Act Now to Support NewGen, the Boeing Aerial Refueling-Tanker


Dear Supporter,

Over the next two weeks, members of Congress will wrap up their work in Washington, D.C., and head home to prepare for the November 2 mid-term elections. Before they leave Washington, members of Congress need to hear from you.  I would ask you to make your voice heard again in support for our efforts to build the next generation of aerial refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force.

With the Air Force scheduled to select a winner sometime this fall, we need your support – and the support of your family and friends – now more than ever.

In the coming days, please visit www.TheRealAmericanTankers.com, and go to the site’s Legislative Action Center to e-mail letters to your members of Congress, encouraging them to support Boeing’s NewGen Tanker.  Can you help us send 5,000 e-mails to Congress by Friday?  Together, we can send a powerful message to lawmakers in support of the 50,000 U.S. workers who will be employed by Boeing’s NewGen Tanker.  Additionally, your vocal support ensures that our nation’s leaders understand that competition on a level playing field means saying NO to an illegally-subsidized European competitor, Airbus/EADS – especially at a time of significant economic challenge and high unemployment.

There is a lot at stake in this competition – providing our nation’s warfighters with the world’s most modern and capable refueling tanker, protecting tens of thousands of U.S. jobs and saving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. Please let your elected officials know that the Boeing NewGen Tanker is the right choice for American warfighters, taxpayers and workers. So please stay involved, and let your voice be heard by helping us send 5,000 e-mails to Congress!

Thanks for your continued support!

Sincerely,
Sean McCormack
www.TheRealAmericanTankers.com

Join The Real American Tankers discussion on Facebook and Twitter.

 

This message sent to me by Sean@realamericantankers.com.

Boeing

1200 Wilson Blvd

ArlingtonVA 22209

Advertisements

Aerial Refueling Tanker Timeline from Seattle Times’ Boeing News

divider

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Air Force tanker deal may hinge on next president
Boeing won a major victory Wednesday when the Pentagon scrapped the Air Force refueling-tanker competition, throwing out the contract awarded in February to an Airbus-built plane and leaving the next president to start over.

~~The Seattle Times

Aerial Refueling Tanker Timeline from Seattle Times’ Boeing News

divider

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Air Force tanker deal may hinge on next president
Boeing won a major victory Wednesday when the Pentagon scrapped the Air Force refueling-tanker competition, throwing out the contract awarded in February to an Airbus-built plane and leaving the next president to start over.

~~The Seattle Times

Aerial Refueling Tanker Timeline from Seattle Times’ Boeing News

divider

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Air Force tanker deal may hinge on next president
Boeing won a major victory Wednesday when the Pentagon scrapped the Air Force refueling-tanker competition, throwing out the contract awarded in February to an Airbus-built plane and leaving the next president to start over.

~~The Seattle Times

Boeing’s Proposed Aerial Refueling Tanker Exemplifies the Company’s Traditional Cutting-Edge Vision

As I wrote lately on M-J in the Republic, Boeing Company’s proposed aerial refueling tanker is a slightly smaller and better design than that of EADS/Northrop-Grumman. It will not only have a smaller environmental footprint, but would not require the building and rebuilding of landing strips worldwide in order to accommodate it, as would the competition’s behemoth. I’ve consistently been pro-Airbus/EADS in their acquisition of new contracts, and I realize that their gaining this contract will bring jobs to two continents, including the southern United States.

But, in this case, as always, Boeing has vision.

Boeing’s Proposed Aerial Refueling Tanker Exemplifies the Company’s Traditional Cutting-Edge Vision

As I wrote lately on M-J in the Republic, Boeing Company’s proposed aerial refueling tanker is a slightly smaller and better design than that of EADS/Northrop-Grumman. It will not only have a smaller environmental footprint, but would not require the building and rebuilding of landing strips worldwide in order to accomodate it, as would the competition’s behemoth. I’ve consistently been pro-Airbus/EADS in their acquisition of new contracts, and I realize that their gaining this contract will bring jobs to two continents, including the southern United States.

But, in this case, as always, Boeing has vision.

Boeing’s Proposed Aerial Refueling Tanker Exemplifies the Company’s Traditional Cutting-Edge Vision

As I wrote lately on M-J in the Republic, Boeing Company’s proposed aerial refueling tanker is a slightly smaller and better design than that of EADS/Northrop-Grumman. It will not only have a smaller environmental footprint, but would not require the building and rebuilding of landing strips worldwide in order to accomodate it, as would the competition’s behemoth. I’ve consistently been pro-Airbus/EADS in their acquisition of new contracts, and I realize that their gaining this contract will bring jobs to two continents, including the southern United States.

But, in this case, as always, Boeing has vision.

Boeing Defense Chief on Tanker

Yesterday James Albaugh, chief executive of Boeing’s Integrated Defense Systems (IDS), declared that the Air Force had discouraged Boeing from proposing a bigger aerial refueling tanker built on the 777, and directly challenged Pentagon leaks suggesting that the rival Northrop Grumman-EADS team’s plane had beaten Boeing’s smaller offering on all aspects.

Speaking at an investor conference in New York, Jim Albaugh unequivocally contradicted claims by Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Albaugh insisted that Boeing’s bid for the $40 billion refueling tanker contract was cheaper, lower risk and met military requirements better than the winning Northrop/EADS bid, despite suggestions to the contrary since the Air Force announced its decision last Friday.

“Frankly nothing that was said last Friday, or nothing that’s been leaked to the press, changes our view that we address those three criteria better than the competition,” Albaugh said.

Albaugh hinted that leaks from the Air Force during this week, which suggested that the Northrop/EADS A330 airplane beat out the Boeing 767 because of its larger size and increased capacity for fuel, cargo and troop-carrying, were intrinsically false.

“This was never about the biggest airplane and it was never about who could haul the most cargo and it wasn’t about… who could haul the most gas,” said Mr. Albaugh. “What this thing was about was deploying fuel to the fight and being able to get to austere forward base runways.”
“If they had wanted a big airplane, obviously we could offer the 777,” Albaugh said, “and we were discouraged from offering the 777.”
Albaugh said that the $35 billion mentioned in last Friday’s announcement was the full price of the 179 tankers (not counting operational support and maintenance costs), proving that Boeing’s proposal was less costly than that of EADS/Northrop Grumman.

“Our proposal is less than $35 billion and we were lower cost than that,” Mr. Albaugh continued. “It was about life cycle cost and we know that the 767 burns less fuel than A330, so it’s hard for us to understand how from the life-cycle cost standpoint we weren’t lower.”
Regarding risk, Albaugh asserted that the Northrop/EADS plan to build parts in Europe and ship them across the Atlantic to a plant in Alabama (one that is not yet built) certainly could not be considered less risky than building the 767 tanker in Everett.
“Boeing is a single company. It uses common operating systems. We’ve been building tankers for 60 years. And we know how to work together (Boeing Commercial) and IDS,” Albaugh said. “Look at the competition. We’re talking about two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, different systems, different languages, different cultures, across an ocean. It’s difficult for me to understand how we could be higher risk.”

~~M-J de M.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: