Quote:
Originally Posted by JA Boomer
I not trying to pick a fight here heasighs, but have you read the RFP for the KC-45? (I have not)
|
I've read the summaries, but I don't have the time or inclination to wade through the thousands of pages. If you want to, here you go:
http://www.fbo.gov/servlet/Documents/R/1543915/284332
Whenever Boeing or Lockmart offer an existing frame for consideration, someone always pipes up with the argument that they are just trying to keep the line going. The 767 line is booked through 2012, and the Boeing workers will mostly transition to another line when it closes. But a lot of businesses in the area will suffer, something we know a lot about already.
Boeing offered the frame that best met the req's as specified in the RFP. Simple as that.
Boeing: Here's our offer- it meets every requirement, it's less expensive to buy, less expensive to operate, and we can get them in service faster than the competition.
Air Force: We don't believe you....
Top Chundry wrt the jobs.
Boeing employs a hell of a lot more people than 44,000. There are thousands of subs, supporting businesses, etc in the Pac NW (and Wichita) that go into the 767 production and (would support) the related tanker conversion.
The Airbus conversion plant in Alabama will employ 1200 people by comparison.
Whatever. If the AF wants to fly a French tanker, fine. If they want to export the jobs to Europe, fine. Not my problem. I don't have time to argue with the entire WAB over it. I got parts to make....