I find it very telling that the US government has China manufacturing General electric aircraft engines and has the nerve to allow a European company, Airbus, manufacture aircraft for the US. Forget "Global Economy" garbage thinking and get Americans back to work. The US government thinks nothing of using our children for war, why not let those that can't get on the half-million dollar lottery (life insurance for survivors of killed soldiers)and partake in the governments largess at an aitcraft plant in the US.

The Air force has made their decision and I think Boeing should stop protesting. They are really showing their rear ends like a child who cant have another cookie. Their stomach is full and they want more even though they lost. I stand by our military and not the selfishness of Boeing. Hurry up Congress and get these bigger and better tankers built. Boeing is no longer a monopoly of our government.

When it comes to the question of guns or butter, guns have ruled the day for over 50 years and look what we have, a military that is hurting in more ways than one. Waste, fraud, and abuse at the hands of corrupt politicians, greedy lobbyists, opportunistic manufacturers, and a blind public have created a bad situation that is only going to get worse. Introduce a president McCain into that mix and we Americanos will be in bad shape.

One thing very few people will be willing to tell you - including bigots in the american aerospace industry; The vast majority of components inside Boeing aircraft are not U.S. made. The same goes for Airbus and European components. Both are about 50/50 American/European in their avionics. Airframes are about the only thing manufactured locally, and even then, that isn't 100 percent.

The Airbus tanker will employ as many americans as the Boeing tanker would (don't believe the BS that politicians and idiots are passing you).

Our Air Force is the best on the planet. If they judged the Northrop/EADS offer the best, then that is their job and it is the right decision.

If our economy is in a shambles, it is not the Air Force's responsibility to try to fix the economy. Actually, the Northrop/EADS tanker is more prudent in the spending of tax dollars than buying the Boeing tanker - it is cheaper and more efficient in the lifetime of the aircraft.

As for fixing the economy, you can blame that on the idiots we've elected into office who have trashed america's resources instead of seeing her through these difficult years.

I can't speak for the US government, but in general, one a group chooses the products of company B over company A, it's either because: 1) The product is of superior quality. Or, 2) Because the product is cheaper. In this particular case, I'm sure the planes were of equivilant quality. However, I also think they were just plain cheaper. Have you looked at what unionized labor costs these days in the US?

Boohoo, one contract of the many hundreds of defense contracts go to a "foreign" comapany, (although last time I checked McDonnel Douglas was American). Boeing lost the bid fair and square. They need to move on and stop whining.

If we dare disallow international competition, then that will allow the Europeans to do the same with their contracts. And as an American comapany I'd rather do business oversees with the dollar so low.

Everybody's an economist; one considers the costs/benefits with everything. If the price paid for something produced in the US does not justify the quality - or, dare I say it - "foreigners" can actually make it better than we can (as is the case here) - then why not? It's not rational. Sure, it's also rational to be irrational, and the government could very well decide to give Boeing the contract based off intangible emotional considerations, such as those expressed by Rich. It feels better, right? After all, America is the world leader in science and technology and everything we make is automatically the best and we're always going to be the best. Reality hurts, and recognizing our shortcomings, or, God forbid, actually doing something about them, is just so much more effort than rallying around the flag.

A grand ol' plane. I remember working on #001 back in the 60's. I hate to see their replacements made by a foreign company. We need to employ and educate and support our own people, not Indians, not Chinese, or anyone else until all our own citizen's are taken care of. Does everyone know the newest Cessna is going to be made in China?

For a long time I thought that our elected representatives were so out of touch that they thought we didnt need jobs here in the USA, we could survive and perceiver no matter what.
Now I am wondering if the answer is that the USA is not able to manufacture goods at the standards of the rest of the world. Perhaps those in power see we can no longer compete at the "TOP" level and we are just band aiding our economy trying to push off the inevitable collapse of our world as we know it.
My other question is "WHERE are the those who would stand up and SHOUT ENOUGH!!
Are we all asleep, is history cyclic .
When Rome had internal problems they added holidays and circuses to keep the people placated.
We our using our Lottery and other programs the same way!
Where is our PATRIOTISM...or NATIONALISM.
WHO cares anymore....feed them a placebo and all will be ok

Smells like the Jones Act (1920) all over again, and look what that did to the US marine Fleet.
I you take this order off Northrop/EADS it just shows the whole world what a bunch of grade A1 jerks you can be.

