Sunday, March 22, 2009
Could split contract solve Air Force tanker dispute?
With Congress disputing who to give the large air tanker contract to, I am a bit mixed on the idea myself. On the one hand, I would much rather see an American company like Boeing get the governmental contract because they are a large company that would be able to keep more of its workers employed with the money they would receive. Having laid off 9000 workers already, job creation is a key priority for any money that we should be spending right now. However, since Boeing got into the picture a little too late and didn't initially offer the best deal for the government, the European company EADS should be entitled to getting first preference on the list. I guess it would be better to simply do what is best for our country and promote only our companies with the $35 billion expected for the project, but it would happen at the cost of ruining relationships with potential oversees partners.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I disagree with your comments. Boeing wasn't "late" to the project. The Air Force's acquisition process for the fuel tanker was flawed. They chose EADS because their tanker was larger, when the contract specified a medium sized plane. EADS shouldn't be rewarded for creating a plane that fell outside of the contract requirements.
You know who built the rockets for the Apollo missions? Grumman. I don't really care who builds the tankers, we just need new tankers and we need the best ones we can buy.
You are completely wrong when you say that "it would be better to simply do what is best for our country and promote only our own companies with the $35 billion expected for the project."
That line of thinking is called Lou Dobbsinomics and it is wrong.
Post a Comment