I do not agree with the idea (put forth by politicians) that a contract should be awarded because it creates jobs. If that is a byproduct then fine.

If the deal is a problem or there were issues that made this a bad deal it should certainly be looked at but the sole determiner of awarding a contract should not be whether or not it provides jobs. If the politicians had put forth the argument you did it would have been a non issue with me (in regard to the jobs part). I think they use the jobs as a fear factor rather than spelling out the points like you did.

Perhaps they feel that we are not bright enough to understand all that.

In any event, if what you say is correct it should be looked at but this should be irrespective of any jobs that might be created.

If Boeing is the best for the contract they should get it though relying on a retiring airframe is not a smart thing to do.

Airbus is considered by many to be inferior to Boeing. However I am sure that that particular debate is one that is highly politicized and subjective.

There are quite a few problems with the EADS contract. First and foremost Airbus was subsidized by the governments of France and Germany with the express purpose of undermining the U.S. Airline industry. The design being used for the refueling tanker is the product of those subsidizes. Not only do the subsidies put Boeing at a competitive disadvantage to Airbus but the loans the received were illegal.

The cost of the plane may look to be better on the onset but you are missing the point that the Boeing design is more fuel efficient and won’t require all the infrastructure costs that will be incurred because the Airbus has a bigger wingspan. Runways, terminals and facilities have to be altered to accommodate the new plane adding to much extra costs that are not being figured in.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Yes, Boeing did have issues that should be scrutinized but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t scrutinize Airbus in the same manner. France and Germany have done exactly what they planned to do. This most certainly undermines U.S. economies and a major player in the U.S. airline industry.

Lastly though I don’t consider $100 billion in taxpayer money welfare if it creates jobs that require hard work and research. It wouldn’t have been a giveaway. At a time when the U.S. economy suffers from unfair trade with overseas companies it would be nice to see the government do something to keep jobs here for once. I’m not advocating that they get a pass. The government does have to do their job appropriately and provide adequate oversight.

I wrote about the issue here: http://www.webloggin.com/us-economy-stalling-so-naturally-the-government-gives-40b-to-100-billion-dollar-defense-contract-to-european-company/

Trip

Something about leasing instead of buying tankers.

Kurt P’s last blog post..Some things just aren’t right