Bunson Honeydew

My frustration isn't really that the Russians want in on the bidding process, or even that EADS wants back in to go it alone without NG. My frustration is that we are years into this mess and we still haven't figured out who the hell is even going to bid on the project, let alone build the planes! For GAWDS sake, can we just get this over with?And honestly, I have a better chance of winning the powerball jackpot 12 times in a row than the Russians being awarded this contract. I think they are having a little fun with us.

:( I don't friggin believe this CF! Can we just award this to Boeing and get it over with? And of course EADS wants back in, without Northrup-Grumman. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/03/19/us.ru...fueling.tanker/

"Northrop Grumman pulls out of tanker bid" :( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34083.html

Well, the process is off to a great start! :( http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...ss%20QuestionedThey better stock up on parts for the old tankers. Something tells me they are going to be around for a long time!Just give it up and award it to Boeing. I have a feeling it's going to go there anyway, by hook or by crook. And that's fine by me! :(

"an American company employed the tactic to such good use that they destroyed a British shipyard and sailed off with $800million worth of ships for less than $200million"OK, at least now I know where you're coming from. I knew there had to be a reason you were going the extra mile in this thread! :(

"in all cases they have something better to offer than any compatible American company, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten the foothold there in the first place"You were doing ok until this sentence. That's trying too hard. A good troll is more subtle. I applaud the effort though. :(

I'm a realist. We live in a corrupt world governed by corrupt thugs whose only interest in politics is how they can use their time in office to line their own pockets. This is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be. If you can't come to grips with that truth, then you are naive. I'm also tired of watching American companies selling the rope to hang themselves with to any foreign company willing to pony up. And all for short term gain. Other countries have nationalist policies in place to protect their home industries from themselves and foreign interests. My policy would be to match the protectionist policies of other countries. What's good for the goose, ect.Now it's sunday morning, I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet, so leave me alone!! :( PS-This time I really am done with this thread (I hope). When I wake up, I'm gonna regret having posted this. I think I hear footsteps comin' down the mountain!

Short answer is YES!But it was the best aircraft for the job "specified". Airbus came back with an airplane that was bigger, with more capacity than the bid required. I think that's called cheating. When you are asked to design a product to certain specs, that is what you should do. Boeing certainly could have designed anything the military wanted.And that's it for me. The last time I got involved with this discussion, things got out of hand, and Tom came down from the mountain and beat me bloody! (I might be wrong, but I think he is involved with Northrop on some level.) And as far as anybody designing and building a better plane than Boeing, I give you the B-52.Bunson

This just sets my hair on fire. Give it to Boeing, end of story. I don't want to hear about the airbus being a joint venture with Northrop. Airbus is a European company. And yea, I know that Boeing is outsourcing more and more of their work. Tough! There are some things that just need to be made by the home team, and military aircraft should be first on the list! :( Bunson

The thing that surprised me was how badly the GAO report claims the air force mucked up the process itself. I was upset about this deal, simply because it didn't go to boeing. Now I'm equally mad about how the air force handled the whole bidding process. Not their finest performance!Bunson

well, maybe the airlines (or the union?) tossed them out at 60, then, cause everyone I knew was out at 60, the last being a friend of my fathers that flew for American, who retired back in the 1990's. I remember because he wasn't all that happy about retiring at that age.Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic, so I'll stop here.Bunson PS-Well, I just googled this, and bush just signed the bill into law in dec '07 to raise the age to 65, and the requirement to retire at 60 was instituted back in the late 1950's. You had me thinking I was going nuts there for a minute!

Oh boy, they finally raised the retirement age? I grew up in a NY suburb which was filled to the brim with airline pilots, and they all flew off into the sunset at 60. I guess it won't be too long before there are a couple of crusty old 86 year olds in the cockpit of an airliner, yelling at the baggage handlers down below to "get off my lawn!!"But I won't be on that plane! Sorry!Bunson

I know I wouldn't want to ride in an airliner being flown by a pair of 86 year olds. They don't pay airline pilots to fly the plane, they pay them to handle emergencies, and I'm not so sure a couple of those old codgers could handle the stress.Same deal with private pilots. I wouldn't trust my life to the nervous system of an 86 year old pilot, no matter how sharp or healthy they appear. In an emergency, they would be more prone to stroking out, or having a heart attack, ect., than someone 40 years younger. There's a reason that airline pilots are forced to retire at 60.Bunson

My guess is that back then, most of them carried revolvers, which are basically foolproof. The trend towards semi-autos has not been a good thing, in my opinion. Most lawmen are not gun enthusiasts, and consider a sidearm merely a tool of the trade. To use a semi effectively takes extensive training.Bunson

39. FS Tutorials Cessna 150http://www.fs-tutorials.com/en/down_plane_C150_01.phpThe little bit of cockpit shake puts it in a class by itself.