Qtec
10-28-2003, 09:29 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
[ 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