Comments on: Tiahrt shares tanker outrage

By: mypharmalifex

mypharmalifex — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:11:20 +0000

Great

WBR,
Alex
http://www.world-viagra.com – best cheap drug-store
cheap drug-store

By: donjohnson

donjohnson — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:30:33 +0000

I AM FOR ” WE THE PEOPLE ” SO IF THEY KEEP GIVING AWAY AMERICA AND ALL WE DO IS BITCH THAN SO BE IT BUT I AM RUNNING FOR A LEADERS FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS JOB AND THAT SURE IS ALOT OF JOBS ” WE THE PEOPLE ” WILL DO. PLEASE JOIN ME AND FILE FOR A SEAT ON ANY OPENING THAT A AMERICAN CAN VOTE FOR AND WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT HIDE AND TAKE A BACK SEAT TO THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS AND THERE LEADERS. WHATS THAT GOT TO DO WITH THIS NEWS ARTICIAL NOTHING JUST LIKE THEM. SEMPER FI.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:06:18 +0000

lj – Boeing is outsourcing their airframe too. And it appears that EADS will outsource theirs in order to ramp up production – to Alabama. The last version I heard is that the Northrup/EADS deal will create more American jobs than the Boeing one.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:02:09 +0000

Phantom – with mutual funds it is likely that I own EADS shares and that Europeans own Boeing shares.

By: littlejohn

littlejohn — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:01:43 +0000

bth and TomPaine-

The work in Alabama isto be rework into tankers, as I understand it. Not the building of the airframe. The airframe will be built in Europe, they will be flown over for conversion work. At least, that is my understanding. And yes, Boeing has shipped much work oversees? SO? There was clamoring on this blog for the best airplane at the CHEAPEST price to save taxdollars. That’s what happens. Work gets outsourced. Why? ITS CHEAPER!
I for one am not for outsourcing. I for one buy local when I can, and buy American if possible without spending any more than about 20% differential. Funny thing about outsourcing and made in china. Wal Mart parking lot is full of cars displaying the IAM logo. Oh well, I guess the idea is “no foreign purchases for companies, just for me”. You get what you pay for.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:22:31 +0000

If we’re going to share our tax revenues with a company, I’d rather that boeing share holders rather than EADS share holders reap some of the rewards.

By: TomPaine

TomPaine — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:46:40 +0000

LJ, Boeing planned on farming out a large % of their tanker oversees, hellholes like China, so Boeing isnt some great protecter of american jobs, and last I checked Alabama is part of the USA.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:39:39 +0000

lj – I am not convinced that they cannot build just as good a tamker in Alabama as they can in Wichita. IF the Boeing proposal was better then I would agree that it should have won.

Boeing shot themselves in the foot – repeatedly. That is not McCain’s fault.

By: littlejohn

littlejohn — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:35:04 +0000

Okay. I could give a damn about tanker todd or tankerless todd, or any other todd that has the last name of tiahrt. I do give a crap about American Defense (including budgets), American military (including it’s people) and Ameican jobs.

The contract should have gone go Boeing. That it didn;t was celebrated by some here as “big business getting theirs”.

Wrong attitude, in my opinion.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:11:47 +0000

lj – that was a rhetorical ‘YOUR’ – referring to Boeing which you seem to be defending here. The fact is that Tankerless Todd played the game to the hilt; now that the tables turn against him he whines.

By: littlejohn

littlejohn — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:06:57 +0000

bth
Posted April 15, 2008 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
“(probably asshole McCains) Political reasons are always a factor in major contract awards.”

“When YOUR company benefitted from that corruption you cheered. Now that it goes the other way you whine.”

Sorry, don;t know what the hell you are talking about. THe company I work for hasn;t received a major military contract in over a decade. I don;t work for Boeing or Spirit. I own stock in neither. I would suggest you not speculate.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:03:54 +0000

“(probably asshole McCains) Political reasons are always a factor in major contract awards.”

When YOUR company benefitted from that corruption you cheered. Now that it goes the other way you whine.

And, of course, Kansas will reward McCain by voting for him in November.

By: littlejohn

littlejohn — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:46:44 +0000

“The survivability of the 767 was far superior than the Airbush, believe boeing rated highly in about 30 different survivablility factors, and airbus rated average in about 5 areas.”

”
Speaking of corrupt, nearly all of Airbus’s top Executive are being investigated for corruption. Nothing to see there. Not to mention that paying kickbacks is a tax deduction for Airbus”

“I thought NOC was supposed to be a more reliable supplier for the military.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINBNG32265120080415?rpc=44”

for all you Boeing bashers, and Airbus supporters—-I said it before and I will say it again. The contract was awarded to Northrup/Airbus for no more than policial reasons (probably asshole McCains) Political reasons are always a factor in major contract awards. Have been since I have been involved in aerospace industry. (30 years)

By: Maggotpunk

Maggotpunk — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:55:54 +0000

If there is one thing Tiahrt is intimately acquainted with it’s corruption, so he knows it when he sees it.

By: writerdog

writerdog — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:53:55 +0000

Tiahrt has a blog! How come he has never mentioned it in all the form responses to all the e-mails I have sent him? I now feel slided, rejected and forlore…

By: Phantom

Phantom — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:50:04 +0000

I thought NOC was supposed to be a more reliable supplier for the military.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINBNG32265120080415?rpc=44

By: Phantom

Phantom — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:39:21 +0000

Speaking of corrupt, nearly all of Airbus’s top Executive are being investigated for corruption. Nothing to see there. Not to mention that paying kickbacks is a tax deduction for Airbus.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:12 +0000

I watched Lions for Lambs last weekend, pretty good, and pretty right on.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:35:34 +0000

But, if we’ll send the fodder out in unarmored military vehicles, maybe it isn’t such a big factor.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:34:39 +0000

The survivability of the 767 was far superior than the Airbush, believe boeing rated highly in about 30 different survivablility factors, and airbus rated average in about 5 areas.
You’d think a little factor like survivability for a military re-fueler would carry more weight than how much weight and bodies the tanker can carry!

By: News » Blog Archive » Tiahrt shares tanker outrage

News » Blog Archive » Tiahrt shares tanker outrage — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:01:35 +0000

[...] WE Blog | The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog wrote an interesting post today on Tiahrt shares tanker outrageHere’s a quick excerptTiahrt shares tanker outrage PostedAbout an hour ago The subheading that Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, chose for his “tanker blog” says it all: “the outrage.” The congressman is using the blog, on his congressional Web site, to pass along news and views about the Air Force’s decision to let Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. build its new refueling tankers. Tiahrt’s Monday post linked to a letter he wrote to Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne calling the evidence of E [...]

By: BlueJay

BlueJay — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:44:43 +0000

Boeing is to blame for their loss of this contract.

It is precisely because Boeing works on mid management toady mentality and wastes its time mistreating its workers that they lost out. Tiarhrt himself started out in Boeing mid management.

By: JMWalker

JMWalker — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:38:22 +0000

My guess? The tanker will come in at over 100% increase in bid price. It will do so regardless of who builds it because there is no oversight on military contracts at all. Name me ONE military contract that came in on or under budget.

Until that gets settled, I would halt ALL military contracts. It’s getting ridiculous.

By: bth

bth — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:32:13 +0000

People should understand that Tankerless Todd worked for Boeing in the area of government pork procurement. So, he is and has been intimately familiar with Boeing’s practices in that area. Perhaps it would have been better for Boeing and its allies to have come up with a great contract instead of that corrupt lease that they tried to get through with their corrupt connections. It was that blatant corruption that led to the re-opening of the contract and ultimately to Boeing losing it.