is your issue with the higher living standards that have come to so many of the world’s poor through globalization?</p>

[Dadguy]

<p>So much of commerce is conducted across national boundries, that the notion of American’s weapons being built right here in America is downright quaint.</p>

<p>It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where two countries get into a conflict with weapons each has sold the other.</p>

[Bullet]

<p>OK, everyone. Get a grip here. We’re talking a tanker, not the latest fighter full of stealth technology and sophisticated electronics used directly against an enemy. Will there be requirements to install classified systems? Perhaps, but will they be built, installed and maintained by US companies ONLY, and only after the airframe is delivered from a foreign nation. It’s part of the contract.
So, will a French company build the airframe shell and some of the major unclassified components? It happens already. But will all the stuff we don’t want the world to know we have be built here? Don’t worry folks, there will be plenty of taxpayer dollars to go around to companies all over the US.</p>

<p>In fact, all defense contractors know that the only way they can get Congress and the senate to approve major defense programs now a days is to ensure that companies all over the US get a piece of the pie. Drives up costs, but it makes the taxpayers happy to know the electronics company in their neighborhood stays in business.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>This is such a huge and likely long-term contract I’d rather see it stay here rather than go to Airbus. </p>

<p>Has anyone seen the terms of the deal? I’m not sure we can assume that the Airbus deal is less expensive than Boeing. It would be a shame if the Boeing executive scandal was a large factor in it.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>I think the military has already admitted that the Airbus deal was more expensive
This just in.
[Business</a> & Technology | Boeing wins tanker protest, but drama is far from over | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008004116_webboeing18.html]Business”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008004116_webboeing18.html)</p>