Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Dakota wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=Dakota]
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.
Do you realize you are arguing with yourself?
Do you realize you always say that when you lack for a comeback?
You are arguing against giving the contract to France with CJ then turn around and defend them with me, which happen to be on your side? You need some fresh air, woman.
Dak,
I trust the French. I used to live in France, I cannot stand the idiotic American position of hating the French, it is immature and absurd. I am poking fun at your comment that we should not trust the French.
I'm happy that we agree that Boeing is the better choice here.
Have a good weekend.
G.
Posts: 14,625
Threads: 994
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Unfortunately he thinks these sort of exchanges are some sort of high school level popularity contest rather than an attempt to exchange information/learn. Therefore the subtlty of your argument was lost on him. Instead, he took it as a rejection of his attempt to befriend you.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Uncle Wig wrote:
Unfortunately, the ones who are getting screwed here are the men and women who will crew this new tanker, and the pilots who will rely on it for refueling.
The EADS proposal is (was) considerably more capable and modern than the Boeing proposal. The Air Force preferred this twice before.
While I am glad to see an American company get the contract, it bothers me that the Air Force is not getting the best airplane. And it really bothers me that Boeing was unable to come up with an airplane that is better than the competition.
Not sure I share that opinion. What's the source of your information?
Both planes meet all 372 air force requirements. Here are some details:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/2...N120110224
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Carnos Jax wrote:
Unfortunately he thinks these sort of exchanges are some sort of high school level popularity contest rather than an attempt to exchange information/learn. Therefore the subtlty of your argument was lost on him. Instead, he took it as a rejection of his attempt to befriend you.
Oh c'mon, it's Friday!
I try to be a friend to all here, with only a few exceptions where all hope seems lost. I don't mind clarifying, even when the questions are asked in hyperbolic or inflammatory ways. Just part of the eccentricity of it all, you know?
Posts: 14,625
Threads: 994
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Posts: 15,647
Threads: 1,310
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation:
0
Grace62 wrote:
Have a good weekend.
G.
Not so fast. If you "trust" the French, what is your problem then? Why are you going back and forth for half a day. What are you even saying? Just give it to Airbus and "trust" them to keep the jobs here.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
Dakota wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
Have a good weekend.
G.
Not so fast. If you "trust" the French, what is your problem then? Why are you going back and forth for half a day. What are you even saying? Just give it to Airbus and "trust" them to keep the jobs here.
If EADS had gotten this contract, I wouldn't be going around saying that we can't trust them because management is French (and other EU countries too.) Boeing gets caught up in ethical problems on a fairly regular basis, it would seem. EADS has had problems too. Nothing to do with being either French or American, or whatever.
I have both general reasons and some very selfish reasons for being happy that Boeing won, including the financial well-being of the region in which I live.
Hope that answers it for you.
Gotta run.
g.
Posts: 6,663
Threads: 424
Joined: Oct 2023
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Uncle Wig]
Unfortunately, the ones who are getting screwed here are the men and women who will crew this new tanker, and the pilots who will rely on it for refueling.
The EADS proposal is (was) considerably more capable and modern than the Boeing proposal. The Air Force preferred this twice before.
While I am glad to see an American company get the contract, it bothers me that the Air Force is not getting the best airplane. And it really bothers me that Boeing was unable to come up with an airplane that is better than the competition.
Not sure I share that opinion. What's the source of your information?
Both planes meet all 372 air force requirements. Here are some details:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/2...N120110224
Of course both planes meet all requirements - neither Boeing nor EADS/Northrop-Grumman would propose an airplane that didn't. The difference is in the extra capability offered by one plane or the other. It's not that Boeing's tanker is bad, it just arguably not the best.
The EADS airplane is larger, which explains the higher fuel costs. But being larger, it also carries more payload (fuel, cargo, passengers) than the Boeing, making it considerably more versatile. It has a slightly longer range as well. In 2008, when EADS/Northrop-Grumman had apparently won the contract, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne said the EADS/Northrop-Grumman tanker was "was clearly a better performer."
This decision is even more based in politics than usual contract awards.
Posts: 5,504
Threads: 256
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
Uncle Wig wrote:
Of course both planes meet all requirements - neither Boeing nor EADS/Northrop-Grumman would propose an airplane that didn't. The difference is in the extra capability offered by one plane or the other. It's not that Boeing's tanker is bad, it just arguably not the best.
The EADS airplane is larger, which explains the higher fuel costs. But being larger, it also carries more payload (fuel, cargo, passengers) than the Boeing, making it considerably more versatile. It has a slightly longer range as well. In 2008, when EADS/Northrop-Grumman had apparently won the contract, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne said the EADS/Northrop-Grumman tanker was "was clearly a better performer."
This decision is even more based in politics than usual contract awards.
Glad to see that someone is more interested in the boys at the sharp end getting the best tool for the job rather than the parochial politics of job creation/retention.
Posts: 8,440
Threads: 599
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation:
0
I can't find any reference to an unbiased USAF person saying they prefer one plane over the other. I see lots of reviews, some for each plane, by retired this-or-thats who now work as consultants for the maker of the plane they seem to prefer.
Got anything unbiased from a named source?
|
