Boeing Bribes Better

[Mac1337]

And what if they don't? It is a lot easier to keep Boeing's feet to the fire than some French company.

[Grace62]

Carnos Jax wrote:
Grace, here's just one article of many that references a 48000 figure for U.S. jobs created (about the 10th paragraph down) if EADS had one...not sure where you're getting the 500 number from, that seems awfully low.

EADS was saying their contract would "support" thousands of jobs, they never confirmed how many jobs they would actually bring to Alabama, nor how much of the production work would be done in the US. Their claim that they would create the same number of jobs as the American company was never backed up with hard data.
Boeing was very specific in it's jobs number claims, EADS was not.
Calculating how many jobs a particular industry will "support" is an inexact science and frequently overstated, particularly by politicians wanting to take credit for landing a big deal for their state.
Folks in Alabama had become increasingly disillusioned by both EADS and their politicians, and expectations had come down dramatically, except that the mayor had booked the convention center and planned a big victory party - oops.

[Grace62]

Dakota wrote:
And what if they don't? It is a lot easier to keep Boeing's feet to the fire than some French company.

Lord knows you can't trust those cheese eating freedom hating surrender monkeys!!
Funny how many red staters were dying to go to work for them when some Euros (oops, dollars) where dangled in front of them. Amazing what a few years can do.

[Carnos Jax]

Grace, EADS was looking to gain a foothold in the North American aerospace market with a tanker win. Any intentional misleading on their part with jobs creation would strategically jeopardize any future efforts on their part to gain more business here.

[Grace62]

Companies competing for lucrative gov't deals (whether actual contracts or just tax breaks) frequently pad the jobs numbers, like I said, it's a inexact science. Once they have built the thing and have the money, they are not held accountable when things don't add up.

If you can find any concrete proposal from EADS as to how many people they planned to hire in Alabama, then please link to that, I'd be interested to see it. Saying their work will "support" x number of jobs is meaningless.
They were planning to build a $600 million facility at a former AF base in Alabama for the tanker work. Relative to the facility here in Everett, that level of investment is not going to support full production of a huge airplane, IMO. Even at Alabama prices.
Construction of that facility would have brought jobs, for sure, but I don't see the hard numbers of planned hires for actual aeronautical work.

[Carnos Jax]

Grace I think you are diluting the debate by getting caught up in semantical distractions ("support" vs. "create"). Your argument may have had merit if EADS was a long established major player in the U.S. defense market. You still appear to ignore that EADS has every incentive to carry through on it's promises (whether explicity or implicit) since it's the new kid on the block and none to do otherwise. Your argument does not make sense in this context from the get go. By your line of reasoning, even Boeing's data is just that, data. Having more than a casual interest in the aerospace industry, I trust Boeing's word no more than EADS.

[Grace62]

So where is your data on jobs promised by EADS?

[Carnos Jax]

So where is your argument against EADS having everything to lose and nothing to gain from not carrying thru on it's jobs expectations?

[Grace62]

I was not wanting to do your homework for you, but here:

"Anticipation was high in Mobile, which could land a $600 million, 1,500-worker aircraft assembly plant if the Air Force picks EADS. The decision was also being watched closely in Everett, Wash., and Wichita, Kan., where a win by Chicago-based Boeing would secure thousands of aircraft manufacturing jobs."

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/02/air_forc..._expe.html

Check out other foreign manufacturing companies that have invested in North America, how many jobs politicians promised to help offset what they were giving away to these companies, and then the actual number of jobs that were produced. See if they add up, or if those numbers turn out to have been a bit exaggerated, or is some cases wildly exaggerated.
Find any of those companies that lost credibility because the numbers didn't add up. Any consequences? Not really, no.

[Carnos Jax]

You still seem to be missing the key difference. Unlike those companies, EADS is looking to gain a long term position in the U.S., a market that is very sensitive to political influence. They can't do what you purport them to without jeopardizing their long term goals.

If you want to be skeptical about corporations in general, then how can you consider Boeing an honest player. They've been continually off shoring to a greater and greater extent it's manufacturing. It's got unused capacity at plants in Washington and Kansas, yet it looks outside the U.S. increasingly. Now, I know things aren't as simple as they seem, and I can actully understand the reasonings behing many of Boeing's moves. But according to your outlook, this should not sit well with you at all.

You seriously think that despite both companies stating that they'd create around 50,000 jobs, that one of them would be off by 90 percent? The nature of the work is the same. Either they're both wrong or they're both right.