3 ms·
> The government treats them with kid gloves because of item #1; who else would the USAF order tankers, AWACS and other logistical aircraft from? The military
by philwelch 3y ago
> The government treats them with kid gloves because of item #1; who else would the USAF order tankers, AWACS and other logistical aircraft from?
The military tried to order tankers from a different manufacturer, but Boeing owned enough senators to put the kibosh on that and make them re-run the competition.
- lenerdenator 3y agoIs this in reference to the Lockheed Martin/Airbus tender?
- OldGuyInTheClub 3y agoNorthrop Grumman/Airbus.
- lenerdenator 3y agoI feel like any tender that doesn't feature an aircraft designed and made by an American company (preferably in the US) is going to fail on that quality alone. Generally speaking, if you can, you should source items vital to your national defense/foreign policy from domestic sources. The problem emerges when there's only one domestic source and it exists for the sole purpose of delivering value to shareholders by any means necessary, with no real accountability.
- OldGuyInTheClub 3y agoI assume that airbus and Northrop Grumman teamed for those reasons. Airbus also has a major presence in Alabama if I'm not mistaken. BAE is based in London but has a lot of US defense contracts as well. The ship of shareholder value has sailed a long time ago and won't be coming back any time soon.
- MomoXenosaga 3y agoAirbus has factories in the US and employs a lot of Americans.
- lenerdenator 3y agoHaving factories and employing Americans != being American.
- philwelch 3y agoEverything the US military uses is manufactured in the United States, but many things are designed by foreign firms.
- jemmyw 3y agoNot just senators, they also had a mole in the tender process passing secrets and making decisions that Boeing then "hired" on an inflated salary. They were later convicted for fraud for their part and Boeing was fined but they still got to keep the contract.