WE Blog

I tend to agree with those who posit Boeing’s previous scandal-riddled negotiations poisoned the well with the new contract.

The Pentagon went out of their way to avoid the appearance of favorable treatment of Boeing.

Either airplane would probably do the job. And the sinking dollar v. the rising Euro guarantees there will be cost overruns above and beyond all the usual cost overruns that come with military contracts.

But one of the small stories people have ignored is how Boeing technology has been hitting far short of the mark lately. They talk a good game, but their Virtual Fence contract along America’s southern border simply crashed on take-off.

The deal probably was settled when the Airbus group actually built a new prototype fuel-delivery system, compared to Boeing sending in salesmen who waved their arms and promised to come up with something.

A good friend was recruited by Airbus during the bidding process. She didn’t take the job but she came away very impressed with how that company was approaching the project. (She was approached by Boeing, too — she’s that good). She said it was like an intramural high school team vs. the Boston Celtics.

As huge an enterprise as Boeing is, it’s like the canary in the coal mine; a warning that the American way of doing business for be past two or three decades is a house of cards.

Corporations have come to think in terms of the next quarter’s stock dividends, the long-term health of the company (or, for that matter, the economy) be damned.

From Bear Stearns to your everyday e-Trade day player, the American economy has been reduced to a get-in-quick-and-get-out-when-you’re-ahead mindset. That might be a good strategy if you’re a card shark, but it’s a pretty weak foundation for a nation’s economy.

And to echo what has been said before: The previous scandal at Boeing made Boeing a bit less than aggressive in making sure that the rules were fair.

Prototype, haven’t they delivered 5 of the proposed tankers, to other countries?
I liked Crowson’s poignant cartoon, for those who may not have seen it before, the Airbus will cost about a billion more per yr. for fuel than the 767 tanker to operate. With fuel continuing to increase, that may be understated.
So much for McCain’s savings (lost before even being built) wait until they actually start producing!
Their first five planes are going to go through several different countries, serially performing the same conversion functions. Talk about uncertainity of production and trnasfer of procedures. Should be quite a hodge podge.