Lou Dobbs is on TV right now, frothing about the fact that Airbus just got a huge Air Force contract, and Boeing lost out big time. Leaving aside Dobbs’ ranting about how Airbus is unfairly subsidized by governments (how the fuck do you think Boeing has stayed in Business for so long?), Fuck Boeing.
Fuck them hard. Anybody remember the giant scam they tried to run on the US taxpayers a few years back on some tankers? I hope they never get a government contract again. Shitbags. They owe their existence to the US Government, and they had the balls to run a scam like that over and above the normal defense contractor government teat-sucking that goes on.
And now they cry because a big contract is going to a foreign company.
Well fuck, maybe if the taxpayers could trust an American company not to fuck them in the collective ass without benefit of lube or a reach-around, they would have had a better shot.
Although I never rule out the stupidity of the political system. It wouldn’t surprise me if their bitching and campaign chest-stuffing pay off and they get the Airbus deal canceled.
Government contracts skewed towards you = “supporting American businesses”. Government contracts skewed towards others = “unfair governmental subsidies”.
Federal funding earmarked for you = “bacon”. Federal funding earmarked for others = “pork”.
People lobbying on your behalf = “advocates”. People lobbying on behalf of others = “special interest groups”.
If Boeing had not submitted a proposal that didn’t even meet the RFP, and then tried to use lobbyists and “Buy American” advocates to get it accepted anyway, I might have some sympathy. As it stands, they’re trying to tell the Air Force to accept what they feel like building, not building what the Air Force asked for. And they deserve what they got: to it, nothing.
By the way, does fucking Boeing qualify you for the Mile High Club?
It’s not at all clear that they didn’t do exactly that. Their news release today is completely consistent with trade reporting in recent months:
Spin factor indeterminate.
I trust we can agree that the choice should be based on USAF’s actual requirements, and that either contract means US jobs. But if USAF actually did conclude at some point that they needed a larger plane, the RFP should have been amended to reflect that, and Boeing allowed to offer the777 instead.
Thanks, Elv1s. I have a hunch there’s more than a little spin in the Boeing press release, based on a couple of news stories I saw and one op-ed. But I’m prepared to listen to their side of it.
My thing is this: if an arm of the US military asks for a specific vehicle, and bids contracts for the construction of said vehicle, then if it accepts the contract, then it accepts the vehicle provided it meets the criteria. If it doesn’t meet the specified criteria, then it’s on the manufacturer.
If it DOES meet the agreed upon criteria, then the goverment has a contract it should honor.
I’m not sure which is the case here.
You watch Lou Dobbs? The CNN financial guy who ran his own investment newsletter for four years while still hosting a financial “news” show, thereby putting new meaning to the phrase “self serving conflict of interest”? That Lou Dobbs?
Except, it appears that the Air Force may have changed it’s mind on what it wanted after the fact.
Boeing did tell the Air Force it could build a tanker using the larger 777, but was told at the time that the Air Force didn’t want a jet that large. It then chose the larger Airbus 330, and said the 767 was too small.
This is not to say that there isn’t reason to be pissed at Boeing for past acts, but in the end, I think it comes down to which company offers a plane that will provide the greatest number of jobs in the U.S. I think Boeing wins on that count.
Not by building planes for the Air Force. Some planes, such as the F/A-18 and C-17 are now referred to as Boeing aircraft, but were McDonnell-Douglas projects when they were selected. (Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas in 1997.) Someone once told me that as Boeing was succeeding in the commercial market, the government deliberately chose other companies for defense contracts to keep them viable and provide competitive pressure in future projects. (I can’t back that up, but it makes some sense.) They’re still a huge defense (and space) contractor, but apart from small (relatively speaking) projects like the presidential transports (modified 747’s), Boeing hasn’t sold planes to the Air Force in a couple decades.
I grew up near Seattle, have known a couple people who worked at Boeing, and they gave the world Bill Nye, so I’ll cut them a little slack. I think the bait-and-switch issue is worth getting to the bottom of. But if they lost the competition fair and square, they’ll have to suck it up and deal with it.
Airbus has defended themselves against charges of unfair subsidies by arguing that Boeing’s sales to the U.S. government amount to subsidies of their own. It will be interesting to see how that argument holds up now that they are selling to the U.S. Air Force.
It was never a level playing field. After the last tanker fiasco Boeing was forced to sign and conform to onerous and expensive oversight (auditing) agreements with the Air Force. Northrop, the shell corp for the fleecing of the deal, works under no such restrictions. Plus the dollar’s weak as piss.
Eurotrash meets matchstick men and 34,000 people are suddenly either out of work or forced to relocate to Mobile. Real fuckin fair.
Whose bid was cheaper? (This isn’t a rhetorical question I’m throwing out to make a point. I’m actually curious, because if Airbus can produce it cheaper, that’s a consideration too.)