On the face of it, the choice the AIr Force made is correct; the Airbus product is a newer, bigger, more efficient design than what Boeing had on offer.

But it also betrays the lack of leadership in our government. This replacement program should have begun 20 years ago -- at which time Boeing's 767 platform was state of the art -- and perhaps with such a move Boeing might now be in a position to offer something better.

Ultimately, when you defer government spending on capital investment, whether it is rail transport, public health, or air force tankers, you run your economy down. That's what we've been doing for the last 30 years. Countries that we have denigrated for years as "socialist" simply because they kept up on these things are now beating us.

The Air Force has hardly any bombers and an ancient fleet of tankers (and only a few B2 bombers) because the air force pilots like to fly fighters. So we have lots of fighters with nothing to do and an Air Force of limited usefulness. Giving this tanker contract to Airbus, which was created for the explicit government-funded purpose of stealing jobs from Americans, is an outrage. Have we lost our minds? No one does stupid things like that!

"Boohoo, one contract of the many hundreds of defense contracts go to a "foreign" comapany, (although last time I checked McDonnel Douglas was American). Boeing lost the bid fair and square. ......" The last time I checked, McDonnell Douglas was part of Boeing.

The article does not mention that the KC-135 has been updated with new engines, new avionics, glass cockpit, etc. I'm sure she is showing her age, but she has had major reconstructive surgery.

The Air Forece is run by Fighter Pilots!! We wouldn't need so many freakin tankers if we had long range bombers instead of these near worthless fighters. The age of air to air combat is over. Technology has seen to that. Taxpayers money is being squandered to fulfill the egos of fighter pilots period.

I HOPE WE CAN MAKE A LAW THAT SAYS OUR MILITARY AIRCRAFT CAN ONLY BE MANUFACTURED IN THE USA, PERIOD. LET'S STOP THE OUTSOURCING OF EVERYTHING, BUT ESPECIALLY OF OUR MILITARY, SO THAT IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG, WE DON'T HAVE TO CALL GERMANY OR CHINA AND ASK THEM WHAT THEIR SCHEDULE IS TO DO THE REPAIRS.

Boeing and their supporters have been wanting WTO action over the "subsidies" to Airbus for commercial airplane development. Airbus counters that Boeing's commercial airplane development is essentially subsidized by contracts to its military businesses.

So, here we have Airbus, with its military contractor parent winning a military deal instead of Boeing.

One has to wonder if that then moots Airbus/EADS being able to counter the subsidy issues at the WTO...

Just before WW2, a problem with a contract came about. The Army Air Corps wanted a new bomber. Due to contract language alone, the better plane, the Boeing B17 (one of the most famous planes of all time) couldn't be bougbt. Instead, the B18 bolo was purchased and it was obsolete the day it flew.

The airbus 330 based tanker is simply not as good as the B767 based tanker.

Let's do it over and do it right.

Why not split the order between Boeing and Airbus. The airbus plane is larger and will require Billions in additional infrastructure (Larger hangers and runways) Airbus is subsidized by Eurpoean governments which makes their bid unfair. Split the order and save face.

Boeing lost in my opinion good! They cheated the first time around, closed up McDonald Douglas in Long Beach so much for USA jobs, just keep a token running there for the C-17 until that is done. They make almost as many parts overseas as Airbus, not advertised the wings and tails on most planes are from Japan and Australia. The Airbus tanker is bigger and has more capacity. The better product won, it will be finished and assembled by Northrup Grumann in Tennasee, A USA company.
My opinion Boeing is a monopoly, in the US, the wisest thing they could have done is help MD stay open as a independent company. Just like Micosoft props up AMD for Intel, and Intel and IBM support the Linux community.

