“Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company needs six months to put together a new bid because it thinks the Air Force has changed the requirements and is now asking for a plane that can carry more fuel.”

That’s what the article in the WP says. To me this does not imply that Boeing will propose the 777. Rather that it banks on seeing out the current administration, the next one being probably much more pliable to Boeing’s lobbying (Dems because of its link to unions and fear of being branded as non-patriotic, McCain because he scuppered the original Boeing deal).

As far as proposing the 767-400 is concerned, it is a paper airplane. But the fact of the matter is that what Boeing was proposing the first time round was, if I recall well, a paper airplane that would have to be developped (ie a -200 body with -300 wings with -400 cockpit, or something of that order).

After all the fuss made over the program by politicians, I can’t imagine Boeing NOT rebidding.

The A400 might be a contender for something in the U.S…but with non-U.S. engines?
(I’ve read that EADS didn’t even consider U.S. engines for the program, instead wanting an “All European” product.)
It might be handy for the missions where the 130 is too small and the C-17 is too big.
But, I bet the price is more in league with the C-17 than the Hercules.

It was decided to build an all European product in large part because of export issues. With an american engine (not that an engine responding to the requirement for the A400 exists in the US), EADS has to ask a green light from Washington for every single export. That prevented EADS/CASA to export planes on some occasions, knowing that the request would be turned down (i.e. export of C235 or C295 to Venezuela).

Fact of the matter is, with a non-US engine, it would probably be difficult to even reach a 60% US made A400 as is the case with the 330.

I am indeed, one of a kind, as are you. The difference between us is that I keep addressing your arguments while you keep bringing me as a person into the discussion.

I did not say that the President (or the government in general since you included the link from Commerce dept., funny I though we were talking about the head of state) never promotes the products of his country. I inferred that he is not a de facto salesman, directly intervening in the overt, public, and direct (almost threatening) way that Sark and Merk did (for a “company” that is at least partially state owned). If you don’t see the difference, then you probably don’t see the difference between government ownwership and government promotion. Not surprising.

Once again, you are trolling. Sarkozy and Merkel used diplomatic channels to express their view on the issue. They did not threaten the US president or the US at large, i.e. they are not suicidal. They used diplomatic channels to promote their wares the same ways the US does. I would even argue that the US is much better at this game than the Europeans, but I admit this is my perception.

US presidents do not interve directly to secure orders for Boeing?? Yes, you really are trolling:

SAUDI AIR TO BUY $6 BILLION IN JETS BUILT IN THE U.S.
Mr. Clinton, who had lobbied King Fahd for months with phone calls and letters, sounded today like a victorious commander just back from the trade wars. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E1DA163BF934A25751C0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Bush Backs Boeing Bid To Sell Planes To Poland
Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka said on Tuesday that US President George W. Bush had written a letter to him a few months ago in support of a bid by US aircraft maker Boeing to sell Poland new aircraft.
Mr. Belka described this practice to reporters as “normal,” adding that U.S.
President George W. Bush had sent a similar missive in support of Boeing.
http://www.airtalk.org/european-leaders-press-poland-to-buy-airbus-planes-vt13688.html

As said, this kind of meddling is usual and legitimate. If you had any idea as to how governments and those industries work, you would be aware of it. But troll one day…

If I were mischievious, I would even stress that, as far as the US case goes, considering the link between the Bush dynasty and the Carlyle group or the Cheneys (both D*ck and Lynne) with Lockheed, the support given to these key US industries is fully understandable.

Important to remember (documented earlier in the thread)that heads of state (France, Germany) have approached the U.S. president directly to try to sell the Eurotanker…..apparently they know who they work for, and they must think that in the U.S. the president just snaps his fingers and makes industrial decisions they way they do…….:)

Never thought I would see anyone so challenged in so many ways. When Bush goes on an official visit to China, he promotes Boeing. When he goes to the Middle East, he promotes Lockheed, Northrop, et al. This a legitimate and regular function of government. Does that imply that the US government owns Boeing? Does that mean that the US is socialist?? Maybe in your twisted mind.

Not too bothered about 4,000 soldiers deaths…..wow you are a sad, sad case.

No, the U.S. doesn’t own it. The Iraqies do. It’s their country….those U.S. soldiers who volunteered to risk their lives did so for the freedom of others, not imperialistic goals. It must kill you to see things going better there.

If the U.S. kept what it took, France would not exist except as a colony of the United States.

You should be bothered for having sent 4,000 young men and women to their deaths for not good reason. Not me. I have nothing to do with this decision. Now, if you do believe they gave their lives for the freedom of others (after having given it to protect the world against the imminent Iraqi mushroom cloud), you should really more than simply be bothered because Iraq is a seriously dysfunctional country where freedom is not about to take roots.

Well that is an interesting analysis. You have claimed in earlier posts that France, Germany, et al, weren’t socialist, yet now admit that the government owns “a stake” in key industries and furthermore, this is equivalent to citizenship requirements for private ownership of key industries. Thats a real leap, but I guess when you have to keep changing facts to fit your arguments…..

The more you talk, the weaker your arguments become. Why don’t you just admit you are an Airbus fan boy/enthusiast, incapable of critical, independent, thought beyond what you are fed, and move on?.

This is so pathetic. Apparently, retards can’t figure out the difference between socialism, where the means of production are held by the State and private ownership does not exist, and a situation where governments are a minority shareholder (18 % in the case of EADS, a stake) in a private held/run company traded on the stock exchange and competing on the world market. That this stake is kept because the industry is seen as strategic. And that the US does likewise simply with other means.

