Subscribe via RSS Feed

Boeing vs. EADS II: No Mas

[ 13 ] February 24, 2011 |

In a little over an hour, we’ll find out whether our next generation of in-flight tanker will be a decent plane built by decent, hard-working Americans, or a somewhat better plane built on the backs of exploited, unionized Europeans (along with a few decent, hard-working Alabamans thrown in for show).  Intrade says Boeing, and that’s what my head thinks; my heart, though, says EADS.

UPDATE: Boeing wins!  Yay for the USA!!!!! USA! USA! USA!


Comments (13)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jon says:

    Thank you, John McCain, for making this whole fiasco take about seven years longer than it had to.

    • rea says:

      Not to mention Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

    • Warren Terra says:

      I’m not entirely sure that’s fair. McCain is a despicable human being, and his endorsement of a position is hardly a positive sign, but his initial action in this case was, iirc, in response to a clearly flawed and fixed contract award, one in which the Pentagon official in charge of awarding the contract was literally in the pay of the people receiving the contract.

      Now, as I said, I rally don’t trust McCain’s judgement. And there are reasons to doubt his motives in taking the side he did; apparently, some of his advisers were lobbyists for the EADS bid, and McCain allegedly parroted the language of lobbyists for the EADS bid. And, of course, after seven years the contract still wound up going the way the initial fix had it, which could make the struggle against the initial fix look like it was all pointless. But none of those points, not even the corruption in the people who pulled McCain’s strings, automatically makes the points McCain’s initial criticism raised any less valid.

      You will note, in fact, that Farley was on the same side as McCain here, presumably for the same reason (i.e. the reasons being that a flawed process endorsed an inferior Boeing bid, not that Farley’s on the take from EADS). And Farley takes that position having gone to grad school in the shadow of the Lazy B (albeit a much-diminished shadow by the time he got to Seattle).

      • jon says:

        What is the net effect to the contract, the quality of the aircraft, and the the cost to the public? Including the delay in replacement on continued operational cost to maintain the existing fleet and the risk to aircrews?

        I like to stand on principal as much as the next person. I like competitive bidding, and I deplore bid-rigging and fraud. But has anything actually changed, besides a loss of time and the expenditure of additional millions?

  2. Davis X. Machina says:

    Jarndyce is a defense contractor?

  3. Jon says:

    To be fair, there was some Dem megacorruption in there, too – ol, dead Jack Murtha (D) (Boeing) was also more than a bit of help.

    And, it’s long disturbed me how much Pelosi liked Mr. Corruption.

  4. Bart says:

    LGM community shocked that politics/corruption involved in $35 Billion contract.

  5. joe from Lowell says:

    Put me down as perfectly willing, at this particular point in history, to trade a slight amount of military efficiency for a whole lot of American manufacturing jobs.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.