Basically, even though Airbus will do it for less money, with more capabilities, and now they say in the United States (read: jobs), guess who still gets to build the new tanker (heavily under spec)? Boeing!
Basically we're paying Boeing a truck load of money to produce tankers that are less effective than the ones we already have, some of which we will even lease for greater than it would cost to buy!
Oh, and Boeing knew that this was economic nonsense, take a look at some tiny excerpts from emails:
Even with the air force official who sweetened the deal for Boeing in order to help get hired (and has been subsequently fired), the deal was rotten all the way through.
Guess who one of the principle guys involved in the negotiations was? Andrew Card, there representing the President:
quote:The Office of Management and Budget and other independent agencies criticized the tanker deal as too expensive and unneeded.
Card intervened and ordered them to move ahead with the Boeing deal.
White House spokesman Claire Buchan said Card sought to mediate the contract dispute without taking sides.
Sounds completely unbiased. Not to mention, kind of odd that Card was the guy, considering he's not trained for this kind of thing, he's the Chief of Staff. His is an image job.
Why do I think he was pushing for Boeing? Because Bush told him to keep the jobs in the US (at that time Airbus had not added the proviso that they'd do the work in the US, though they were substantially cheaper).
I have my suspicions that propping up highly ineffficient manufacturing operations (especially as all it was going to be was turning out more 767's, since the Air Force let Boeing tailor the specs to match the 767; not creating any substantial numbers of jobs such as new manufacturing capabilities would) is if anything a drain on the economy, rather than a boost.
I think Bush wanted a juicy (read: way too high) Boeing contract to generate a boost in the economy, and I think he wasn't listening to any economists when he did it.
Its especially ridiculous now, when Airbus will do it not just better and for less money, but in the US, adding new manufacturing capabilities and generating what I would expect are more jobs than Boeing's intent to use existing manufacturing capabilities.
But guess who still has the contract, despite the in some cases criminal (referring to the ex-air force official) conduct involved in obtaining it? Boeing!
And, as anyone who's called them for tech support recently knows, Dell is quickly moving their jobs to India.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Merely some. Dell still sends all its home user support calls to India -- but we corporate users were getting seriously upset about being redirected out of country to people who didn't know the systems, were reading off a script, and who knew so little English that they got confused and flustered whenever you got temporarily off-script.
Add to that the fact that many people in the tech industry are FURIOUS about tech outsourcing, since it pretty much kneecaps the whole process of creating skilled techs in this country, and it wasn't a good idea for 'em.
So they moved their corporate support back to the U.S., and left home users talking to India.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but there's still plenty in India. You still get a thick Indian accent from a guy named "Steve" or "Jeff" every time you call from the education sector. And "calls from some home PC owners will continue to be handled by the technical support center in Bangalore, India, and Weisblatt said Dell has no plans to scale back the operation there."
posted
Boeing moving it's headquarters* out of Seattle gave strong hint that the CEO believed that engaging in serious hankypanky was "good business practice", and intended to continue. Frankly, I wasn't surprised that the CEO was forced to resign.
That being a given, does the US military benefit by having an overseas supplier for such critical components? If EU decides to cutoff replacement parts cuz it doesn't like US policy in one area or another, what recourse does the US military have to maintain force readiness?
It ain't as if a part can be back-engineered overnight. Even if it could, one would still have to Research&Develop the manufacturing process. Even if such R&D were instantaneous, building the physical plant, setting up the assembly line, and training workers to produce 'zero defect' parts would take a considerable amount of time&money. In aerospace particularly, a closed plant isn't mothballed for restart when business gets better; and the skilled workers haven't the choice to just wait for a return of their jobs.
