Beyond the general mood of hara-kari that seemed to be emanating from Everett yesterday in the wake of Boeing's failure to win the tanker contract, there is a potentially positive nugget to come from the eventual, resulting loss of the 767 assembly line:
Boeing's mostly carbon-fiber composite 787 Dreamliner jet was introduced to replace the 767, which was launched in 1978. Hamilton suggested that Boeing ultimately could use the 767 bay in the Everett factory to start a second 787 final assembly line. The area also could house a production line for the single-aisle 737 jet, Hamilton said. Boeing builds the 737 in Renton.
Let's be honest. Boeing has a better track record in recent years in commercial airplane building than on some high profile military-related contracts. A full production line eventually being devoted to the popular 787 or the 737 models might be a better long-term outcome for Boeing and its local workforce.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 01, 2008 09:58 AM | Email ThisBoeing is floating in cash.
No more tears.
I don't worry about the executives at Boeing with their big golden parachutes at retirement, but it does seem like a slap at the workers who assemble the planes. How can the military justify awarding the contract to a foreign company & foreign workers for the majority of the work when the blance of payments are so bad? Doesn't the President and Congress have something to say about this, besides just the military?
Posted by: Clean House on March 1, 2008 01:13 PMPS. The KC-10 and carry more of everything than both AirBust and Boeing!!!
As a pilot myself, I can see why (as much as I hate it) Airbus got the deal.
Someone at Boeing WAKE UP!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 1, 2008 03:23 PMIf, as a nation, we only want to buy our own stuff fine. Then we should have said so from the beginning - I'm sure Boeing's proposal would have been exactly the same...
If instead we want the best stuff, a little competition doesn't hurt.
Boeing doesn't seem to be hurting competing in the commercial market.
If we don't want a European plane, are we also OK not selling them any more of our fighter planes too?
Posted by: BA on March 1, 2008 03:54 PMHas this happened before? Yes it has. In 2004, Swiss company Swatch, decided to withhold quartz components of US weaponry due to its objection to the US involvement in Iraq.
So all you people out there assuring us this could never happen, you need to wake up. If the Swiss will withhold components, then you can be damn sure the French will as well.
Posted by: pbj on March 1, 2008 05:07 PMDon't count on this meaning less growth.
Posted by: BA on March 1, 2008 07:01 PMHere's an independant view of the two proposed aircraft. It's a long and wonkish artical but the last two paragraphs are worth reading.
For those who are caterwauling over the foreign aspect of the contract allow me to enlighten you. Keeping in mind that only part of the who aircarft is going to be built in Europe here's a list of combat systems that are, in part, being built outside the United States...
F-35 Lighting II (formerly thr JSF): The aft body is built by BAe in England and other subsystems being made in Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Australia and Norway.
TAK-3000 Maersk: Roll On/Roll Off style cargo vessels used by the Marine Corp as part of the Maritime Prepositioning Force. The five TAK-3000s are leased from Norwegian-owned Maersk Line LTD.
LAV-25: The chassis for the 8 wheeled light armored vehicle used by the Marine Corp was designed and build by General Motors of Canada in London, Ontario. It beat out designs from Alvis of Great Britian and Cadillac Gage (now part of Textron Systems) of New Orleans.
IVA Stryker: GM General Dynamics Land Systems splits the struture, fabrication and final assembly between plants in Anniston, Alabama and London, Ontario.
Royal Ordnance L7: The United States has paied license fees to the British government (who own Royal Ordnance) since 1960 to produce the M68 105mm gun for both the M60 Patton series and the original M1 Abrams tanks.
Rheinmetall L/44: Like the M68 the US pays fees to this German firm (privately owned) to license build the L/44 as the M256 120mm gun for the M1A1 and A2 Abrams.
M9 pistol: Commonly known as the 9mm Beretta, this Italian company has a contact with the military for 70,000 pistols beating out proposals including from American owned Colt and Smith & Wesson. At the 1984 trials S&W was the only American company out of seven entrants. As a side note, the contract with Beretta requires all M9s to be built in the US at their plant in Maryland.
