Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (372619)	3/2/2008 10:35:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576663

The Pentagon isn't supposed to be political but with Bushs war you never know. Wouldn't surprise me. Alabama can probably out bid Washington too. Maybe they get a plant in Alabama but what worries me is miscommunication between Europe and Alabama. Who knows, Europe is on the metric system and Alabama on the US standard. Something might get lost in the conversion like what happened to the Hubble telescope. Northrop Grumman is putting it together. What amazes me is that the Air Force awarded this major contract for American planes to a foreign firm, and yet, was not prepared to explain why it made that decision. Here's an article from the foreign press on the issue: Shock and awe at award to 'socialistic' Europeans By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington Published: March 3 2008 02:00 The surprise announcement that EADS, the European defence company, and Northrop Grumman had won a lucrative deal to supply the US Air Force with refuelling tankers, has thrown the holiday plans of Louis Gallois, EADS's chief executive, into disarray. "I am trying to leave for the mountains. I am not sure it will happen," the Frenchman, who was delighted, told the Financial Times. Boeing was the clear favourite to win the $35bn deal. Most analysts were sceptical the Pentagon would award such a high-profile contract to the European-US team. This helped explain why the shock at EADS was matched only by anger of some politicians. Duncan Hunter, the top Republican on the House armed services committee, accused the air force of awarding the contract to "socialistic" European countries at the expense of US aerospace workers and taxpayers. "These are the same European governments who are unwilling to support us in the global war on terror," said Mr Hunter. The few voices of support came from Alabama, where EADS plans to assemble the 179 tankers. Republican senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions both praised the deal. Boeing had waged an aggressive campaign painting the EADS/Northrop tanker as an un-American product that would cost US jobs. "Even more regrettable is the decision to award the contract to Airbus, which has consistently used unfair European government subsidies to take jobs away from American aircraft workers," said Norm Dicks, a Washington congressman and a staunch Boeing ally. Even the air force seemed sensitive to the charges. At the announcement of the winner, when asked whether Congress would be upset, General Arthur Lichte, head of Air Mobility Command which manages the US tanker fleet, shot back: "This is an American tanker. It's flown by American airmen. It has a big American flag on the tail, and every day it'll be out there saving American lives." With the air force planning to replace its fleet of about 600 tankers, EADS and Northrop could ultimately win as much as $100bn in contracts. With such high stakes, Congress may find it hard to stay on the sidelines. Boeing may also decide to appeal against the decision. Gen Lichte summed up the benefits of the EADS/Northrop tanker in one word: "More". "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more availability, more flexibility, more dependability . . . more patients in the aeromedical evacuation role," he said. Sue Payton, head of air force acquisitions, said the air force had gone to great lengths to ensure a fair competition. ft.com Of course the problem may be as simple as the smaller Boeing plane coupled with poor communications between Boeing and the Air Force: "There has been a gulf between Boeing and its Air Force customer ever since the procurement scandal," said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. "That has made it hard for Boeing to understand its customer the way it once did." Air Force officials wouldn't specify Friday why they chose Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the maker of Airbus planes, though they indicated the KC-30 was the superior tanker in several key areas. The biggest reason, according to Gen. Arthur Lichte, commander of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base, was Northrop's tanker's size. Boeing offered a smaller 767-200, which it planned to build in Everett, Wash., but the Air Force wanted a bigger tanker, capable of hauling more cargo and people, in addition to fuel. The KC-30 fit the bill. That misjudgment is a troubling sign for Boeing, Thompson said." seattlepi.nwsource.com