I am not even stressing that I am not the one who argued that France/Germany were not socialists (Swerve did). Given the credibility of the author, this type of mixup is to be expected. But I’ll tell you to things. 1) If you equate the fact that our social system is slightly different than yours (that we have longer vacations than you or a different health care system) with socialism when all our economies are capitalist/market oriented, I’d be about time to take socialism 101, and 2) if the argument is that the US should not buy anything from Europe because we dare to have a somewhat different social system, well then that should go both ways – we shouldn’t buy anything from you because you do not have long enough vacations. I will also note that the US has no qualms whatsoever to buy stuff from China, where the State has obviously a zero stake in the economy. Pathetic.

Afganistan…Iraq….whats the difference? To you, apparently none. Then again 4,000 of your countrymen haven’t been killed in Iraq.

You are right, I am not too bothered. No one forced you to invade Iraq. We froggies even tried to dissuade you from doing just that, and got a real b*llocking for it. So your whining is pathetic. And as said by many, you broke it, you own it. Not us.

I’m not anti-EADS per se, but my point being that if NG/EADS gets the contract, I don’t want to se one penny more spent overseas than would be the case with the 767. Any difference should be made up through offsets.
Fair enough?

As stressed by Swerve, this is a bit of a surprising position considering the US stand on the issue of offsets. That said, there is one thing you may want to consider. The basic A330 based tanker would be 60 % US vs 80 % for the B767. The spread would be easily offset with the planned A330 (civilian)assembly line in the US if Airbus gets the contract.

The US doesn’t owe Europe anything.
France hasn’t done the US any favors for years, and for better or worse, EADS is thought of a Euro government organization (and the percentage of government ownership is higher than Boeing).

I suppose that the Brits that have ended up in Irak and suffered casualties will appreciate. Same for the Spaniards. I suppose that the Brits, Spaniards, Germans and French that have ended up in Afghanistan because the US so asked (and took casualties) will appreciate your comment as well. And if this is your viewpoint, you may want to stop sending envoys to our capitals to request us to send additional troops. I can only hope that one day European politicians come to their senses and figure out how you think. And that they stop sucking up to the US, buying its military wares and only engage troops when it is in their own interest.

And as mentionned countless time, if you consider buying military equipment from a foreign country amounts to making a favour, the Europeans have made tons. And that includes the frogs.

I also find it quite symptomatic that in your view, the term Euro government organisation is a type of an insult. Says a lot.

The heated arguments put forward by Airbus fans certainly seem to prove the point this is about money and ego rather than simply getting the best plane for the job.

Getting the best plane for the job. The USAF has made quite clear which was best for its requirements. But you are right, the smearing that seems to have become mainstream rattles a few egos. Here again, I can only hope that it will not be forgotten and be acted upon.

As said countless time, following the first RFP, the USAF has conducted an in-depth evaluation determining what type of missions it will in all likelihood be called to fulfil in the years to come in. On this basis, it figured out that the 330 better met its need. This has not been challenged by the GAO, so it is no surprise that this appears in the new RFP.

That said, if the new RFP is a way of telling Boeing that its smear tactics are not too well appreciated, that would be most welcome.

Also, no one challenged my operational claims, ie., that 650 of the 750 B-52’s are gone……thus the need to tank large loads is greatly reduced…..most tanking needs are for the much less needy tactical aircraft. Furthermore, during the last day or two, I asked a friend of mine who spent 25 years as a KC-135 nav how many tankers it took to drag 4 F-15’s to Europe and he said 2. They would take 2 in any event in case they had a technical problem with one of the tankers. Does anyone think the biger A330 would allow USAF to only take 1 tanker? I think not, they would still take two for technical reasons….ie., two of the unnecessarily large airplanes……more waste. What about all the training missions where they just go up and check out nugget fighter jocks on AAR……..can you imagine how much fuel will be wasted by the bigger airplane?

Quite the contrary, I challenge you on that very point. Go and read the February decision by the USAF. The USAF determined how tankers are and will be used, what its missions are and what type of refuelling it requires. To be more specific, it performed an “Integrated Fleet Air Refueling Assessment”, i.e. it performed an analysis of tanker performance in a realistic conflict scenario”. The result was that the 330 was deemed to better meet the needs of the USAF than the 767. This fact was not based on what you think the USAF needs are or will be – it was based on a thorough evaluation by the USAF itself, which knows this much better than you do or try to figure out (see above).

And this element of the decision was no challenged by the GAO.

WRT my technology claim, I should have specified that I was referring to the engines. However, I will concede that some might view the FBW on the A330 as more advanced technologically. Perhaps the it would have been 84,500 lbs heavier without it….:D

The 330 advantage is not only due to FBW but to structural improvements. You can have a look at performance if you want to. As said, the cost of a 330 on a seat/mile basis is much better than a 767. And I always find it funny that a Boeing fanboy makes fun of airbus for introducing FBW when Boeing just followed suit. The fact that the bigger 330 is heavier is a non argument. But hey, I am not surprised.

Again, the 330 is more recent therefore more advanced and efficient than the 767, as the 787 will be more efficient than the 330.

I’ve noticed that Boeing has delivered about twice as many 767’s as Airbus has A330’s. ?

What are you playing at again. The B767 has raked in 1011 orders in all, and does not get any order any longer. The A330 had received 975 orders as of 30th June 2008 and new orders came in at Farnborough. And orders keep coming in (see the latest letter of intent from EK, for 30 units). In other words, the 330 will overtake the 767 in terms of total orders.