<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: One stateâ€™s tanker deal is othersâ€™ disaster</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/</link>
	<description>The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:24:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bankruptcy Court Kansas Us</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-351732</link>
		<dc:creator>Bankruptcy Court Kansas Us</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 00:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-351732</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Bankruptcy Court Kansas Us...&lt;/strong&gt;

Can it be that your server is infected with a virus - I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox - Just for your Info....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Bankruptcy Court Kansas Us&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Can it be that your server is infected with a virus - I get an Virus warning when I open your site with Firefox - Just for your Info&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cordless Lawnmower</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-350094</link>
		<dc:creator>Cordless Lawnmower</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 14:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-350094</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Cordless Lawnmower...&lt;/strong&gt;

Lawnmower, Cordless Lawnmower and Cordless...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Cordless Lawnmower&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Lawnmower, Cordless Lawnmower and Cordless&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eads board history</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-340264</link>
		<dc:creator>eads board history</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 08:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-340264</guid>
		<description>[...] leader in the ???Boeing political hyperbole contest over the selection of Northrop Grumman-EADS ...http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%E2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%E2%80%99-disaster/Cristina ferrare visit my page only if you. Do You Make These Mistakes with Cum? Relationships in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] leader in the ???Boeing political hyperbole contest over the selection of Northrop Grumman-EADS &#8230;http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%E2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%E2%80%99-disaster/Cristina ferrare visit my page only if you. Do You Make These Mistakes with Cum? Relationships in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlueJay</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-338001</link>
		<dc:creator>BlueJay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-338001</guid>
		<description>"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."

    Oh it's gone further than that. Would that they still spaced their concern out to the quarterly future of the company.

   We are now in the realm of decisions made to affect the stock trade price on a DAILY basis. The founding and future of any traded company starts and ends with the bell on Wall street.

    Boeing has been to busy with the bottom line and micromanaging its work force. They neglected the R&#38;D. They lost.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>    Oh it&#8217;s gone further than that. Would that they still spaced their concern out to the quarterly future of the company.</p>
<p>   We are now in the realm of decisions made to affect the stock trade price on a DAILY basis. The founding and future of any traded company starts and ends with the bell on Wall street.</p>
<p>    Boeing has been to busy with the bottom line and micromanaging its work force. They neglected the R&amp;D. They lost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phantom</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337943</link>
		<dc:creator>Phantom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:59:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337943</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prototype, haven&#8217;t they delivered 5 of the proposed tankers, to other countries?<br />
I liked Crowson&#8217;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.<br />
So much for  McCain&#8217;s savings (lost before even being built) wait until they actually start producing!<br />
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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bth</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337921</link>
		<dc:creator>bth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:40:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337921</guid>
		<description>Paul - Boeing's scandals might have made Boeing "a bit less than aggressive in making sure that the rules were fair"; but what made Boeing choose to not build a prototype?  in light of Boeing's failed 'fense' their failure to build that prototype speaks volumes.  Put bluntly - is Boeing up to the task any more?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul - Boeing&#8217;s scandals might have made Boeing &#8220;a bit less than aggressive in making sure that the rules were fair&#8221;; but what made Boeing choose to not build a prototype?  in light of Boeing&#8217;s failed &#8216;fense&#8217; their failure to build that prototype speaks volumes.  Put bluntly - is Boeing up to the task any more?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franklin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337866</link>
		<dc:creator>Franklin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:38:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337866</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Franklin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337841</link>
		<dc:creator>Franklin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:18:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337841</guid>
		<description>Boeing fell down in the rules and bid process.
The rules seem to have favored Airbus.

That being said, I still think that Boeing and Airbus should have been told that the Airforce wanted a larger tanker.

I think Todd Tiahrt is correct. The process was flawed far more than anything Boeing did or did not do.

This "bid" by Airbus will not be met. 

Airbus will miss deadlines.

Airbus will have huge cost over runs.

Such is the history of Airbus.

The Airforce has bought a promise from a company with no experience with this particular military need, from a company with a bad track record.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Boeing fell down in the rules and bid process.<br />
The rules seem to have favored Airbus.</p>
<p>That being said, I still think that Boeing and Airbus should have been told that the Airforce wanted a larger tanker.</p>
<p>I think Todd Tiahrt is correct. The process was flawed far more than anything Boeing did or did not do.</p>
<p>This &#8220;bid&#8221; by Airbus will not be met. </p>
<p>Airbus will miss deadlines.</p>
<p>Airbus will have huge cost over runs.</p>
<p>Such is the history of Airbus.</p>
<p>The Airforce has bought a promise from a company with no experience with this particular military need, from a company with a bad track record.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monkeyhawk</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337773</link>
		<dc:creator>Monkeyhawk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/04/one-state%e2%80%99s-tanker-deal-is-others%e2%80%99-disaster/#comment-337773</guid>
		<description>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 &lt;i&gt;talk&lt;/i&gt; 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 &lt;i&gt;very&lt;/i&gt; 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I tend to agree with those who posit Boeing&#8217;s previous scandal-riddled negotiations poisoned the well with the new contract.</p>
<p>The Pentagon went out of their way to avoid the appearance of favorable treatment of Boeing.  </p>
<p>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.  </p>
<p>But one of the small stories people have ignored is how Boeing technology has been hitting far short of the mark lately.  They <i>talk</i> a good game, but their Virtual Fence contract along America&#8217;s southern border simply crashed on take-off.  </p>
<p>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.  </p>
<p>A good friend was recruited by Airbus during the bidding process.  She didn&#8217;t take the job but she came away <i>very</i> impressed with how that company was approaching the project.  (She was approached by Boeing, too &#8212; she&#8217;s that good).  She said it was like an intramural high school team vs. the Boston Celtics.</p>
<p>As huge an enterprise as Boeing is, it&#8217;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.</p>
<p>Corporations have come to think in terms of the next quarter&#8217;s stock dividends, the long-term health of the company (or, for that matter, the economy) be damned.  </p>
<p>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&#8217;re-ahead mindset.  That might be a good strategy if you&#8217;re a card shark, but it&#8217;s a pretty weak foundation for a nation&#8217;s economy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
