Congress in turmoil over Air Force tanker decision

[babylonsister]

Congress in turmoil over Air Force tanker decision
Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:41pm EST

By Kevin Drawbaugh


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Air Force decision awarding a $35 billion aircraft contract to a team including the European parent of Airbus landed like a bomb in Congress on Friday, drawing howls of protest from lawmakers aligned with the loser, America's Boeing Co.

The Congressional delegation from the Seattle area said they were "outraged." Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt vowed to seek a review of the decision "at the highest levels of the Pentagon and Congress" in hopes of reversing it.

Boeing has big facilities in both Seattle and Wichita, which stood to gain from the long-term project to build up to 179 aerial refueling tankers. Although Boeing was favored to win the contract, the Air Force awarded it to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and Europe's EADS.

Conventional wisdom was running so strongly against Northrop-EADS in some corners of Capitol Hill that Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office issued a statement late on Friday declaring Boeing the winner. It was swiftly retracted.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2925137720080301?sp=true

[bbinacan]

1. Which company had the lowest bid? n/t

[1]

3. so if i can buy a shirt made in china...

cheaper than a shirt union made in america, i should choose the "lowest bid" approach?

[bbinacan]

5. Dumb answer,

I think the contract has to go to the lowest bidder.

[1]

6. oh, ok...

i was torn whether to buy that chinese shirt down at the walmart or the union made american shirt at the mom-and-pop down the street.

lowest bidder. check. that makes my decisions easier.

sorry for being so "dumb"...

[bbinacan]

8. Buy the shirt

where you want. IIRC, government contracts go to the lowest bidder by law.

[1]

9. i will...

and i love by-the-book "progressives" like you, bbinacan.

we have these laws for a reason, right? oh wait! are these "laws" supposed to be to the determent of the union american worker? should we support these laws without question? or should we ask our representatives to say, "hey. hold on, wait a minute, this isn't right..."

"lowest bid" and all?

do tell...

[bbinacan]

10. Welcome Newbie

Save your vitriol for something a little more substantial.

[1]

11. as you would say... wrong answer...

don't condescend on my low post count or important questions.

stand up. don't hide behind your 1000+ posts as some kind of shield. that don't mean shit to me.

answer my questions.

[bbinacan]

12. Why the bitterness?

If you don't like the low bidder rule, call your Congressman.

[1]

13. no bitterness. why don't you answer the union question...

you would prefer this $35 billion contract go overseas as apposed to supporting an american union company?

why?

[bbinacan]

17. Yes I would prefer

that the contract went to Boeing instead of Northrop Grumman and Airbus. As a matter of fact, I think that most US military contracts should go to US companies. Happy now?:toast:

[lectrobyte]

20. Northrop Grumman is an American company. Boeing makes

parts in China.

[ConsAreLiars]

23. That was lame.

And false.

[1]

25. sorry...

i love this game you play.

its so easy. so now i can laugh and say, your game is so lame and false. just like you did.
and we go on and on.

do provide me with one single fucking fact to support your lame argument...

prove your point or move on.


and i love this "i've got 1000+ posts and you don't" argument. like that means anything. back up your arguments with facts, not your post count. you don't impress me with your post count.

got facts?

prove it.

else, step aside.

[jmowreader]

29. Boeing is also an American company...

but, for some strange reason, I have this feeling that if Boeing would have won the contract, they wouldn't have based their design on an airplane that's made in France.

[ConsAreLiars]

14. The criteria used was not :"low bidder."

What an ignorant claim.

[1]

15. sorry for being "ignorant"...

do tell me.

what was the critera?

[ConsAreLiars]

16. I'll give you a clue.

Read any of the news reports.

(edit to add)
Short answer, carrying capacity allegedly. I think corruption is a more likely answer.

[bbinacan]

18. Oh good grief.

Can you provide links? Supporting data? What news articles? Please.:eyes:

[ConsAreLiars]

21. There are several search engines available.

You've probably heard of them. Before again making silly claims like that some imaginary "low bidder" rule dictated the decision, you might want learn to use them. It's pretty easy, once you get into the habit. If you need any assistance, feel free to ask for help.

A common source for news is http://news.google.com/

If you put "Air Force tanker" into the search box it brings you to a page of recent articles, and you can scan through to see which are most likely to provide useful information.

Some of the articles are useless, a few contain the official rationale, but none suggest that the decision was based on your "low bidder" fantasy. If you want to claim that it was based on such a criterion, then it is up to you to find supporting evidence. If you had attempted to do so, you would have found that there is none, and would have known that much at least.

[bbinacan]

28. I'm enjoying my dinner of crow.

You are right and I am wrong. I really thought they went with the low bidder.

EADS had "made an offer judged compatible with our capabilities and our competitiveness," said Gallois, but "the price was not decisive in the matter" as the choice was made on "the qualities of the plane."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080301/ts_afp/useuropemilitaryaerospacecompanyboeingeads_080301015112
:blush: :toast:

[1]

19. so. no jobs for american workers is better why?

please explain that.

[ConsAreLiars]

22. Not better. Just more evidence that the criminals are in charge.

They made up some BS crap to "explain" this betrayal, as they always do.

I just meant to point out that the other BS crap (that they "had to" decide against the interests of the people of this country because of some imaginary "low bidder" rule) was not the BS crap they chose to use. The BS crap they put out was more along the lines that "it holds more gallons" even though there were a zillion such pluses and minuses for both options.

These criminals are corrupt to the core. They would choose whatever did the most damage to this country sheerly out of contempt, but I'm sure they'd make sure to line their pockets at the same time.

[1]

26. this is so fucking amazing to me...

"progressives" that want to deny jobs to americans. union employed americans.

what exactly is your agenda, ConsAreLiars?

and what is its purpose?

[Angleae]

27. How do you figure "no jobs for american workers"?

The planes will be assembled in Alabama.

[east texas lib]

2. Ah, yes. It's tough to have go cold turkey off the sweet opium of defense contracts..

Especially after the lobbyists have invested so much. It just ain't right!

[greenbriar]

4. Wichita boeing was counting on that contract

now they are talking layoffs



the only thing good about it is Tihrdt looks like a retard now :) because he has been all over the news and saying that Boeing would get it and it would be a great boon for Wichita

maybe that will help the D candidate take his seat PLEASEEEEEEEE

[Rex]

7. But I thought they loved capitalism?!

Series.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

24. We should manufacture here if the opportunity arises.

Unless, of course, there is an opportunity for a better kickback by going overseas.

See how easy this decisioning is?

[Parche]

30. Monday

I am emailing my Senator and Rep, and walking down to my reps office, which is 2blocks from my office to let them know that we dont want Airbus to build tankers for the Air Force
:hi: