|
Tanker Contract: Do you agree with the decision to re-examine the Air Force's tanker contract?
Comment: I think they should split it between Northrop Grumman and Boeing, that way they could still do it in Mobile and keep that money in the states. from Crestview FL. by Ron
Comment: If in fact there were that many errors by the Airforce, then it is only right to re-bid the contract. from Navarre by Terry
Comment: I am very happy to hear about what the GAO has done on this contract. All a long, I have not been very keen on the idea of our military planes being made in part by another country. Espicaly FRANC, because they are NOT our friends!. If the GAO had not done the proper investigation,on this , the AMERICAN PEOPLE would be paying more for a job that can be done in the UAS. SORRY! Mobile, but the correct actions have been taken on this contract. May be some of the contract can be out sourced to some of the local areas(Mobile, Escambai(Al./Fl.),Okaloosa,Walton, and others. from Pensacola,Fl. by Johnny
Comment: Boeing has been building tankers for the Air Force since they were conceptualized. They know exactly what the Air Force wants and they gave them exactly what they asked for.
Comment: Ilived 30 years in Washington. Boeing used a few million dollars lobbying monies given to an already corrupt congress. Alabama deserves and will probably do a far better job - for far less money. from Pensacola, FL by Dana
Comment: At what point-in-time in this country did it become okay to not follow the rules, regulations and laws? If the federal regulations for government contracting were not followed then certainly the bid should be reopened not just to Boeing and NG but all who placed original bids. I just don’t get it . . . why can’t people do what they are paid to do? from Pace, FL by Ed
Comment: With prejudice as a AF retiree, I do not agree with the GAO simply because it is giving our congress the green light to stick their noses in where they don't belong. How long is it going to take us (as a society) to figure out that anytime our congress gets involved in something, it generally means whatever the topic is, it gets fouled up. In this case, it is simple: can those that take an oath to protect us with their lives be entrusted to do what they feel is necessary to get the job done; or do we need our congress mucking up the deal? It's a case of plain-simple sportsmanship: there is going to be a looser no matter which way the decesion is made. The way it is going right now, it appears that America is coming up on the short end of the stick AGAIN! And we are doing it to ourselves. from Mary Esther, FL. by Tom
Comment: I'm torn. We need the stimulation, but the plane is not a U.S. product. from Gulf Breeze, FL by Don
Comment: I do not think we should be sending part of this contract out of the country, it should all be built here with US workers. from Gulf Breeze, FL by Diana
Comment: this plane with NG was not even going to be built here, it is to be ASSEMBLED here, overseas workers benefit the most from this, not USA... and its a security risk to BUILD it overseas and assemble it here... think about it. from pensacola by denise
Comment: Truth and honesty should always win out in a controversy. When the AIR FORCE was incompeteent it should be exposed. from cantonment, fl by katy
Comment: Definitely not. Who ever did not get the contract was going to sue over it, so let's just go ahead and waste millions of dollars deciding who is going to end up with the contract. Who wants an airplane built by the lowest bidder anyway? Cheapest and most likely to fail. from Pensacola, Fl by Oscar
Comment: Northup Grumman's aircraft is better suited to fule multiple aircraft.....Boeing is not suffering if they lose this contract. We need the and employment & business to help all of the people in this area.Lets' get on with building of the aircraft in Mobile from navarre, fl by jim
|
