Trump: Cancels Boeing’s Air Force One contract-Too Much $/4,000,000,000/ Right On!!

a reply to: BeBoo

hardly a complete turn around, try again

a reply to: alsee

Must be during the Obama admin, the sky was the limit.

I haven't read any of the other comments, but I heard this on the radio whilst driving home tonight.

Fair play to the man. He said "We all want Boeing to make a lot of money, but not this much."

He is looking at ways of trimming the fat, he'll expect you to do the same in your personal lives, he'll expect you to start bringing your outgoings into line.

We all could do the same, but it doesn't fit in this consumer led world.

a reply to: alsee

Wouldn't surprise me. Designing the next generation of a Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I) system is huge -- involving everything from the design and launch of a separate, classified satellite to developing and integrating new space-based defense technologies. Writing the Statement of Work for the RFP requires huge amount of research to even begin stating the performance requirements for every subsystem and every scenario. It is done in phases.

Our stuff is old and requires a team of scientists, technologists, engineers, national security specialists, etc. to scope it before development begins -- plus coordination and integration with all branches of the Services, and intelligence analyses on what our allies and enemies have going for countermeasures. Think of it like designing the next generation of a Joint Strikefighter -- only with wall-to-wall carpeting.

I write defense proposals for a living. Trump's simple tweet is not that simple. He will find that out. Particularly if he wants to keep his word about upgrading DoD and having the best defense and offense capabilities in the world. Taking this apart isn't like cancelling an order for a $500. hammer from Pentagon acquisitions.

Edit to add: Just like killing Obamacare with nothing to replace it won't be that simple either. And, adding on a blanket 35% tariff without forethought on the fallout of world trade, security, and the ultimate competitiveness of our own companies is rather hasty without studying it.

Lot's of rhetoric to appeal to the masses thus far with good "tweet bites." Let's see the details and some analyses from those who actually have experience on this stage and not a 3am light-bulb idea without a filter.

originally posted by: LifeMode
Boeing beating their chest saying they are under "contract". Those contracts can be terminated at anytime. Especially if an audit is done that determines they are over charging which they are. All government contracts overcharge. Nobody ever challenges them because government workers don't care. It is actually better for government agencies to pay higher costs to justify their budgets and get more funding instead of their budgets being reduced. Totally screwed up system and why we are in so much debt.

There is no contract for $4B. The only contract that exists is for 190Million for R&D. The base price for a 747 is $357M. Congress allocated for 2 of them. So, it's another lie by Trumplethinskin.

a reply to: F4guy
Trumplethinskin. I like it, original.

The whole program.

The plane is totally out of control. It’s going to be over $4 billion for Air Force One program and I think it’s ridiculous,"

I saw that news piece too, but how can he do anything, he is not the president yet?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: BeBoo

How about I run all sources by you, then I can be right all the time.

Brilliant reply lol

a reply to: Pandaram

That would be taxpayers money that would pay for it,maybe another company can come in with another bid,instead of government hiring their buddys,why government spending is out of control,open buisness up to the private sector,in other words the taxpayers

originally posted by: Pandaram
Trump come to power promising high payed jobs for citizens ( you know.. one with t shirts and sun glasses. ) .. and first thing he did is, cancel 4 billion dollers worth contract. Who knows how many billions in day to day running costs.. and yes... That will wipe good few highly payed jobs in lot of sectors. Not to mention avarage job mainlly maned by citizens in this aviation sector.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that Trump has to approve of projects or contracts that he finds to be ineffective, inefficient, or downright wasteful. Given the size of the national debt, it seems to me that someone needs to make an effort to control costs to the taxpayers.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Name them.

For a start
Prosecute Hillary Clinton for her use of a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of state.

I sure hope he keeps this one cause they taste like crap now!

48. Force Nabisco to once again make Oreos in the United States. And bully Apple into making its "damn computers" and other products here.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Trump has a rude awakening coming on Jan 21. Seriously. trump hasn't cancelled anything, nor will he be cancelling the Boeing contract anytime soon. He really needs to take a crash course of fiscal law, study the FAR, and maybe get a clue in the next month, because he has no idea what the hell he is talking about.

originally posted by: Pandaram


Trump come to power promising high payed jobs for citizens ( you know.. one with t shirts and sun glasses. ) .. and first thing he did is, cancel 4 billion dollers worth contract. Who knows how many billions in day to day running costs.. and yes... That will wipe good few highly payed jobs in lot of sectors. Not to mention avarage job mainlly maned by citizens in this aviation sector.

Yeah let's give them $4 Trillion just because!

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: LifeMode
Boeing beating their chest saying they are under "contract". Those contracts can be terminated at anytime. Especially if an audit is done that determines they are over charging which they are. All government contracts overcharge. Nobody ever challenges them because government workers don't care. It is actually better for government agencies to pay higher costs to justify their budgets and get more funding instead of their budgets being reduced. Totally screwed up system and why we are in so much debt.

There is no contract for $4B. The only contract that exists is for 190Million for R&D. The base price for a 747 is $357M. Congress allocated for 2 of them. So, it's another lie by Trumplethinskin.

