http://seattletimes....3_tanker07.html

Why don't we just outsource our military equipment manufacturing to China and let India handle all the maintenance contracts?After all, we did it with everything else I can think of.

If Airbus wins the contract, then Boeing a really excited user are just going to have to deal with it. That's life.

It all comes down to the Operating Costs and lower costs is in the best interest of the tax payer. If Boeing doesn't have something available to compete then it makes sense to shop around.Nothing wrong with the USAF purchasing Airbus for use as a tanker. They are part of a NATO country and NATO countries purchase military equipment from each other all the time. It is rare of the USAF to purchase foreign jet fighers and in the past the only one I recall was the Harrier from the UK. But that was because they really wanted to get their hands on that technology at the time.Other then that things like Tankers used for support shouldn't be an issue.France (Armée de l'Air) uses the Boeing KC-135 StratoTanker for refueling and USAF wants to use Airbus......

Why don't we just outsource our military equipment manufacturing to China and let India handle all the maintenance contracts?After all, we did it with everything else I can think of.

Because China and India are not a part of NATO.

If Airbus wins the contract, then Boeing a really excited user are just going to have to deal with it. That's life.

The A380, the delay in the 787 with fines and canceled order, the A350 not so far away and now that..."Deal with it" will maybe be harder Benjamin

1 - I don't think it's fiscally responsible to spend taxpayer's money in enriching foreign governments, especially when doing so will eliminate jobs in the U.S.2 - I don't think it's strategically responsible to place the entire source of military aviation refueling capability into foreign hands. In time of war, it would mean the odds of getting 'new'/replacement units could be nigh impossible.3 - This isn't always about the lowest price tag (operating costs, etc). In fact, I doubt seriously most people shop that way... especially on important items they need.

Considering the history of the KC-767 lease program and the criminal conviction of Ms Druyun, as well the KC-767 has a higher operating costs, Boeing can retool with future aircraft.During times of war replacement units/parts become difficult even for stuff made in USA as war can disrupt supply lines of parts and components. Even aircraft assembled in the USA have suppliers all over the world and that incudes the KC-767You never know if the next global war where to break out in Asia...France may become the best source for parts to USA during war time due to its geography, similar to USA supplying the UK at the start of World War 2.

1 - I don't think it's fiscally responsible to spend taxpayer's money in enriching foreign governments, especially when doing so will eliminate jobs in the U.S.2 - I don't think it's strategically responsible to place the entire source of military aviation refueling capability into foreign hands. In time of war, it would mean the odds of getting 'new'/replacement units could be nigh impossible.3 - This isn't always about the lowest price tag (operating costs, etc). In fact, I doubt seriously most people shop that way... especially on important items they need.

On your first two points I agree completely.I am in a form of retail sale myself, and unfortunately I have found that the most powerful discriminator in people's purchase decisions is price...even if I feel I am offering higher quality, I have lost out on business simply because of price.In our ever leaner world economy I feel like that trend will only continue...unfortunately.

Surely all Boeing has to do to win is offer a better aircraft at a lower price - after all it's the US authorities who wrote the tender documents and are evaluating the bids?

2 - I don't think it's strategically responsible to place the entire source of military aviation refueling capability into foreign hands. In time of war, it would mean the odds of getting 'new'/replacement units could be nigh impossible.

In that case the US Navy is screwed if it ever has a war with China, look how many parts for the Boeing Poseidon are made there LOLAl

From the film Armagedon...Lev Andropov: It's stuck, yes? Watts: Back off! You don't know the components! Lev Andropov: [annoyed] Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN! Future wars will have major issues with replacement parts supplies. If global war breaks out in Asia and supply lines go down then where does the USAF get the parts from?Boeing Components, Airbus Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

Lev Andropov: It's stuck, yes? Watts: Back off! You don't know the components! Lev Andropov: [annoyed] Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

The funny thing is if you tell Airbus it can't have the contract because theyre French, then there really is no point in them bidding in the future. Then the tendering option will be simpler and american. I just would hate to ask what Boeing thinks a "fair" price is at that point. Not to mention that the US would be eventually fined by the WTO. But those never work out... so I imagine the EU would implement a tax on Boeing commercial airliners or rebates on Airbuses.It's a shame politicians don't understand economics....

I don't think it's fiscally responsible to spend taxpayer's money in enriching foreign governments, especially when doing so will eliminate jobs in the U.S.

...and yet I bet you don't worry one little bit if a European airline or military force buys Boeing aircraft. It works both ways.

...and yet I bet you don't worry one little bit if a European airline or military force buys Boeing aircraft. It works both ways.

No, it's not my responsibility to worry about whether or not someone in Europe is employed.