http://www.nytimes.c...anker.html?_r=1Of course EADS carrot dangling didn't work and it will keep it's political supporters in congress busy for a while yet. In the end 11,000 Boeing jobs were at stake in Washington and Kansas and the Air Force can now proceed with their new tanker purchase.

Outstanding... :(

http://www.nytimes.c...anker.html?_r=1Of course EADS carrot dangling didn't work and it will keep it's political supporters in congress busy for a while yet. In the end 11,000 Boeing jobs were at stake in Washington and Kansas and the Air Force can now proceed with their new tanker purchase.

Shame about the F-22s though.Daniel

Excellent! Not only does EADS get the benefit of government subsidies, but they also can bribe foreign officials to purchase their aircraft since Europe does not have laws barring corporations from bribing foreign governments.And I'd like to see the day that France or Germany purchase tankers from Boeing! That would never, ever, happen even if the Boeing offer was the better offer. When national security and politics combine, as in the case of the tankers, all countries purchase nationally if they can, regardless of the lip service they might pay in public to free trade, equality of opportunity, best offer, etc.Regarding te 11,000 jobs saved, the impact is much larger as aviation has a huge multiplier effect on the local economies far and wide due to all the suppliers involved (engines, landing gear, avionics, etc.) n fact, Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said that "the program will support more than 50,000 jobs and 800 suppliers spread across more than 40 states."Cheers,- jahman.

YAY!!!!!! :( :( :( B)

Regarding te 11,000 jobs saved, the impact is much larger as aviation has a huge multiplier effect on the local economies far and wide due to all the suppliers involved (engines, landing gear, avionics, etc.) n fact, Dennis Muilenburg, CEO of Boeing Defense, Space & Security, said that "the program will support more than 50,000 jobs and 800 suppliers spread across more than 40 states."Cheers,- jahman.

Well said. The indirect services/jobs created is more massive than people typically fathom.

Excellent! Not only does EADS get the benefit of government subsidies, but they also can bribe foreign officials to purchase their aircraft since Europe does not have laws barring corporations from bribing foreign governments.On September 15, 2010, the World Trade Organization ruled that Boeing had received billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies. And I'd like to see the day that France or Germany purchase tankers from Boeing! That would never, ever, happen even if the Boeing offer was the better offer. I distinctly remember a thread spread over several pages in this very forum saying the USAF should never buy tankers from overseas. But it's alright for Germany or France (both with citizens that work in Airbus factories in their own country)?Seriously, I don't really mind who the USAF gets it's tankers from (I'm not from Europe or the US), but it does amuse me when I see nationalistic posts like this one. Boeing would have probably won this one a lot sooner if not for their questionable business practices in the 90s and the last decade. Boeing's no purer than EADS, Thales or BAE Systems in this regard, even if they are American.Cheers, SLuggy

Excellent! Not only does EADS get the benefit of government subsidies, but they also can bribe foreign officials to purchase their aircraft since Europe does not have laws barring corporations from bribing foreign governments.On September 15, 2010, the World Trade Organization ruled that Boeing had received billions of dollars in illegal government subsidies. And I'd like to see the day that France or Germany purchase tankers from Boeing! That would never, ever, happen even if the Boeing offer was the better offer. I distinctly remember a thread spread over several pages in this very forum saying the USAF should never buy tankers from overseas. But it's alright for Germany or France (both with citizens that work in Airbus factories in their own country)?Seriously, I don't really mind who the USAF gets it's tankers from (I'm not from Europe or the US), but it does amuse me when I see nationalistic posts like this one. Boeing would have probably won this one a lot sooner if not for their questionable business practices in the 90s and the last decade. Boeing's no purer than EADS, Thales or BAE Systems in this regard, even if they are American.Cheers, SLuggy

You raise some good points Sluggy. Also Boeing bribed Japanese officials so JAL bought the 747. JAL was one of the biggest users of the 747. Now they are scrapping the birds in their cutbacks.I like the 767 but the A330 is selling better than well. When was the last 767 passenger sale? Its not rally worth it to have a jet between the 767 and the 777. Although over 700 A330s are in use today........Daniel

Everything you say is true, but incomplete: If you prefer economic arguments, then to make the bidding fair you would have to subtract from the Boeing price the sum total of U.S. federal, state and local taxes paid by Boeing, the 800 suppliers, the 10,000 Boeing employees that otherwise would get laid off, the 50,000 employees at the 800 suppliers, the many suppliers to the suppliers and teir respective employees, and any unemployment insurance paid by laid-off workers at Boeing, the 800 suppliers and the suppliers to the suppliers.Note that although the annual portion of the $35B contract is only a fraction of Boeings total sales, the impact on net income and therefore taxes is at the margin, i.e. at 100%.So on an economic basis including tax revenues lost, there is no way Airbus can win in the U.S. (or that Boeing could win in France or Germany.)So I am "amused" (as you say) when I see posts like yours that ignore economic realities, mevermind military/strategic realities.And now, sluggy, a few words on nationalism: You say you "don't really mind who the USAF gets it's tankers from": Do you think getting the tankers (for military use, as for use in a war or national defense), it really is the same if the USAF gets its tankers from:1. USA (Boeing),2. Europe (Airbus),3. Russia (Ilyushin),4. China ("soon to be announced").Maybe you really don't care, but then you say that you're not from the U.S. (or Europe), so maybe that explains why you don't care where the tankers are sourced.Finally, forget not that if not for Boeing the european company bidding against Boeing for the tankers would not be Airbus, it would be Junkers, Heinkel or Messerschmitt. :-) (Today all merged into Airbus, but that's a another story).Cheers,- jahman.

