|
Air Force Tanker: Do you agree with the decision to re-bid the Air Force tanker contract?
Comment: It is unfortunate for the residents of the gulf coast who put so much work into bring this aircraft here, but politics has gotten itself into the contract deal. It will be no surprise come December when the contract is awarded to Boeing. Very sad loss for the area. from Navarre Fl by Bryon
Comment: I suspect the only problem that they found in the initial bidding was that Northrop-Grumman submitted a lower bid for a better product and that Boeing is just a sore loser. from Pensacola, FL by Helen
Comment: Any contract concderning the defense of our country should remain in the USA wE HAVE ALREADY GAVE UP TO MANY OF OUR JOBS OVERSEA from FWB FL by Edward
Comment: Why would we give anything too someone who always stick it to us?????? from FL. by Richard
Comment: Boeing was so over ego inflated they made the assumption that there was NO way they would lose. They presented a half baked, warmed over plan and let it fly - they got what they deserved, a Rejection and a Failed bid.
The decision to Re-Bid is just a farce and a coverup to satisfy some politician(s) who got their respective asses burned. Let the contract stand - no bid of this magnitude would/could be done perfectly so there are probably some area where it could have failed the 'complete" test - but, the AF does a lot of bids, Boeing tried to slide an old system, dressed up slightly differently and they FAILED. If this is reversed it means the Politicians will be crying at the trough everytime things don't go their way. Its a farce and the Re-Bid is an abomination. from Pensacola by Jon
Comment: My 3 cents,
Having worked closely with this issue during my time in The Air Force, 2 issues must remain at the forefront, what is the best airframe for America's Sons and Daugters to do the mission of Air Refueling and other attached missions and what makes most sense for the American Tax Payer. If the Northrop/EADS airplane is better and it makes more fiscal sense then build the airplane along the Gulf Coast, if Boeing has a better airplane and can do it more cost effectively do it in Washington. It is unfortunate that our leaders in Washington DC have allowed such nonsense to get in the way of providing a new airplane for our Air Force. In the end it is the operators and those effected by these aircraft (other cargo/fighter/multinational forces) that suffer in the end. We have been long overdue to upgrade our tanker fleet, the current fleet is flying on a wing and prayer. Lets get on with it, build the airplane here! All viewers need to get writing to thier Congressman, Jeff Miller has heard from me! from Navarre, FL by Jim
Comment: It needs to be fair. The military has a long history of abusing purchasing power. Let's do something for all taxpayers, not special interests along the Gulf Coast.
Comment: If the bid is flawed it should be corrected. Remove an doubt.
What are the Escambia County Commissioners doing to bring some of the jobs to Pensacola when Mobile is awarded the contract?
from Pensacola, FL by Arthur
Comment: I feel that the news coverage on this subject has been somewhat misleading. It is important to note that the contract was awarded to EADS (A French-government foreign run company). Northrup Grumman only has a small piece of the pie. That being said, the only reason EADS considered opening a facility in Mobile was to gain support for their contract award. Also, the Mayor of Mobile was mistaken when he stated that Boeing hasn't proven it's tanker. In fact, Boeing has sold 767 Tankers to other countries already and currently has a 767 line still open in Wichita. In addition, boom technology is a staple for the Boeing company since they continue to maintain the KC-135 tankers currently. This is a proven aircraft. I feel that this type of military contract should not be awarded to a foreign company and while awarding it to Boeing may not have a significant impact to our local economy, I feel that the benefits would be keeping the contract award with a solely American owned and run company and it would keep the work in the US. from Crestview by Michael
Comment: Yours is the first article I have seen with the word "AIRBUS" in it. The word "European" also caught my eye. The people in Mobile are making Boeing sound like they have joined Osama Bin Ladin in his endeavors. The spin from the Mayor is that Boeing knows nothing of "Refuelers" However, the first Air Force refueler was a BOEING KC-97, the second was a BOEING KC-135. I hadn't heard of Airbus at the time. Airbus is based in FRANCE. Why is the Mayor of Mobile so eager to send our money and jobs overseas. especially to France? Boeing has always spread the wealth in country. A section of the 747 tail was being built in Russel, MS. Part of the fuselage was being built in Ingelwood, CA by Northrop, some more parts were being built in Kansas. I believe Northrop-Grumman should get the contract if it is allied with Boeing and NOT SOME FOREIGN COUNTRY.
