Why buy when you can lease for more money.

[Eric5273]

Again, I pose these questions. We agree w/#3 but do we know the answer to the first two questions. I always try to look at things objectively and would like to give the Dept. of Defence a reasonable doubt. I know for a fact that many of these purchases for military often come w/private sector people. 30 millon extra per plane seems alot, however if these agreements feature Boeing personel/training/maint/etc. 30 mil over the actual aircraft cost with the above mentioned support is not unreasonable. I'm only asking b/c something isn't right with this info.

It's not 30 mil extra per plane. 30 mil extra per plane would be if they were buying the planes and paid $161 mil each. This is more like 80 or 100 mil extra per plane, since leasing is much less expensive than buying (i.e. you are only paying for the depreciation of the plane during the period you have it).

The answers to the questions you pose may give credibility to the argument that the GAO gave that new planes were not needed. But they have nothing to do with this decision to lease or buy. The "servicing" package could have been built into a purchase the same way it was built into a lease. The servicing agreement is much less expensive than the plane itself.

Since you say you will give the Dept. of Defense the "reasonable doubt", what exactly would they have to do to lose your trust? These are the people that admit that they "lost" $2.3 trillion (about 6 times their current annual budget). Do you really believe this money was "lost"? I would say more likely it was stolen. I can't imagine how you can lose $2.3 trillion (or even $2.3 billion - 1/1000th that amount)

 

[Tom Larkins]

It's not 30 mil extra per plane. 30 mil extra per plane would be if they were buying the planes and paid $161 mil each.

As stated by the GAO, again political poker

This is more like 80 or 100 mil extra per plane, since leasing is much less expensive than buying (i.e. you are only paying for the depreciation of the plane during the period you have it).

Where is that figure from. and where do we gather the depreciation figures on 767 tankers and what is the physical life of such plane???? If were leasing to the life of the B-52 were getting a deal.

The answers to the questions you pose may give credibility to the argument that the GAO gave that new planes were not needed.

Correct, politics as usual!!!!

But they have nothing to do with this decision to lease or buy. The "servicing" package could have been built into a purchase the same way it was built into a lease. The servicing agreement is much less expensive than the plane itself.

Care to share with me how you know that. The circumstances are far different than an agreement to lease a Benz w/oil changes (etc) built-in to the lease. With respect for you zeal on this and other matters you have commented about. Unless you and the NY Times can provide for me the lease arrangements on the refueling tankers I can't by into all of this. In short we agree to disagree on this but your concerns are warranted and shared.



Since you say you will give the Dept. of Defense the "reasonable doubt", what exactly would they have to do to lose your trust? These are the people that admit that they "lost" $2.3 trillion (about 6 times their current annual budget). Do you really believe this money was "lost"? I would say more likely it was stolen. I can't imagine how you can lose $2.3 trillion (or even $2.3 billion - 1/1000th that amount)

I won't hold these people in distain. The fact is that I do trust our government for the most part and I would defend the American way against all that say otherwise. Is it a perfect system, no, but its the best in the world bar none. Does it need to be more accountible for its spending, yes but I refuse to say the sky is falling b/c I'm blessed to live in this country and take part in all it has to offer. We have it good here and with some of the faults its still the best and I challenge you or anyone to find better than the USA.


Regards

 

[Eric5273]

I won't hold these people in distain. The fact is that I do trust our government for the most part and I would defend the American way against all that say otherwise. Is it a perfect system, no, but its the best in the world bar none. Does it need to be more accountible for its spending, yes but I refuse to say the sky is falling b/c I'm blessed to live in this country and take part in all it has to offer. We have it good here and with some of the faults its still the best and I challenge you or anyone to find better than the USA.

I agree with most of this. I think that lots of what is going on is not "the American way" and I think it is our duty as citizens to act and speak out when criminal elements infiltrate our government. Just because they are in our government does not mean we are obligated to support them.

Keep in mind that (in my opinion) a "patriotic" Iraqi would have been someone who spoke out against Saddam Hussein, not one who supported his government. The same can be said for many countries, and we are certainly not any different. Being patriotic is not only supporting your government when it does right, but speaking out against it when it does wrong -- and there has certainly been a lot of "wrong" in recent years.

In short we agree to disagree on this but your concerns are warranted and shared.

I agree. I wish some others (in other threads) had this same tone.

 

[nsxtasy]

From today's New York Times:

Senator Ridicules Boeing Lease at Hearing

By LESLIE WAYNE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 — Senator John McCain made a passionate and often sarcastic attack today on a proposed $21 billion Air Force plan to lease Boeing 767's for use as aerial refueling tankers, while Air Force Secretary James G. Roche resolutely defended the proposal.