You think there is not collusions in the USA industry!

What if we just stopped manufacturing military equipment worldwide?

It is really that simple.

Boeing lost in my opinion good! They cheated the first time around, closed up McDonald Douglas in Long Beach so much for USA jobs, just keep a token running there for the C-17 until that is done. They make almost as many parts overseas as Airbus, not advertised the wings and tails on most planes are from Japan and Australia. The Airbus tanker is bigger and has more capacity. The better product won, it will be finished and assembled by Northrup Grumann in Tennessee, A USA company.
My opinion Boeing is a monopoly, in the US, the wisest thing they could have done is help MD stay open as a independent company. Just like Microsoft props up AMD for Intel, and Intel and IBM support the Linux community.

You think there is not collusions in the USA industry!

My question is very basic, how in a world in which political alliance usually but not always follow financial [ remember Japan in the 1920.s and 30's and scrape steel and oil, the embargo....Pearl Harbor... WWII and all that] how does the U.S. fight in the future if we have to buy trigger or any parts form the ENEMY? Will the U.S. be able to ship or receive supplies from foreign nations during a future conflict? And what government can know in advance which current allies can be trusted in time of need?? As the song says God Bless The Child.
Further more, does anybody believe some other peoples will build weapons of war for our troops as conscientiously as our own people. We have already had helicopter blades fall off because bolts used to secure them were not manufactured using proper quality steel and this from a supposedly close friend South Korea. IF YOU WANT TO SEE BODY BAGS SEND YOUR KIDS TO WAR IN BEGGED AND BORROWED GEAR. It is after all, your choice and your children.

See the link below to get the protest facts. Once you read this, you will understand the just reasoning behind the protest.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/pdf/executive_summary.pdf

BOEING IS BUILDING 70% OF THE BRAND NEW 787 OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES.

sorry for the caps, but you people complaining about losing american jobs are focusing on the wrong airplane. the 787 is a much bigger program than the tanker and will cost a lot more american jobs. boeing is complaining about losing american jobs on the tanker, but giving them away by the thousands while you are distracted by the sour grapes whining. do a little googling about what boeing is doing to turn japan into the next airbus. boeing does not care about american jobs!

My only concern about this whole deal is the future prospect of French blackmail with spare parts if we somehow make them mad (and we all know how easy THAT is). I can foresee a scenario where an entire refueling wing is grounded for a lack of spare parts all because some jerk like G W Bush said or did something to make the French mad. Another aspect of this deal that strangely doesn't get a whole lot of publicity -- the fact that all runways and hangars will need to be replaced to support this new monster. Think what THAT will cost. That need would not be in play if the 767 got the job.

I've lived in Chicago my whole life. 53 years. I do remember the DC-10 crash on take off wherethe engine fell off but I can not recall a KC-135 crashing at O'Hare and 27 people dieing.

Hank and Chuck both make excellent points. It looks as though The Swamp has some pretty serious thinkers making contributions.

Well, well. Now don't we have the Mother of All Clashes of Conflicting and Contradicting Interests going on in this "deal" (and subsequent reader comments)?
First -- we "all" wanted that globalized market; you know, the one that's supposed to keep costs down by allocating resources most efficiently. BUT, not for defense/military contracts you say. We should all be happy to pay for $600 hammers if they are made in America; regardless if they enhance national security.

THEN -- in an "allegedly" competitive bidding contract, one company made the best bid that won. BUT, then the loser (who happened to shoot itself in the foot previously for being corrupt) complained, and that's supposed to be okay because that company is allegedly "American".