from Fort Walton Beach, FL by Pablino
Comment: WEAR Channel 3’s on air staff has failed to mention that the KC-35 project is not solely a Northrop Grumman project. If you are to provide an unbiased view to you audience you should point out the fact that Northrop Grumman is partnered with the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS). EADS is composed of the following: Daimler Chrysler Aerospace AG (Dasa, Munich, Germany), Aerospatiale Matra (Paris, France) and Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A. (CASA, Madrid, Spain). With Aerospatiale Matra (Paris, France) being the majority shareholder. It should also be noted that the majority shareholder of EADS has, over the last decades denied the U.S. landing/refueling and over-flight rights for acts against known terrorist states and entities. As a retired disabled veteran, I do not feel it would be in my countries best interest to allow a coalition of European aircraft manufactures to have at least 42% interest in providing a aircraft that allows the United States Military to meet its global commitments. from FWB, Florida by Chester
Comment: I believe it is important to have an American airframe manufacturer - as part of a basic national defense. I would be much happier with a mixed award - 50% to Boeing and the other 50% to the French/German bid. from Pensacola/FL by JR
Comment: With the TK plant coming, there will be a shortage of qualified workers in the Mobile area. An American company is the best choice for the country. Mobile and the surrounding will survive. from Pensacola by George
Comment: No french fries & no french tankers. from Daphne, AL by Larry
Comment: They should pick a plane and have both companies build them. We should not put all our eggs in one basket. from Pensacola,FL by Al
Comment: I think an american company should get the contract not a european one from milton fl by richard
Comment: Once again, I register my objection to the congressional interference in this "project". Congress, knowing that it can't do what we elected them to do, is grasping at straws to make a mountain out of a molehill. Not only do I feel congress has no business getting involved, they have managed to slap the USAF in the face (in front of the entire country). They've told the world that they are not confident in the decesion-making capability of the greatest Air Force on the planet. Of course, that's congress' way of telling the AF you do what we tell you and nothing else. from Mary Esther, FL. by Tom
Comment: Come on guys, the base tanker as bid by Grumann is an Airbus made overseas. It's about time that US Govt restricts the expenditure of taxpayers dollars to the U.S. Don't be dumb how about keeping all the jobs in the U.S. from Mary Esther, Fl by Ron
Comment: Several egregious errors were committed in the first go-round. Boeing deserves a fair change. Also, the mayor of Mobile claims the Boeing plane is "untested". Untrue. At this moment, it is being used in Japan. It's not just tested, it's working. from Navarre by Mary
Comment: If it was not done corectly, as we found out then it needs to be bid again. from Ft Walton Beach, Fl by Larry
Comment: tHIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW POLITICS AND POLITICAL FIGURES GET INVOLVED IN EVERY DECISION THEY CAN, WHETHER OR NOT THEY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE DECISION TO BE MADE OR NOT. from Pensacola by James
Comment: You have to look at the whole picture. It isn't just about jobs for the Gulf Coast, it is about the security of our country. None of our military aircraft should be made in another country. It puts our country and military at risk. It is past time for our politicians to be more concerned with the security of our country and military, instead of how much money and jobs it would create for the Mobile area and Gulf Coast. With Boeing doing the work there will be more jobs for our country, not just this area and our national security will not be jeopardized. The Airforce made mistakes and did not follow their own proposal processes, the contract was not fairly won by Northrop Grumman and should be re-bid. from Milton, FL. by Tammy
Comment: I think we won the contract and should keep it, we will do a good job,it is the best place to do the job. We need jobs in our area, this would save so many businesses. we really need this contract. And we can do it with quailty work. from Elberta, Al 36535 by Barbara
Comment: How big is Boeing anyway? Is this contract going to make or break that company? When is enough going to be enough? Greed is not good for any of us and the big industries are the worst. When will people get a clue that we have a great opportunity to turn things around in this world right now and some of us are missing it because we're greedy and selfish. People in Alabama need to work as well as anywhere else and our economy needs for people to quit sitting on their thumbs and get up off of it. Instead of sitting around whining about what we don't have let's make the best of what we do and share it. from Crestview by Brenda
Comment: I have read all reports both in print and internet sites. No one mentions that it is a limited rebid process. It only repeats the contract will be rebid. I would think since it is Alabama and this area usually votes conservative, by the time Obama gets in there he will support Boeing because he is a Senator from Chicago, where Boeing's corporate offices are located. And Seattle gets all the big defense contracts which is strange because the, as a region are so anti military. Wish us luck! from Eight Mile, Ala by Margaret
Comment: with all those congressmen screaming about "an American company" I sure would like to know what kind of cars they drive. My bet is only 10% of them are American nameplates. Federal Taxes are not withhed on the corporae profit from a non-American car company which, in-turn, causes our taxes (and that of GM, Ford and Chrysler) to go higher and higher with the increased sales of non-American nameplates. WAKE UP AMERICA from Milton, Florida by TJ
|