I could go on if I wanted to but I think I've made my point.
Posted by: Jeremiah Orr on March 2, 2008 11:55 AMSo outsourcing more of our infrastructure to subject our military policy to European whims is the answer?
Gee, that is like saying our hole is 10 ft deep, let's keep digging!
Swiss company SWATCH has already demonstrated that loony liberal Euro nuts will withhold vital military components in a heart beat. I don't want my national defense subject to approval by Europeans, especially after I was the one FORCED to pay them to build that hardware!
Posted by: PBJ on March 2, 2008 12:51 PMJeremiah Orr does point out some of the Co-op systems out there. One other one that comes to mind is the M249 SAW. This is a light machine gun used by our military. It is relatively light wieght and very very acurate. It is also mostly French made (although I do belive that allot of the replacement parts are mad e in the US).
Another system that is used by the military is the Kalmar RTCH (Rough Terrain Container Handler). This is the vehicle that loads/unloads the big connex containers. It differs from the more commerially known Terex Handler in the way that it can fold completely down to fit on an aircraft. The transmission is german made and they do not sell rebuild parts so when the transmission goes you have to replace the entire thing (which the transmission is just a little smaller than a VW bug).
Posted by: TrueSoldier on March 2, 2008 12:55 PMSo, I have a question for all you "no fossil fuel" green lefty's.... IF the earth is 'running out of fossil fuel' (yawn), how do you explain countries placing AIRPLANE orders for decades into the future?
Why would they (anyone!) commit billions of dollars (euro, yen, riyal... whatever) for a product, that according to YOU, they will not be able to use... or at best, would have to PAY to retrofit to use some magical mystical fuel? Or maybe you think that buyers for the nearly 2400 combined plane orders that Airbus and Boeing have on the tables as so December 2007 will just scrap those billions of plane parts the day the last drop is used?
Duh!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 2, 2008 01:17 PMBut Eric, there is NO silver lining. Washington State has lost at least $10 billion worth of employment for non-college graduates.
I am fairly sure the people of France, Germany, Great Britain, etc are crying their eyes out that the U.S. taxpayers will be shipping something like $30 billion worth of employment their way.
I wonder what happens when the next Gaulist or Socialist government of France embargoes export of military equipment to the U.S. Will the U.S. have our fleet of tankers sitting on the ground like Iran's F-14 because we cannot buy spare parts?
Posted by: Robert Wheeldon on March 2, 2008 01:46 PMAside from the M9 which had some teething problems, much like the M16 did when it was first introduced, are uncontroversial and regarded as some of the finest in the world. Are you asking the Pentagon to forgo superior equipment because it's not fully built in the United States or owned by foreign entities who could yank porduction agreements and licensing rights at a whim?
I suppose the Army Air Corp should have passed on the British Rolls-Royce Merlin and left the P51 Mustang with the vastly inferior Allison powerplan? How about every major and a ton of smaller law enforcement tactical teams plus the Marine Corp, Army, Navy and Air Force should surrender their MP5s since Heckler & Koch is German and there is no domestic license agreement. Then it would be replaced with what? The American small arms industry hasn't produced a submachine gun worth a darn since the Thompson and that was, what, 80 years ago?
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deserve the finest weapons and gear money can buy and if it happens to come from Europe or Canada then so be it. We should not be in the business of giving our fighting men and women even slightly bellow average stuff just to satisfy the America First crowd. Peroid.
As for your Switzerland comment, the Swiss have always had a policy of not selling war fighting materials or weapon components to countries actively engaged in a conflict. They did the same thing in 1990/91. It has everything to do with their rank neutrality and little to do with moral judgement of the Iraq War.
There's fair to be critical of the neutral Swiss to be selling anything that can be used in weapons but that's not your point to being with.
Posted by: Jeremiah Orr on March 2, 2008 03:19 PM"Are you asking the Pentagon to forgo superior equipment because it's not fully built in the United States or owned by foreign entities who could yank porduction agreements and licensing rights at a whim?"
