USAF tanker comp looks bad for Boeing (good for Airbus)

[Golan III]

What I think is really funny about the state of our industries today is that not too long ago, nearly every contractor was willing to create a new product to fit the requirements of a DoD Request For Proposals, and fit it exactly, instead of trying to alter and bend the program requirements to make their existing product qualify.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What I think is really funny about the state of our industries today is that not too long ago, nearly every contractor was willing to create a new product to fit the requirements of a DoD Request For Proposals, and fit it exactly, instead of trying to alter and bend the program requirements to make their existing product qualify.

I think, given the whole shit load of program screw ups lately, the real problem is lack of good program oversight. Until someone does it right and holds back expectations and reins in the contractors, lots of screw ups will occur.

[Vympel]

You appear to be badly misunderstanding my point.

I thought your point was pretty clear- you were just wrong

Yes the Boeing number might be a bit inflated, but certainly the Airbus numbers for the US they give out will be as well. Basically allot of people who barely spend any significant port of their job time working on subcontract related work for the tanker project get counted as "new jobs produced."

Same goes for Boeing- what I'm trying to do now is find the Chamber of Commerce document or whatever that asserts that the same amount of jobs will be created for either.

The basic point is that asubstancial porportion of the real jobs for this sort of project will be in the assembly stage, so those Airbus numbers are key. By contrast, around 7,000 jobs in Washinton State will be supported by the 767 tanker program. (Otherwise the 767 line is winding down so they would be laid off soon, or at least have to tranfer to work on other aircraft, reducing new hirings.)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ker12.html

Now that's a more valid point- though when all is said and done none of this should have anything to do with the program, unfortunately it does.

Furthermore, the Mobile, Alabama plant where 1,000 jobs may be produced will include the work done specifically to make the A330 tanker modified and ready. By contrast, the Boeing 767s are planned to be flown to Wichita, where another around 500 jobs will be produced as this modification work is done.
http://wichita.bizjournals.com/wichita/ ... ily14.html

Which sounds like a colossal waste of time and a clear case of Political Engineering to me (as those who follow pork-barrelling call it)- spreading out jobs among as many places as possible to ensure the maximum number of Congressional votes.
\

[Omega18]

Which sounds like a colossal waste of time and a clear case of Political Engineering to me (as those who follow pork-barrelling call it)- spreading out jobs among as many places as possible to ensure the maximum number of Congressional votes.

There actually is a key reason behind the general procedure here. Due to US government rules, companies generally can't mix together production lines with both commercial and military production where sensative military technology is installed. (This isn't an issue for the Airbus plant in Mobile, Alabama because it would be exclusively dedicated to US tanker work.) Boeing is still holding the 767 line in general open, essentially for freighter orders at this point, and plans to continue to do so if they win the tanker contract. (UPS in particular is ordering quite a few.)

The US government definitely would require the installation of aerial refueling and other key military specific technology in a seperate building regardless with properly cleared employees, and the government will feel better if a significant geographtical distance seperates the two. (Among other concerns, the US government is generally worried about commercial assembly employees getting access to the military technology and possibly trying to sell it to foreign countries, or visitors from a commercial company ordering an aircraft getting access they shouldn't to the military components.) Having said this, the decision to place the modification facility specifically in Kansas probably does have allot to do with political considerations.

[Howedar]

Well, you know, that and the fact that Boeing has had a large operation in Wichita since the WW2 years

[Ariphaos]

What I think is really funny about the state of our industries today is that not too long ago, nearly every contractor was willing to create a new product to fit the requirements of a DoD Request For Proposals, and fit it exactly, instead of trying to alter and bend the program requirements to make their existing product qualify.

That was also the era in which contracts were "Cost + 15%". So, being inefficient made you more money, but you could get everything done.

That's not the case any longer. A lot of companies have had (And a re still having) a very hard time moving to a 'normal' model.