'Finally, forget not that if not for Boeing the european company bidding against Boeing for the tankers would not be Airbus, it would be Junkers, Heinkel or Messerschmitt. :-)'Actually the predecessors that were merged into the multinational defence company that I work for built the escorts that allowed the bombers to get there and back. 'Maybe you really don't care, but then you say that you're not from the U.S. (or Europe), so maybe that explains why you don't care where the tankers are sourced.'And the years I spent in uniform showed me that nine times out of ten, it's not who builds the equipment, but how you use it. There's nothing wrong with being proud of your country and it's products, but let's not pretend that Boeing don't play the same games as everyone else. :( Cheers, SLuggy

In my previous post I said "everything you say is true". Is this not clear enough for you?And where did I say Boeing doesn't play the games all large corporations play?Still, awarding the bid to Airbus would have been stupid for the economic reasons I pointed out(they still stand as you have not addressed my arguments).Cheers,- jahman.

Boeing v Airbus, eh? It never gets old :(

Heh heh, I'm only playing with you. You're quite right, the USAF should buy US made equipment where available and it is of an adequate standard for use. I suspect that the A330MRTT may be a slightly better vehicle than the 767 due to it's more modern design, but you certainly can't suggest that Boeing's offering is miles behind. I can guarantee you tho that the USAF will be the only customer for the 767 tanker, whereas EADS will (and have) sold the A330MRTT to a variety of customers.And where did I say Boeing doesn't play the games all large corporations play?'Excellent! Not only does EADS get the benefit of government subsidies, but they also can bribe foreign officials to purchase their aircraft since Europe does not have laws barring corporations from bribing foreign governments.' - sorry, I thought you meant that EADS gets the benefit of government subsidies, and can also bribe foreign officials to purchase their aircraft since Europe does not have laws barring corporations from bribing foreign governments. Whereas the US does have these laws, but Boeing do this anyway. But don't feel too bad, my employer has been caught out quite a few times as well. But the fines are outweighed by the profits and political 'connections' a big juicy defence contract brings.This, my friend, is how the international defence industry works. And Boeing's just another player (albeit one of the biggest). And if a competitor shows the slightest bit of weakness, it's swallowed up by another fish, such as MD by Boeing. And Boeing isn't immune, Boeing (although they probably won't admit it) has at least entertained the idea of a 'merger of equals' between itself and a certain UK based defence contractor. If they hadn't have got this contract, Boeing Defense may have been in quite a bit of hurt in the next couple of years. Cheers, SLuggy

Boeing had some shady deals in the past however it is in the best interest of the USAF to use a domestic product for their fleet of tankers. I think Boeing felt they had a sure thing here and they had to be put back in their place. In the end the deal should go to Boeing. Also hopefully they Boeing will learn to clean up house a little because I don't think you get too many second chances.Corruption isn't exclusive to Boeing though as Airbus has had their share of shady business practices as well. Goes to show that with these guys it is a tough market out there.

Everything you say is true, but incomplete: If you prefer economic arguments, then to make the bidding fair you would have to subtract from the Boeing price the sum total of U.S. federal, state and local taxes paid by Boeing, the 800 suppliers, the 10,000 Boeing employees that otherwise would get laid off, the 50,000 employees at the 800 suppliers, the many suppliers to the suppliers and teir respective employees, and any unemployment insurance paid by laid-off workers at Boeing, the 800 suppliers and the suppliers to the suppliers.Note that although the annual portion of the $35B contract is only a fraction of Boeings total sales, the impact on net income and therefore taxes is at the margin, i.e. at 100%.So on an economic basis including tax revenues lost, there is no way Airbus can win in the U.S. (or that Boeing could win in France or Germany.)So I am "amused" (as you say) when I see posts like yours that ignore economic realities, mevermind military/strategic realities.And now, sluggy, a few words on nationalism: You say you "don't really mind who the USAF gets it's tankers from": Do you think getting the tankers (for military use, as for use in a war or national defense), it really is the same if the USAF gets its tankers from:1. USA (Boeing),2. Europe (Airbus),3. Russia (Ilyushin),4. China ("soon to be announced").Maybe you really don't care, but then you say that you're not from the U.S. (or Europe), so maybe that explains why you don't care where the tankers are sourced.Finally, forget not that if not for Boeing the european company bidding against Boeing for the tankers would not be Airbus, it would be Junkers, Heinkel or Messerschmitt. :-) (Today all merged into Airbus, but that's a another story).Cheers,- jahman.

Good post Jahman.Boeing v Airbus wars.I actually favour the US Boeing product.Daniel

I'm glad Boeing won! Besides the economic factors, the fact of the matter is EADS never should have been allowed to bid unless they offered a plane that matched the original RFP by the Air Force, which asked for a plane similar in size to the KC-135's so they didn't have to make drastic changes to existing infrastructure. EAD's couldn't do that, so they lobbied members in Congress to pressure the Air Force to amend the requirements to allow the A330 to compete. That's changing the rules in the middle of the game. If size wasn't an issue, Boeing could have offered the 767-300, 400 or even the 777. The contractor should be made to match the customer's requirements, not the other way around!!