Yes. Got a problem with that?
"I suppose the Army Air Corp should have passed on the British Rolls-Royce Merlin and left the P51 Mustang with the vastly inferior Allison powerplan?
Europe 50 years ago was a very different place. You are trying to use an outdated example and it just doesn't wash. That is kind of like the liberals using FDR as an example of them being strong on defense.
France has already shown its hostility towards any US foreign policy. Historically this has been the case.
How about every major and a ton of smaller law enforcement tactical teams plus the Marine Corp, Army, Navy and Air Force should surrender their MP5s since Heckler & Koch is German and there is no domestic license agreement. Then it would be replaced with what? The American small arms industry hasn't produced a submachine gun worth a darn since the Thompson and that was, what, 80 years ago?"
Apparently you think that we are too backward to create a superior fire arm or aircraft engine. We put a man on the moon for christ's sake. I am sorry you have so little faith in your fellow American.
When we undermine our domestics industries of course the expertise to create fantastic engines, great guns and other things will evaporate. But you know what? We can grow the expertise here in America just as China has been growing its local expertise in military hardware when once it started from nothing.
You essentially made my point for me. By citing all the cases where we outsource out military hardware, it doesn't support the case for more outsourcing, it supports the case for LESS.
That you think Americans are too incompetent to produce these goods is very telling.
Posted by: pbj on March 2, 2008 04:47 PMSo let me try again. Don't forget the Marines fly the AV-8 Harrier, which is a British designed plane, and the Navy's T-45 trainer is the Navy's version of the British Aerospace Hawk. Both are built by Boeing.
So I am waiting for how many Mirage aircraft the US military flies or perhaps their guns or other military hardware we already use. Please tell us all.
Posted by: pbj on March 2, 2008 05:03 PM"Physically, it was pleasing to the eye and looked fast, even sitting on the ground. Power was provided by a V-1650 Rolls-Royce Merlin engine built under license in the States by Packard, the luxury automobile company."
Again I call out the straw men. Yet another example cited in which foreign designs were BUILT IN AMERICA.
Again that is the critical thing here.
Posted by: pbj on March 2, 2008 05:12 PMHow many squadrons of "marine one" helicopters do we use to invade Iraq? How many are required in a potential battle?
Hmm...
In the 20th century, France welcomed American help to end the First World War. During the subsequent peace negotiations, however, the French fought the United States over how to treat the vanquished Germans. By rejecting the advice of Woodrow Wilson and insisting on crippling and humiliating reparations, France fatally undermined the fledgling German democracy and planted many of the seeds of the Second World War--a conflict in which the French required another American rescue. Before that liberation could occur, however, American troops landing in North Africa in 1942 encountered stiff resistance from the soldiers of Vichy France. The Greatest Generation literally had to fight its way through the French to get to the Nazis. "Next to the weather," said General Eisenhower, "[the French] have caused me more trouble in this war than any single factor."
In 1986, when the United States obtained positive proof that Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi was behind a fatal terrorist bombing in Berlin, the French refused Ronald Reagan's request to let U.S. warplanes fly through their airspace to retaliate against him.
The French see things differently. Their leaders condemn the United States as a "hyperpower" whose influence on the world stage must be balanced--"balanced" being a euphemism for "opposed." According to polls, a quarter of the French public actually hoped Saddam Hussein would defeat the U.S.-led coalition last year. "We are at war with America," declared Francois Mitterrand, shortly before his death in 1996. "A permanent war ... a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans--they are voracious. They want undivided power over the world."
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/product/enduse/imports/c4279.html
Posted by: Chris from Lakewood on March 2, 2008 06:09 PMWell we by our xyz from them, why not our tankers? Well we buy our tankers from them, why not our missile defense components? Well we buy our missile defense components from them, why not our nuclear deterrent capability?
That is a bit like "I smashed my thumb, so why not my toe"? I smashed my toe, so why not my head?