Maybe you should look into it?

The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated in March that the entire program would cost about $3.2 billion from the 2010 through 2020 fiscal years, including $2 billion for research and development.

www.usatoday.com...
$3.2 billion .. close enough to $4 Billion.

The planes aren’t due to enter service until 2023 or 2024, so costs will rise.

“The $4 billion figure looks reasonable,” says Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who previously oversaw Department of Defense acquisitions at the White House Office of Management and Budget.

www.wired.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: F4guy

originally posted by: LifeMode
Boeing beating their chest saying they are under "contract". Those contracts can be terminated at anytime. Especially if an audit is done that determines they are over charging which they are. All government contracts overcharge. Nobody ever challenges them because government workers don't care. It is actually better for government agencies to pay higher costs to justify their budgets and get more funding instead of their budgets being reduced. Totally screwed up system and why we are in so much debt.

There is no contract for $4B. The only contract that exists is for 190Million for R&D. The base price for a 747 is $357M. Congress allocated for 2 of them. So, it's another lie by Trumplethinskin.

Maybe you should look into it?

The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated in March that the entire program would cost about $3.2 billion from the 2010 through 2020 fiscal years, including $2 billion for research and development.

www.usatoday.com...
$3.2 billion .. close enough to $4 Billion.

The planes aren’t due to enter service until 2023 or 2024, so costs will rise.

“The $4 billion figure looks reasonable,” says Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who previously oversaw Department of Defense acquisitions at the White House Office of Management and Budget.

www.wired.com...

He didn't say, "Don't sign a contract.", or "Cancel the program." He said, "Cancel the contract for $4 Billion." The fact is that there is no contract for purchase. So, he either know that and lied or he again blew out a Tweet born of rank ignorance. You can pick which.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: Pandaram

That would be taxpayers money that would pay for it,maybe another company can come in with another bid,instead of government hiring their buddys,why government spending is out of control,open buisness up to the private sector,in other words the taxpayers

Another company? There are not many alternatives to the 747. Air Force ETOPS rules require a 4 engine aircraft. That leaves Airbus with their A-350 or A-380. I can't see Congress allocating billions for a French jet. The only other alternative is the AntonovAn-225 Mriya, a 6 engine behemoth designed by the Soviets and now built (if another is ever ordered) by the Ukraine, in partnership with China. Do you see Trump moving these jobs building America's aircraft to China?. With 6 old technology turbofans, fuel usage is enormous. And crew costs are double that of the 747. The thing is so big and heavy that many airports can't handle it. It , like the Airbus models would require a huge redesign to allow for air refuelling, and the 225 has never been used for passenger transport.
Maybe Lockheed could design something based roughly on the C-5. However, the design, testing, and production start up costs are in the billions, which makes no sense if you're only going to produce 2 aircraft. Boeing spent 3.1 billion to produce the first 747 it sold, but they have now been spread over about 1500 aircraft. The 747 has millions of hours of operational experience over almost 50 years. Exactly 2 An-225s have been built and operated, and they were so expensive to operate that both were mothballed for years. The A-380 is so expensive to operate that only state sponsored and subsidized airlines, like Emirates, has ordered them.
Long range 4 engine jet transports are a little like children. The initial cost may not be huge, but the care and feeding can bankrupt you. And a baby doesn't have 3 million fasteners to fasten and maintain, 171 miles of wiring to lay and solder, and 8 miles of tubing. Kids' shoes are expensive, but you should price 18 high-speed rubber tires that the 747 has.

a reply to: F4guy

I think this whole thing is about telling companies that the free ride is over.

Since the mid 1980's the tax payers have been lead around by the nose.

Military wants a new jet, 150,000,000$ a piece "cool we'll pay it".

New carrier, 10,000,000,000$ "cool we'll pay it" OOPS 3,000,000,000$ in over runs "cool we'll pay it".......

Maybe the overcharging, things that fall off, top secret coatings flaking off after 3 years, maybe just maybe the free ride is over.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: F4guy

I think this whole thing is about telling companies that the free ride is over.

Since the mid 1980's the tax payers have been lead around by the nose.

Military wants a new jet, 150,000,000$ a piece "cool we'll pay it".

New carrier, 10,000,000,000$ "cool we'll pay it" OOPS 3,000,000,000$ in over runs "cool we'll pay it".......

Maybe the overcharging, things that fall off, top secret coatings flaking off after 3 years, maybe just maybe the free ride is over.

Free ride? Who do you think pays for the engineers who prepare the 6 million engineering drawings needed for the 747. I guess you want the experimental and production test pilots who risk their lives proving these aircraft to work for free. I'm waiting for you to bid on a contract to design, build, test and guarantee a half million pound machine that can fly at 500 miles per hour for 9000 miles and then refuel in the air, all the while defending against surface to air and air to air missiles, and maintain faultless worldwide communications hardened against EMP hazards. What do you bid? Trump doesn't care if he kills the whole Air Force One program because the new aircraft are not due for 12 or so years.

I hate this sub-forum. It's never seen by mainstream ATS. I have something to post, but will find another (perhaps less relevant) thread in a mainstream forum to post it in.