PDA

View Full Version : Boeing



Qtec
10-28-2003, 10:29 AM
Selected quotes.
[ QUOTE ]
The Boeing Co.'s campaign to win federal backing for a lucrative new military airplane contract was in trouble in October 2002. The head of the Office of Management and Budget had just told the Air Force and Congress that the acquisition plan -- which featured the most costly government lease in U.S. history -- was not urgent and would squander billions of dollars. <hr /></blockquote>


[ QUOTE ]
Card's intervention was but one fruit of a two-year lobbying campaign, mounted jointly by the Air Force and Boeing, that has brought the $21 billion to $25 billion deal within one congressional hurdle of being passed. An examination of that campaign, based on dozens of interviews and thousands of internal e-mails Boeing surrendered to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, shows how Boeing circumvented the usual route of Pentagon acquisitions -- and, with it, many of the rules and regulations enacted over the past three decades to forestall defense contracting abuses<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Under the contract, Boeing would produce 100 refueling tankers based on its 767-model airliner, a deal Dicks predicts would be expanded and eventually bring the giant weapons manufacturer $100 billion. That would make it one of the most expensive military programs this decade
<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Leasing, rather than buying, is the key to the deal: The Air Force, under current budgeting, cannot afford to buy so many aircraft at once. Leasing would permit it to pay less up front, although it would ultimately pay as much as $5.7 billion more overall. And Boeing would be able to keep its 767 production line active despite a decrease in commercial orders for the plane <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Two weeks ago, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said it was actually a purchase disguised as a lease, making it "significantly more costly" than a normal purchase <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of converting 767s into tankers surfaced formally in February 2001, when Boeing proposed to convert 36 planes and sell them to the Air Force for $124.5 million each<hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
Many existing tankers have flown only a third of their planned lifetime, the study pointed out, and have averaged 12.5 days of flight a year. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Boeing pressed the idea with new vigor. Airlines had deferred commercial orders for 767s, and Boeing laid off thousands of employees at plants in Everett, Wash. But the Air Force had not even listed tankers among its "unfunded priorities" in 2001, a multibillion-dollar wish list of weapons it wanted but could not afford <hr /></blockquote>


Unbelieveable !!!

Do you really need 100 planes at a billion $$$ each?
Every one of GW,s pals have their hand in the honey pot.

The thing is, they dont care if they get caught.

The USA has plenty of cash, it just goes to the same people.

Q

eg8r
10-28-2003, 10:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really need 100 planes at a billion $$$ each?
<hr /></blockquote> Billion????

eg8r

Qtec
10-28-2003, 11:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the contract, Boeing would produce 100 refueling tankers based on its 767-model airliner, a deal Dicks predicts would be expanded and eventually bring the giant weapons manufacturer $100 billion. That would make it one of the most expensive military programs this decade
<hr /></blockquote>


100 planes-100 billion $$

= 1 billion per plane.

These are not my figures. But you are missing the point, as always.

Q

eg8r
10-28-2003, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q:</font><hr> 100 planes-100 billion $$

= 1 billion per plane. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote the article:</font><hr> Under the contract, Boeing would produce 100 refueling tankers based on its 767-model airliner, <font color="red"> a deal Dicks predicts would be expanded and eventually bring the giant weapons manufacturer $100 billion. </font color> That would make it one of the most expensive military programs this decade <hr /></blockquote>


<hr /></blockquote>

Q, if I am reading correctly, they are going to build 100 planes (at 124 million if I remember correctly) and then later the whole program being extended which would bring the bill up to a billion. This quote does not say 1 plane for a billion.

As far as your point....What, is this another W spends too much and his friends are getting rich. Whatever. You have not made a point since your first post on the board.

Your points are a joke. You point to Bush as being the only person in politics who has had a friend that has made a profit. I am sorry if you have a problem with capitalism, but businesses need to make money. Can you please tell me, just what other company would you have rather won this contract????? How many other companies out there have the required airplane already built in which to be retrofitted for this requirement? Your point is stupid...so I chose to ignore it and point out your inability to comprehend what you read.

eg8r

Qtec
10-29-2003, 12:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Can you please tell me, just what other company would you have rather won this contract????? <hr /></blockquote>

If you had read the article you would have noticed that NOBODY wants these planes. Boeing itself came with this idea, the Armed Forces never asked for nor wants these planes.
Again, the present planes are only one third through their lifespan and they fly on average once a month.
There is no requirement for the new planes to 'match or excede'the present standards.

This is a handout. Under the lease, future Govts will be required to pay for this deal.
Finally, its a no bid contract .
How can you say that the tax payer is getting a good deal.

The diference between this admin and previous admins is this. Compare them to two shoplifters in a store.

Subject A will sneak an item into his pocket when nobody is looking and will be embarassed if he gets caught.

Subject B will take a trolley, load it up whit lots of goodies and walk right past the checkout and out the door. He doesnt give a s#$t it he gets stopped and he certainly wont be embarassed if he does.

Q

Qtec
10-29-2003, 06:20 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Group Requests Probe Of Boeing Officials' Donations to Senator

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 28, 2003; Page E03


Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, called yesterday for the Select Committee on Ethics to investigate whether Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) provided favors to Boeing Co. in exchange for campaign contributions.



In 2001, Stevens, now chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, inserted language into a defense appropriation bill calling for the lease of 100 Boeing 767 tankers. A month before, Stevens received $21,900 in campaign contributions from 31 Boeing executives, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Thirty of those contributors had not contributed to Stevens in the previous decade. "The manner in which Senator Stevens inserted the language into the bill is suspicious in and of itself," the complaint said.

Stevens has said there was no connection between the contributions
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
10-29-2003, 06:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
How can you say that the tax payer is getting a good deal. <hr /></blockquote> When did I say this???? My post was to point out that once again you did not read the article correctly. You for some reason did funny math and came up with a $1 billion price tag for a $124 million plane.


[ QUOTE ]
The diference between this admin and previous admins is this. <hr /></blockquote>
I do not remember exactly, but where did the article single out the current administration? Just because W in the President does not mean the rest of congress is his fault (kind of a weak defense but it was all I came up with in the 3 secs it took to respond to this foolish attack on W).

[ QUOTE ]
Compare them to two shoplifters in a store.

Subject A will sneak an item into his pocket when nobody is looking and will be embarassed if he gets caught.

Subject B will take a trolley, load it up whit lots of goodies and walk right past the checkout and out the door. He doesnt give a s#$t it he gets stopped and he certainly wont be embarassed if he does.

Q
<hr /></blockquote>
Your analogy cracks me up...Do you think the store owner really cares if one is embarassed or not. They both stole, so they are both equally the same type of crook. LOL, what a moron. You are trying to say, if one crook is embarassed because he was caught then that is not as bad as the guy that just takes all he can with no feeling at all. WHATEVER Q!!!!!!!!!! I bet the guy would not have been embarassed if he never got caught, but then, you did not think about that.

eg8r