First let me address the statement, "That you think Americans are too incompetent to produce these goods is very telling." In an attept to stay somewhat on topic, the new tanker is being built (or "produce(d)") in Alabama. Last time I looked that is in the United States, so what's your problem then? Is it that the design and development was done in Europe?
"Again I call out the straw men. Yet another example cited in which foreign designs were BUILT IN AMERICA." I guess that's not the case either.
As for the fervent defence of our collective ingenuity, is it not the case that American industry, whether military or not, have borrowed concepts, ideas, designs and even taken operational equipment and learned from it? We're not always the first or the best. Pointing that out is not "telling" of anything more than the truth. Lets not forget that the gold standard for helicopters is the design of the great Igor Sikorsky. He was Russian born and educated in Russia and France not the United States. This country provided him the opportunity but his ingenuity was a product of European education.
Second, am I to understand that it's okay for you to sight Swiss duplicity towards the Nazis in the 40's but not when I sight the adaption of the Merlin. Two of your points...
"Europe 50 years ago was a very different place. You are trying to use an outdated example and it just doesn't wash. That is kind of like the liberals using FDR as an example of them being strong on defense." and "In the 20th century, France welcomed American help to end the First World War. During the subsequent peace negotiations, however, the French fought the United States over how to treat the vanquished Germans. By rejecting the advice of Woodrow Wilson and insisting on crippling and humiliating reparations, France fatally undermined the fledgling German democracy and planted many of the seeds of the Second World War--a conflict in which the French required another American rescue. Before that liberation could occur, however, American troops landing in North Africa in 1942 encountered stiff resistance from the soldiers of Vichy France. The Greatest Generation literally had to fight its way through the French to get to the Nazis. "Next to the weather," said General Eisenhower, "[the French] have caused me more trouble in this war than any single factor."
Fair is fair.
The Swiss consider their roll in the war as a national sin and it is taught in their schools as such. Contemporary Swiss leadership are cognisant of their past and that has led to their decisions to stop exports of the material of war.
I have to thank you for pointing out the Packard produced the Merlin under license because it only validates my point. With all the money, effort and brainpower that went onto devising the winning weapons of war American aeronautical firms still couldn't top a British powerplant. There's no shame in it.
British designs aren't the only things I pointed out. How many Canadian (LAV25 and Stryker), German (MP5s and Rheinmetall guns) or Norwegian (owners of 5 of our 13 MPF ships) units do you see in Iraq? That's right none. The Schroder, Chretien and Martin governments were no friends to the United States. Don't even get me started on characters like Pierre Trudeau or Willy Brandt. They were every bit as incendiary as Francois Mitterrand or Jacques Chirac. Lets not forget British leftist like Clemet Attlee and Harold Wilson. Even today, Gordon Brown isn't half the friend Tony Blair was.
Look, your feventness is not without merit I just wish it was directed in more important directions. I'd much rather see you going after America's reliance on Russia and the Ukraine for our steel armor plate. AM General has scores of HMMWVs waiting on that plate so it can be shipped to our boys in Iraq. That's were your anger should be directed and I'd be happy to join you.
A note on the F15: Only Japan, Saudi Arabia and Isreal operate the F15 outside the US. Perhaps you are refering to the F16? That's licensed in Denmark, Holland, Norway, Belgium, Trukey, S. Korea and Japan.
Posted by: Jeremiah Orr on March 2, 2008 08:37 PM"First let me address the statement, "That you think Americans are too incompetent to produce these goods is very telling." In an attept to stay somewhat on topic, the new tanker is being built (or "produce(d)") in Alabama. Last time I looked that is in the United States, so what's your problem then? Is it that the design and development was done in Europe?"
No, the final assembly is in Alabama. A great deal of the aircraft is built in Europe.
"I have to thank you for pointing out the Packard produced the Merlin under license because it only validates my point."
You are laboring under a misconception if you think that validates your point. In fact, that validates my point that it was made in the US. Us building something under license is quite a different thing from a foreign company building the thing. If you cannot see the difference, then you are going to continue offering irrelevant examples.