by Werner » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:29 pm
Since the Boeing 767 version is the most efficient wide-body at any price and has payload fuel costs 24% below the A330 version, one can only assume the decision was taken because the EU price offsets were dramatic and greatly benefit the USAF as well as the US economy at European taxpayer expense.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t/kc-x.htm
Since the aircraft is to be built in Mobile, Alabama and there is a stated US parts content, there is little profit to Airbus apart from any license fees. This aircraft is expected to generate 25,000 jobs in non-union "right to work" states.
This is an atomic explosion in the aviation industry. The tanker was one of the few "plumb" military projects to be gained for military contractors in the "Bush Years", which have seen system after system canceled to pay for the War on Terror in the face of a parsimonious Congress, unwilling to spend on military procurement funds they would rather dispense on welfare programs and educational programs which benefit the largest public employee unions in the USA.
I would go so far as to say that the Congressional delegations representing the states where Boeing is located will shortly be demanding corporate welfare to keep Boeing's military arm in business.
Since the Boeing 767 version is the most efficient wide-body at any price and has payload fuel costs 24% below the A330 version, one can only assume the decision was taken because the EU price offsets were dramatic and greatly benefit the USAF as well as the US economy at European taxpayer expense.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-x.htm
Since the aircraft is to be built in Mobile, Alabama and there is a stated US parts content, there is little profit to Airbus apart from any license fees. This aircraft is expected to generate 25,000 jobs in non-union "right to work" states.
This is an atomic explosion in the aviation industry. The tanker was one of the few "plumb" military projects to be gained for military contractors in the "Bush Years", which have seen system after system canceled to pay for the War on Terror in the face of a parsimonious Congress, unwilling to spend on military procurement funds they would rather dispense on welfare programs and educational programs which benefit the largest public employee unions in the USA.
I would go so far as to say that the Congressional delegations representing the states where Boeing is located will shortly be demanding corporate welfare to keep Boeing's military arm in business.