[Britiobby]

"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback

Airbus will assemble the tankers in Mobile, Alabama

Sam Brownback

[Vjwkvkoy]

Originally posted by LordShiva
"It's stunning to me that we would outsource the production of these airplanes to Europe instead of building them in America," said Republican Senator Sam Brownback

Airbus will assemble the tankers in Mobile, Alabama

Sam Brownback He's just mad they're not being made in Kansas

[TNgqZhLR]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Plane will be built by Americans, and the military parts will be done by an American company. I don't see the issue... if Boeing wants to win the contract, they can play fair and make the better bid. My understanding is that most parts will be built in Europe, and assembled in America.

[nikolapegayyyaasss]

Amphibious planes.

[adultcomicssitedessaa]

Sinkapore Airlines

[ZIDouglas]

great title!
US lawmakers blast Boeing defense contract snub
and then the article quotes one Kansas senator against the contract and one Alabama senator in favor of it
(and both Republicans!)

[actioliGalm]

So will Airbus defenders please stop the ridiculous accusation that US military contracts are just as much of a government subsidy of Boeing as Airbus's loans for risk free product development and launching?

[pKgGpUlF]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Didn't teh A380 sink Airbus? Nothing can sink Airbus. If something kills it financially it will just be given more risk free loans to develop new products and try again. If the effort fails to become profitable...no loss, Airbus won't have to repay the loan.

[Jon Woodgate]

Yes, but you called it a "ridiculous" assertion. Apparently it wasn't that ridiculous...

[Alupleintilla]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Plane will be built by Americans, and the military parts will be done by an American company. I don't see the issue... if Boeing wants to win the contract, they can play fair and make the better bid. I agree.

From what I understand Boeing has been very arrogant about this contract. Basically feeling so entitled since they were the only all domestic builder that they refused to come down on the price at all. A couple years ago Boeing even got in trouble on this very contract for bribing several officials before getting caught and having the old contract award thrown out.

I'm glad Northrop-Gruman, Airbus, and GE won. If more of the traditional insiders lose to outsiders then maybe they'll lower their prices and make a better effort.

[Zfdeisde]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, but you called it a "ridiculous" assertion. Apparently it wasn't that ridiculous... Of course it was ridiculous. The EU was defending the airbus launch subsidies by saying the US government does not allow non US firms to compete for it's government contracts (irrelevant anyway since many EU members likewise require government contracts to go to domestic or EU firms). Now we see Boeing invest 1 billion dollars entirely of its own money into the KC-767 and the contract gets canceled by the US government because of concerns that Boeing may have unduly influenced the process and a couple years later the contract is awarded to an airbus airframe.

The EU accusations that the US government subsidizes Boeing through government contract bidding that Airbus was prohibited from participating in were obviously ridiculous or the US would have conveniently covered up the Boeing indiscretions to protect its policy.

The EU subsidizes Airbus. The US did not subsidize Boeing.

Boeing will now eat it's 1 billion dollar development investment in the KC-767. That could never happen to Airbus in any market. Now it's obvious that Boeing isn't even protected by the US in the arms procurement market.

The anticompetitive nature of the launch loans is more clear than ever, and the lame "government contracts as subsidies" retort looks more ridiculous than ever.

Subsidies to airbus aren't some sneaky little scandal that Airbus got away with or tried to get away with. Its bald faced stated government policy.

[indahouweres]

Pentagon says Airbus is preferable to Boeing? I think 11-Sep-2001 put the Pentagon right off Boeings

[Stappipsy]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I think 11-Sep-2001 put the Pentagon right off Boeings I beat you to the tasteless 9/11 joke.

[RokgroofeTeme]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, it is clearly ridiculous for Airbus to claim the US government was not allowing Airbus to compete for US government contracts even after several people (including executives at Boeing) have done jail time and are convicted for doing exactly that.

You are aware that the original tanker deal resulted in convictions and jail time for corruption, right? Such corruption that prevented Airbus from landing US government contracts, right? You don't seem to have read my post.

Criminal activity by Boeing execs isn't a subsidy by any stretch of the imagination.

When are Airbus execs going to be jailed for receiving subsidies? oh, nm those actually got legislated.

[johnuioyer]

Jesus Oerdin, can you at least pretend not to be a nutjob for two seconds so we can enjoy a thread?

In any case, there is nothing wrong with going overseas for arms when the product is superior and from allied/secure source.

The Coast Guard Dauphins, the Marine Corps Harriers, the Navy's FFG three inch deck gun, the standard service side arm, Furuno surface search radars, ALL from foriegn sources.

And it is not like this is anything more than a drop in the bucket for total spending, almost all of which happens inside the USA.

[movlabc]

Riiiiiiight....

[Trientoriciom]

You, ummmmm, just made one.

So, is this your new 5 year old defense? I must say it is a little more mature than your last "you guys are stupid heads and I am never coming back!" and then disapear for a few months tactic. Only by a small degree, but progress is progress I guess.