It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Good Deep Story About Trump/Carrier-Owned By United Tech-Big Military Contrator-Leverage

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The story Talks about how the 5 Billion $ jet engine contract that United Tech (parent co to Carrier) has with the govt is going to be used as leverage.



For the company, the costs of defying the president-elect are at least as high, if not higher, and may well outweigh the tens of millions of dollars to be saved by relocating production to Monterrey, Mexico, from Indiana.

United Technologies is among the country’s biggest military contractors, producing engines for the Pentagon’s most advanced fighter jets and receiving more than $5 billion annually from the federal government. That equals 10 percent of the company’s revenue.


The story goes on to talk about the fact that tax payers pay United Tech, and United wants to move the jobs that get taxed to Mexico. Cake and eat it too, that's corp America-more-more-more for them less-less-less for mid America.


“It’s unfair to ask the same workers who have been laid off to pay tax dollars that will go to the company that fired them,” he said. “We’re in this together as Americans. When our workers succeed, our economy succeeds and our defense contractors succeed.”

Senator Donnelly is pushing for the government to consider outsourcing as a factor in deciding which companies receive federal contracts.


www.nytimes.com...




posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Some real patriots there.

Appreciate all your coverage!



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I did not know United Tech have 5 billion reasons to keep on the good side of the US govt. This will be a pressure point Trump will push and he will get Carrier to stay. I don't know what Carrier or United will gain or will keeping the military contract have to be enough?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
If they want to move they can, just tax the hell out of all sales coming to the US companies and cancel any government contracts with them. No problem, that stuff should be made in the USA. The Military was not allowed to buy anything that was not made in the USA before, what happened is a bunch of bribed idiots changed the laws. Maybe those idiots that did that should have their government pensions stopped and their finances from that time checked thoroughly, especially looking for off shore account deposits or stock purchases and stock gifts. Also employment after they left should be considered.

But you know how it is, since so many people were on the take then and now, nobody will investigate this, let the man without sin throw the first stone. That is actually part of Ad Hominum, get a person to do something bad and they can't challenge you. Sounds like the way of life on Capital hill.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Bravo! S&Friday, very interesting story.
I remember well when military installations were required to buy American. Hopefully Carrier will just be the first of American jobs saved.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Unfortunately I think you are right with the wide spread corruption. I think that United will be thankful that they don't loose the 5 billion $ contract.

I wonder what Hillary would have done to Carrier?



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

It's not that easy. Depending on which engines they're talking about they may be the sole supplier, and changing to a new manufacturer and type will cost almost as much as their contract is worth, if not much more. That's the problem with some of these companies, they have the Pentagon over a barrel and they know it.

ETA-They're the parent of Pratt&Whitney. They're the sole supplier of F-35 engines. The question is are they moving United Technologies, or the entire company out of the US. They could move United and leave Pratt in the US.
edit on 11/25/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That maybe true, if it is proprietary processes and retooling can't be cheap.

I imagine if there is a way, Trump will find it. He needs this to show the world that he is all he said he was during the campaign.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: rickymouse

It's not that easy. Depending on which engines they're talking about they may be the sole supplier, and changing to a new manufacturer and type will cost almost as much as their contract is worth, if not much more. That's the problem with some of these companies, they have the Pentagon over a barrel and they know it.

ETA-They're the parent of Pratt&Whitney. They're the sole supplier of F-35 engines. The question is are they moving United Technologies, or the entire company out of the US. They could move United and leave Pratt in the US.


How did our government let it get this way. If they move to Mexico, We will not be able to do anything to them if they do sell the secrets of the technology on our jets. That would come under the role of national security to keep them in our country. Boy, our government has turned into a bunch of wimps.



posted on Nov, 25 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Carrier will make furnaces, I don't think jet engines are going to Mex....yet.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

They wouldn't be selling the secrets of our jets, only their engines. They don't know everything about them, as there is no reason for them to.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

It's the fact that different companies make engines slightly differently. The F136 that Rolls Royce was working on is actually quite a bit different than the F135 Pratt makes, even though both are for the same aircraft, and have similar performance numbers.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join