THEN -- you have the Resident complaining that Congress puts 'Merica in danger if it does not SWIFTLY (and presumably unthinkingly) grant every request he makes for legislation -- from increased domestic spying to bloated military budgets to "allocations" for Iraq (even after physically losing $9 billion in cash). Speed is of the essence, or 'Mericans will die!!
YET the patriotic American Boeing company is okay for DELAYING even further the plans to replace the aging KC-135's, possibly putting our B-52 and other pilots in jeopardy during a potential future crunch time. Why is Congress unpatriotic for the delay caused by doing the job it was elected to do, and Boeing not?

AND FINALLY -- who knows the levels of corruption, bribery, and sleight-of-hands we have NOT been made privy to in this sordid mess.

It's just wonderful to see the cannibals eat the cannibals. It is also further evidence that the only thing that will change the bloated, wasteful, and politically-connected military procurement process is simply -- to burn it down to the ground and start over again. I doubt that that nation would be in any more danger than it is now under the current process of waste, delay, and systems that don't work after receiving tens of billions in rigged-bid contracts.

Maybe just one more thing is needed: legislation requiring capital (not $$) punishment for war-profiteers; 10 year bans from future business for contractors that don't produce the goods as described in the specs (putting field personnel in grave danger), or for contracts that come in over budget. I believe the quality of the procurement process would improve dramatically. Who says you can't legislate patriotism?

Instead of getting stuck with a white elephant,
why not have both Boeing and Aerbus build 20 tankers. The Air Force could then decide which ones work out the best for additional orders.

1) I've never heard an American on an Air France flight complain when the aircraft was a Boeing 727, 737, 747, 767 or 777.

2) I've never heard an Amrican complain when France bought E-2C military aircraft from the US.

3) No congressmen or senators complained when there was a competition for a new tanker and Airbus partnered with Northrop. It's only when the Air Force picked the better aircraft that people complained.

4) The US sells military systems worldwide. What American complains about that? Sometimes you have to buy from the outside too.

5) The cost of the Iraq war is so high that running the war for a few weeks is more expensive than this tanker contract.

6) The 767 is an older design, smaller and will provide less capability to the Air Force. In the end, it is about giving US airmen the best tool for the job. The worst use of the money would be to extend the production life of the now outdated 767.

The A330 is simply the only option...Period. If the US Airforce has a spec for a plane that size then the A330 is that latest and greatest in that size platform. Even though it is slightly larger than a B767 it is a more efficient airframe. The B767 based aircraft is an antiquated yesteryear design with low use of lighter, more efficient composites and based is upon 20+ year old aerodynamic principals. If the question was for a larger plane like the A340 then you might have an argument that the B777 could be better because it is actually slightly newer technology than the A340. In this case though, it's just a bad investment to the taxpayer. I don't think we need to worry much about jobs because Boeing doesn't seem to have a problem with outsourcing them to wherever. As far as we know the Northrop/Airbus deal might actually lead to more American jobs. The sad fact of the matter is that the KC-135 was made at a great time in the history of American engineering. When we as Americans were the frontrunners in high technologies. Over the last 20 of so years it seems that we spend more time riding the coattails of our previous successes rather than coming up with new and innovative ideas and technologies. The Europeans are winning on that front right now just wait until there is a Hybrid 300MPG Vespa scooter or Peugeot comes out with a 150MPG car to export.

The U.S. has been buying System's, and spare part's from Foriegn country's for at least 40 year's. If they are making a superior product, then what's wrong with this country. Is it the Military/Industrial Complex, Politic's? Probably a little of both. When we Finally elect people who have the balls, no pun intended, to Stand up for America and the Military, who gurantee the right to voice our different opinion's, then maybe we can get this country back on track and become a Great America again.
I miss Ronald Regan, who had the balls!

A Retired Military veteren

As an old SAC vet from the late 50's and early 60's, (4135th Strategic Wing, Eglin AFB) I recall how the same B-52Gs and KC135s we relied on then, and still rely on, have taken a licking and kept on ticking.

Our USAF men and women deserve way better than this Us vs. Them debate going on now.

Split the damn contracts, make more of the new planes sooner, and for a change, think of the aircrews and support folks who have kept us aloft for more than half a century!

