I don't think you understand that it's a zero sum game to begin with.... whatever you think your gain is you will lose in unfair trade practices from the otherside. It's really that simple.

The problem with a Buy America approach is American Firms at times will get a little too comfortable with that. That is when firms will get into Anti-Trust and Monopolies and other corruptions. The KC-767 program was cancelled due to rising costs on Boeings part mixed with the cost of leasing the aircraft. And Boeing was getting a little too sure of themselves, Just Google the name Darleen Druyun to see some of the known illegal activities on Boeings part.So Boeing got a black eye on this one. USAF takes it to the competitor after a bad history with the KC-767 program. Keeping jobs in America is fine but as the old saying goes…. when it costs more to take the coal out of the ground then what it is worth at the market, close the mine.

And did I miss something who cares who makes the airframe... It's about a value added product that provides 1000 jobs anyways which stay in the US. Isn't that more than enough? How many jobs would it have created at Boeing? I doubt 1000.

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.

:(

I don't think you understand that it's a zero sum game to begin with.... whatever you think your gain is you will lose in unfair trade practices from the otherside. It's really that simple.

Exactly why the world needs to change the way they do business and go back to keeping critical things in house. This global progressive Utopian trade agreement will get us all killed if we don't wise up. China is no real friend to the US or Europe and will take us down the first chance the stars line up their way. Doing business with Russia in any way makes no since as well but that's another topic. This is not a stab at average citizens of these countries because like us their along for the ride and are all but powerless. These various governments are sworn enemies and know full well product control over the markets can seriously hinder the influence of another nations power. That's why the rest of the world can't move on North Korea or Iran because China won't allow it let alone Russia. The best option in the direction of common since is for America to allow Boeing to get the contract no matter what the report is saying about the two aircraft (Boeing just needs to do a better job with efficiency). I would say the same for France if it were the other way around. When it comes to national security regular trade practices should be out the window as the world has changed so much (it's actually never been conducive to this but that's another conversation). Unless Aliens come down to Earth to show us we are not alone in the Universe men will continue to find reasons to hate each other for sinceless things like religion, land, money, eye color or whatever excuse he can find for conflict. Outside of national security equipment all other none critical trade is open but every nation needs to leave a window for itself to draw from should they be attacked. Not be beholden to any other nation but themselves to protect themselves.

The problem with a Buy America approach is American Firms at times will get a little too comfortable with that. That is when firms will get into Anti-Trust and Monopolies and other corruptions. The KC-767 program was cancelled due to rising costs on Boeings part mixed with the cost of leasing the aircraft. And Boeing was getting a little too sure of themselves, Just Google the name Darleen Druyun to see some of the known illegal activities on Boeings part.So Boeing got a black eye on this one. USAF takes it to the competitor after a bad history with the KC-767 program. Keeping jobs in America is fine but as the old saying goes…. when it costs more to take the coal out of the ground then what it is worth at the market, close the mine.

We should have never allowed Boeing to be the single player in the US airline manufacturing market. McDonald/Douglas should still be around along with a few others. America was supposed to be against such things but as of late companies like Exxon/Mobil, Delta, United, and many others have ascended the golden path of absolute power. When called on it they are 'Global Corporations', when it's convenient they are American companies. Hence my writeup above when countries aren't retaining some since of self security/reliance with the exception being China (who's building up their military and in house resources), there's serious problems ahead should any nation not wise to see this before hand need to defend itself.

Dillon the US Government can do whatever it wants.... all i'm saying is don't be surprised when the EU prints up some money and gives it as zero cost loans to all Airbus customers, including those folks at Delta and United who you just pointed out would sell out if it's in their best interest. Then Boeing can try to compete with that... will you guys be willing to bail out Boeing when this happens?

We should have never allowed Boeing to be the single player in the US airline manufacturing market. McDonald/Douglas should still be around along with a few others. America was supposed to be against such things but as of late companies like Exxon/Mobil, Delta, United, and many others have ascended the golden path of absolute power. When called on it they are 'Global Corporations', when it's convenient they are American companies. Hence my writeup above when countries aren't retaining some since of self security/reliance with the exception being China (who's building up their military and in house resources), there's serious problems ahead should any nation not wise to see this before hand need to defend itself.

