Lawsuits gone wild!

On Feb 28, 8:16*pm, "Kyle Boatright" wrote:

Several thoughts:

1) If the airplane fits the spec, it doesn't really matter when it was
designed. *Beyond that,other than exception of engine development, not a
whole lot has changed in the airliner/transport business since the KC-135/
B707 was launched 50 years ago, so calling a 767 derived product obsolete is
misleading.

You don't consider composite construction a new development? (787,
A350XWB) Granted, neither of the KC-X entrants is a composite design
but it's a stretch to say not much has changed in 50 years. A big leap
happend when turbojets were replaced by efficient turbofans, for one
example.

2) Would you rather send those jobs overseas? *I'd prefer to keep those jobs
here and have 10 or 20 thousand US citizens have good paying jobs than have
many of those jobs go overseas and have to pay unemployment for the Boeing
employees.

If the KC-30 is picked they will be assembled in Alabama. Many other
states will share in the work from the new contract. It's all on
Northrop Grumman's KC-30 site.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/...ts/impact.html


3) *Government always spends too much money on a given undertaking. *The
bureaucracy that is supposed to prevent it from buying a $700 hammer also
makes it impossible for anyone to profitably sell the government $5 hammers.

No argument here, although the reason for $700 hammers/toilet seats/
etc (aside from non-competitive bids) is that they usually have to
meet some particular milspec, which means they aren't available
commercially and are made in low quantities. This is not conducive to
low cost.

Kingfish writes:

You don't consider composite construction a new development?

It's just an incremental weight reduction.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Kingfish writes:

You don't consider composite construction a new development?

It's just an incremental weight reduction.


Nope, wrong again, fjukkwit.


Bertie