Is this about specific corporations and their profits, or our lives and the people and equipment which serve and defend them?

if politics sink the deal with eads i think the us will have a hard time selling any plane anywere in the world for the same reason

Northrop Grumman won the tanker competition fairly. They were given the same bid criteria as Boeing. This was supposed to be a competition to get our airmen a new tanker, but it looks like Congress wants it to be a job subsidy program for Boeing. I certainly hope GAO does the right thing and throws out Boeing's protest so we can get a good,reliable tanker to our airmen.

Note that EADS will build the final assembly plant in Alabama which will employ about 5,000 US workers. There may be even a second plant. All this means American jobs.

I worked at a Boeing PDM facility for the KC-135 in the early 90's. We also did a portion of the JT3D project (which was an engine upgrade to the KC-135A).

Boeing won the contract and then realized they had no facilities to actually do the work! They waltzed into Lake Charles, LA (where there was an abandoned AF base with a 2 mile long runway), built every hangar on the place in 6 months and went to work. 3 years later they lost the follow-up contract and shut the place down.

These have to be the toughest birds in the skies...

I am tired f the military being stuck with things they don't want, becasue of political influence, and told to pay too much for them.

The first Boeing air tanker "deal" was all about "creative financing"; it was assumed that Boeing would get the contract because the KC-135 is a Boeing 707 with jet fuel tanks instead of seats. Two people are in jail for that "great deal".

KC-135s are TWICE as old as the pilots that fly them, and three times as old as some of the mechanics that maintain them. The USAF was asked what they wanted for a replacement. The AF picked the proposal from Northrup Grumman and EADS. Northrup and Grumman have been supplying planes to the Air Force, Navy and Marines since before WW II, from Hellcats to Intruders.

I have not heard anyone say this is not the military's choice. I am not and have never been a military pilot. I will defer to their judgment.

As a retired Air Force veteran, I was disappointed with the Air Force's decision. I'm not crazy about depending on the French for spare parts. With the current economy, just in time delivery is vital for adequate defense because you can't stock pile everything in the aircraft inventory. Some people have said that the AirBus design was newer and more efficient. I think that the AirBus product is just a good, subsidized copy of Boeing's product line. The KC-767 proposal really did make sense though, because Boeing could crank them out almost as fast as the Air Force wants them, and they could address the oldest planes first. I think the French won't be able to handle all of the extra work, and that adds up to serious time delays in production of vital national defense assets. When you need 400 tankers to support operations, 179 over 10 or 20 years just ain't going to get it. At the end of the day though, I really wish that Boeing would've had the foresight to offer both the 767 and 777 in tanker versions for the Air Force. I don't think the AirBus plane would've had a chance against a KC-777.

Yes, the KC-135 fleet is already past it's most useful age. The military changes it's motor vehicles every five to six years!! But let's remember one thing....The KC-135 is not the only refueling aircraft flying!! We also have the KC-10, a larger and like the KC-135, a duel purpose aircraft! As a Air Force veteran, I have worked with both aircraft. Think about it people, Half of the aircraft the Air Force flies today should have been replaced at least ten years ago. Who ever gets the contract has to be inspected by a government team lead by and for the AMERICAN agencies in charge of procurement! It is not always so cut and dry as most civilians perceive!

I think it is sad that our government would even consider having a piece of military equipment built outside the USA. It is plain DUMB!! Our economy is at the brink, unemployment is growing and our manufacturing base is all but gone. In WW2 we could build more, better and faster than anyone else. This is why we won the war. Now too many Americans are buying imported products just to save a few bucks and giving away american jobs. Boeing or Lockheed Martin can build better planes than AirBus and save American jobs and help rebuild our economy in the process. My family and I buy American whenever possible. We own Ford and GM cars. If we ever have a large scale war again we will be on the losing side. We no longer have the manufacturing capability. Made in America used to mean something. Make it mean something again!!

There is a reason that Boeing didn't get this contract that we will never learn. Perhaps Bush promised the contract to England for continued support in the Iraq war. Perhaps the margins at Northrop are better and the same people who own huge amounts of Boeing and Northrop stock will get higher dividends. Perhaps the anticipated stock increases are higher. It has nothing to do with keeping Americans or British working because they really don't care. The contact award is a payoff or payback for something.

Boeing will and does put Americans out of work if it can get portions of its aircraft for less overseas. Boeing will take advantage of the 100,000 additional H1-B visas Congress is trying to create if it can. Northrop will hire from the large pool of immigrants going into England if it can because they work for less.

Most of the money will end up in the same hands.

Boeing's point is significant and something that no one has mentioned. The air force was not clear in their requirements - if they wanted a larger plane, that should have been part of the RFP.

Hey, the French were right, this country was wrong. Learn to live with it! Iraq has been a disaster, and a totally unnecessary disaster. Support our military and get our toops out of the unnecessary war.

Hey, the French were right, this country was wrong. Learn to live with it! Iraq has been a disaster, and a totally unnecessary disaster. Support our military and get our toops out of the unnecessary war.

"What if we just stopped manufacturing military equipment worldwide?

It is really that simple.

Posted by: gilt | March 23, 2008 2:33 PM"

The village idiot has spoken.

The Air Force operates a much newer tanker than the Kc-135, the Kc-10 a DC-10 variant. The Airbus A-330 is an old, out of production widebody model with much too high a fuel consumption, never intended for military operations, meaning a costly redesign and the need to re-invent the critical refueling boom and fuel transfer system, not at all proven. The Kc-767 already exists, it is being delivered to the Japanese and Italian air forces.
Judge for yourself go to the Boeing website(via Google) and read the news releases dated Feb 19,March 11 and March 17 and get informed!

As a European, I was quite surprised to read about the U.S. air-force awarding this contract to EADS. I am not a military person or well versed in the details of this contract but I assume that the EADS deal is simply better value for money. It seems unlikely that any nation's military would opt for a foreign product that was inferior to a home-grown one (Assuming no bribes were involved this time round...)
Also, with respect to the potential risks of sourcing spare parts / equipment from abroad, I read recently somewhere that a French company supplies all the food for the U.S. military in Iraq, suggesting that it is quite possible to have differences in politics or foreign relations without hindering economic considerations or contractual obligations.

As a European, I'm very surprised EADS (Airbus) won this deal, but perhaps the US govt wanted to send Boeing a message. "Don't take winning for granted (i.e. don't be complacent and don't overcharge)".
However, in that case, there are many things the US govt. can do to secure american jobs: They could've forced EADS to guarantee the same number of jobs in the US as Boeing would (albeit at, possibly, a higher cost).
With the US dollar so low (i.e. US labor now cheaper), I'm sure EADS could even see advantages in that.
European governments do it all the time with big government contracts, to promote & develop their (skilled) industries.
That would solve both problems. Slap Boeing on the wrist and promote US jobs!

"Free Trade" does not exist. In this corporate run world, business's government lackeys find ways to subsidize industries they want to survive. Airbus should never have been allowed to bid in the first place. Our government's dismal neglect of "free trade" with China permits business to poison our children. Are we now going to look the other way as the union of government and business decides to farm out our defense? Not a good idea to me.

Many of the people saying "not all of boeings parts are made in america" are right, but if you ship out the entire deal to Europe, then none of the parts will be made in America.

We all want something as inexpensive as possible, from the lowest burger flipper, right on to our highest level of government.

People say it's the American consumer's fault, but they are wrong. The American consumers don't set the prices, the corporations do. We just decide when we can afford to buy what they are selling.

We're all looking for the cheap solutions to everything in our daily lives, and the cheaper these corporations make stuff, the more SOMEONE is getting oppressed. Look at the, basically, Slave labor in malaysia. They pay people thousands of dollars to get a job, only to find out that the job pays so much less than what they were expecting that they can never complete their contract or afford to return home.