Two more factors to consider are secrecy and black projects. Military aircraft have compartments dedicated to TopSecret eg ElectronicCounterMeasures and ElectronicCounterCounterMeasures equipment. Merely knowing the size of the compartments, where those compartments are located on the craft, and what sort of communications and power supply lines are being fed into them gives strong hints to what their purpose is and the capabilities of US military technology. Similarly, information about fuel, hydraulic/pneumatic, and electromechanical control lines&shielding can pinpoint vulnerabilities to be exploited during an attack on the aircraft. The US can't vet foreign workers for security clearances; foreigners have no inherent loyalty to the US. Part of the apparent excess cost can also be off-the-books 'black funding' for 'black project' R&D that the military has contracted out to Boeing, but doesn't want the world to know about.
Then there is the balance of trade. If one is so deeply indebted that ones loan payments exceed ones income, it makes little sense to order restaurant food when one can dine more cheaply by cooking at home. Just as ones own labor in the home is free, regardless of ones salary outside the home, American labor is free internally ie within America. The extent that American labor isn't free is equal to the cost of imports that the workers consume. While I (and most Americans) think that the US ought to spend more on real foreign aid, and I can easily think of better uses for federal spending than many of the most expensive military hardware/projects, American taxpayer money otherwise ought to be spent in the American economy. Even when it is (short-term) cheaper to buy overseas. Consider how much better off the US and the world would have been had the money spent on oil imports been instead partially spent on developing and subsidizing windpower and hybrid cars.
However, the mere fact that EU'sAirbus can put in a lower bid than the US'sBoeing ought to give one pause to consider the severe economic distortions/disruption caused by improper Congressional social policies.
* Studies show such corporate moves are primarily for the benefit of the CEO. And that the effect upon stockholders is at best neutral: such neutrality bought through looting of the vested retirement entitlements of employees fired, "laid off", and "early retired" through the move.
posted
It should be unnecessary to point this out, but lobbying is not equal to corruption. I doubt that representative government could even work without lobbyists.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, do you understand that Airbus is propped up by their government? On the one side, we're more than happy to complain about how Bush is supposedly making companies send jobs to India (a practice that began before he came into office), but on the other side call it corruption when someone insists (and I'm not going to give Bush the credit, because I don't know who that someone is) that on big ticket items, we buy American rather than the less expensive French. Nevermind that Airbus is supported by their government, making them able to offer their planes at a lower cost. It would be a *crime*, IMO, for the US Government to spend billions on planes made outside the US, when the US offerings are qualitatively equal or superior. It's called loyalty and believing there is something more important than mere dollars.
That isn't corruption -- it's honor.
And yeah, I have bias on this -- it means making or breaking the economy of the state I live in. I'll freely admit that I'd rather we had a decent economy here than whatever French city benefits from Airbus's profitibility.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree whole-heartedly with jeniwren on this one. The bottom line bid price cannot be the only factor. That French companies are even ALLOWED to bid on American military contracts is absurd.
But given that we allow it, then the bids should be scrutinized and the companies really investigated before we ever work with them. Think about this. Does it even make sense that Airbus could build a plane in America with American labor for substantially less money than an established American manufacturer? It doesn't pass the laugh test. There's got to be SOMETHING going on there.
And think of whether putting Boeing on the skids would be a good thing for future contracts as well. With them out of the picture, Airbus Industries, EU, could charge whatever they wanted and we'd be screwed. So, it's in their interest to low ball contracts now if it gives them a chance of putting Boeing out of business.
I'll admit that with globalization, some "American" companies may not be really based in the US substantially. But that's something we should also be watching. We shouldn't just throw up our hands and say "well then, anyone can bid."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many Boeing plants are there in the Dakotas, Pixiest? If ya wanna see real conflict of interest, check out how many unnecessary&unwanted defense department projects are based in states/districts with no trained labor force cuz the Chairman of eg the SenateDefenseCommittee or the Chairman of the HouseFinanceCommittee just happen to be elected from that state or district.
posted
Tom Dachle is in the senate. Not the south dakota legislature.
The whole point is that his wife is paid to get him to do Boeing's bidding, not the other way around.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw, I just wanted to add that just because I would bar Airbus from competing on US military projects, that doesn't mean I'm not thoroughly convinced that corruption is rampant in military procurement.
I just think that when we find that kind of thing going on, we should be punishing people to the full extent of Federal and/or military law.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