I agree with Dillon here. I feel if there were to be another Global War it will be sort of the same situation as the outbreak of World War 2. The aircraft, weapons, hardware will all be obsolete within the first 6 months and the ole industrial engine will have to kick in and replace just about everything. At the end of World War 2 the equipment being used in battle didn't exist at the start of the war. It is impossible to prepare for any future war, as the conditions will not be known until it happens. The strategy begins the moment the war begins.Pre-war times all you can do is buy equipment to adequately defend the homeland from potential attacks. The enemy will always look for weaknesses and use the element of surprise.

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....

From the solicitation FA8625-10-R-6600:"836 AESG/H018 WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION DISPUTE -- COSTS UNALLOWABLE (JUL 2009)Any penalties, taxes, tariffs, duties, or other similar-type costs imposed by a Governmental entity as asanction, enforcement or implementation measure resulting from a decision in the complaints "Matters ofEuropean Communities and Certain Member States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft" or"United States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft" before the World Trade Organizationshall not be included in the negotiated price of this contract, nor shall such costs be an allowable direct orindirect charge against this contract."scott s..

The problem with a Buy America approach is American Firms at times will get a little too comfortable with that. That is when firms will get into Anti-Trust and Monopolies and other corruptions.

The solicitation FA8625-10-R-6600 incorporates DFAR Supplement clause 252.225-7000 which provides in part:Buy American Act and Balance of Payments Program (B ) This clause implements the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. Section 10a-d). In accordance with 41 U.S.C. 431, the component test of the Buy American Act is waived for an end product that is a COTS item (see section 12.505(a)(1) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation). Unless otherwise specified, this clause applies to all line items in the contract. © The Contractor shall deliver only domestic end products unless, in its offer, it specified delivery of other end products in the Buy American Act¾Balance of Payments Program Certificate provision of the solicitation. If the Contractor certified in its offer that it will deliver a qualifying country end product, the Contractor shall deliver a qualifying country end product or, at the Contractor’s option, a domestic end product.Note also from DFARS 252.872-1Contracting with qualifying country sources(a) As a result of memoranda of understanding and other international agreements, DoD has determined it inconsistent with the public interest to apply restrictions of the Buy American Act or the Balance of Payments Program to the acquisition of qualifying country end products from the following qualifying countries:AustraliaBelgiumCanadaDenmarkEgyptFederal Republic of GermanyFinlandFranceGreeceIsraelItalyLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPortugalSpainSwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelandscott s..

From the solicitation FA8625-10-R-6600:"836 AESG/H018 WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION DISPUTE -- COSTS UNALLOWABLE (JUL 2009)Any penalties, taxes, tariffs, duties, or other similar-type costs imposed by a Governmental entity as asanction, enforcement or implementation measure resulting from a decision in the complaints "Matters ofEuropean Communities and Certain Member States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft" or"United States - Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft" before the World Trade Organizationshall not be included in the negotiated price of this contract, nor shall such costs be an allowable direct orindirect charge against this contract."scott s..

Bingo! See they all go hand in hand. Now read that from the perspective of both parties involved and understand why they had to write it down somewhere.

While I would like to see EVERY job return to the states that left for foreign soil, I especially believe that ANYTHING that is used by the U.S. military should be built in the states. In addition, all resources used to make any item should also originate in the states. The military CANNOT be dependent on anyone outside of the shoreline. But that's just my 2 cents. :)Don

While I would like to see EVERY job return to the states that left for foreign soil, I especially believe that ANYTHING that is used by the U.S. military should be built in the states. In addition, all resources used to make any item should also originate in the states. The military CANNOT be dependent on anyone outside of the shoreline. But that's just my 2 cents. :)Don

I agree 100%.

Then split the Boeing company in two.. and sell the military arm to Halliburton... problem solved.

I’m sorry Boeing but you offered an inferior/ancient product in the 767 when you should have offered a modified 777 or 787; remember how the 707 came to be from the KC-135 in the late 1950’s/early 1960’s which was revolutionary for this time period. Before we award the contract to Airbus (EADS), we should put in a clause that the aircraft should be built/assembled domestically to help the American worker and help Airbus themselves since the European worker is actually paid more due to currency differences (US Dollar vs. the Euro). I know China is already doing this with Airbus before awarding the last several contracts for A319/A320’s which allows the later part of the deliveries to be built domestically.Just my opinion, Darryl

Why should the USAF rely on a foreign company for it's tankers, or any military aircraft for that matter? And Boeing has been building military aircraft for decades. They actually know what they are doing. The 767 may be older, but from what I'm understanding, their KC-45 proposal is modernized.