Corporations have banked for so long on the ability of the american people to pay for and buy more of eveything, but once the dollar falls, where will they turn to? Will they just move like locusts to the next market and devour it?

Probably

It is quite obvious that those bashing Boeing have not read the facts.
The RFP called for a small aircraft. Boeing wanted to use a larger Aircraft but where told a smaller one was preferred. Last year Northrop Grumman complained about the RFP and the scoring system the used by the Air Force because the A330 did not fit the bill. The Air force changed the RFP and scoring system for the A330. There was no way Boeing could have changed their bid at such a late point in the game. So just how fair is this?

Oh and as for farmed out jobs the A330 will have 5 to 10 thousand employed in the US. The 767 will have close to double that.

Excuse me, people, but if EADs had won this bid in a fair fight, then no one would have grounds to protest. But the simple fact is they didn't.

The Air Force "relaxed" its own standards DURING the bidding process. In other words, they sent out a Request For Proposal, or RFP, stating purportedly exactly what they wanted and what they wanted to replace, THEN when EADs threatened to withdraw from the process because they didn't have a product to compete, some politico within the Air Force started changing things to meet EADs' demands. And the worst part of all this is that despite Boeing's 75 years of experience in delivering tanker air craft that can safely refuel other planes in flight, EADs has yet to build one single air craft, not even a prototype that has successfully delivered volatile fuel in flight to another air craft. EADs themselves do not know yet if they can even do this successfully.

So, in real life, do we choose to hire a plumber who's never seen a pipe wrench or do we tend to hire the man who's done plumbing all his life?

The EADs proposal is so flawed, so outside the original RFP issued by the Air Force, there can be no doubt for anyone who seriously studies the issue that the awarding of this contract is the result of political shenanigans and favors, not a fair and reasoned process weighing which product best serves the stated needs of the Air Force in their original RFP.

There are huge issues here that will bite our military in the future, too, if this contract goes to EADs. Before any of you make a judgment on this issue one way or another, you really need to research what the original RFP called for, and then compare the capabilities of each product offered by both Boeing and EADs. Once you do some proper research, there'll be no doubt in your minds that Boeing offered a superior product, and that we the People are once again getting screwed by those in Washington with political debts to pay.

And it's not so much us that will bear the terrible cost of this mistake, if this contract is allowed to go to EADs, but our children.

M.L. Bushman

Boeing and all the people who live in America who are concerned that the military is outsourcing jobs need to wake up and start actually paying attention. The planes are going to built in Alabama and last time I checked Alabama was one of the 50 states in the United States. They pay their taxes too. Are they not entitled to have an opportunity to produce something for our nation?
Washington state needs to get off their high horse. quite acting as if they are entitled to win. Boeing is no more entitled to win this contract than any other company. Boeing uses just as much foreign production in the manufacture of its planes as EADS. The difference is EADS is willing to spread the wealth and move production to Mobile, AL. Boeing almost chose to build its 787 Dreamliner in Mobile back in 2003. But unfortunately the idiots in the labor unions at Boeing got the corporate people to keep it in Seattle because they are entitled to it.
Give me a break! Labor unions and an entitlement sentiment are going to be the death of the U.S. not some contract that the Air Force needs to get accomplished.
And for all you Boeing supporters who say but the Air Force changed the contract and asked for two different planes. I say BS, both companies got the same Request for Proposal and both companies had an opportunity to provide what they thought the Air Force wanted. And the best proposal won fair and square. Get over it!!
If congress or the GAO interrupts this process (unless there is some error on the Air Forces part It may be a small win for Boeing but they will in the end pay a much heavier price and our nation and the tax payer will certainly loose. Not to mention getting a fair competition in the future with other companies will be in doubt. Because other companies will be hesitant to offer a bid for fear that the rug might be pulled out from under them. It will be a day to say I am sorry I am an American. Because we will have demonstrated to the world we a country full of very short sighted, narrow minded individuals who think we are entitled to everything.