Before a standing-room crowd of Boeing lobbyists and Air Force officials at a hearing on the plan, Mr. McCain kept up a steady barrage, ridiculing Mr. Roche's response to one question as a "rather bizarre answer" and interrupting witnesses to interject his own thoughts and pointed questions.

The hearing came on a day when the Pentagon's inspector general announced a formal investigation into whether a former top Air Force official who is now a Boeing executive improperly provided the company with data from a competitor in the course of the deal's negotiations.

The actions of Darleen Druyun, former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition and management, were treated gingerly by Mr. Roche, who said that if the information she passed on to Boeing was proprietary, her actions were "not appropriate" and "wrong." But he said that he had no issue if the data was "open source" information.

In documents released by Mr. McCain before the hearing, internal Boeing e-mail messages show that Ms. Druyun, while still at the Air Force, gave Boeing pricing data on a rival bid that Airbus was preparing. She turned over the information at a meeting with Boeing executives in April 2002, after the Air Force chose Boeing. Last January, Ms. Druyun joined Boeing as an executive in its missile defense division.

In waging his battle against the deal, Mr. McCain has already won over some members of his committee. Three senators — Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey; Peter G. Fitzgerald, Republican of Illinois; and John E. Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican — were all critical of the deal, which Mr. McCain criticized as "not in the best interests of our country" and "living for today and plundering resources for tomorrow."

But Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican and chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, along with Senator Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, and Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, were solidly behind it. They came with charts and graphics to back up their statements.

Mr. Roche — who will testify on Thursday about the same deal before the Senate Armed Services Committee — continued to stress that the current fleet of aerial refueling tankers, some more than 40 years old, suffer from corrosion and are frequently out of service. He also said the Boeing lease presents a "unique way of doing business" that can add tankers to the fleet "faster than buying them."

Several government agencies have said the lease proposal would cost up to $6 billion more over the life of the project than if the Air Force bought the planes outright.

The Air Force has said that leasing the Boeing 767's will allow it to have the tankers it needs, but cannot afford, and pay for them later.

"Don't you care at all about that extra $6 billion that is coming out of people's paychecks?" asked Mr. Fitzgerald, whose state is home to Boeing's headquarters.

In response, Mr. Roche said that while leasing would cost more, the difference would be far less if measured in current dollars instead. "It's not taking money from taxpayers," he said, "but it's my interest to hedge, and the fastest way of doing that is with a lease."

The attack on Mr. Roche was then picked up by Mr. Lautenberg, who said he failed to understand Mr. Roche's answers. "How can you just so easily explain away a saving of $6 billion?" said Mr. Lautenberg, who added: "I come from a business environment and I just don't get it."

Mr. Fitzgerald's comments stood in contrast to the actions of one of his Congressional colleagues, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who, according to documents released by Mr. McCain's office, campaigned on behalf of the deal, even bringing it up in meetings with President Bush.

At today's hearing, in speaking up for the arrangement — which has already been approved by three of the four Congressional committees it must clear — Mr. Stevens said he would "challenge anyone that it came from backroom dealing."

Mr. Stevens was responding to Mr. McCain's contention that the issue has, so far, glided through Congress with little scrutiny. The tanker proposal was in Congress "there before God and everyone," said Mr. Stevens, whose appropriations committee was one of the three that have approved the deal.

Ms. Cantwell came armed with a chart, "History of U.S.A.F. Tanker and Proposed Replacement," to show that the Air Force has been considering the deal for nearly a decade, responding to critics who said it had been hastily conceived.

 

[Moab]

Maybe its simplier than that--helping Boeing out? Its common knowledge, on top of the entire airline industry's woes, boeing's been having trouble selling passenger aircraft, losing contracts to Bombardier and Airbus. It's in America's best interest to help Boeing out--both economically and militarily.

In today's world economy, could the government just give Boeing $$ in a subsidy? Probably not without other companies petitioning the WTO about the 'fairness' such payments.

On another note, I just want to state as someone watching from the outside in, a lot of people readily, and quite vigorously, jump on eric's posts--you dont need to get your panties in such a wad. If anything, i've been impressed by how cooly he's responded to such heated retort.

 

[wildbill846]

There's a couple simple things being overlooked here.

The Air Force current fleet of tankers is about 40 years old. Their optempo is at its highest now with operations in Iraq. With the cost of operations over there right now, the AF doesn't have the surplus funds to outright purchase the aircraft now. I've read estimates of 5-7 years before they could afford them for purchase. The idea behind the lease was to get newer, safer aircraft in operation sooner. You also have to take into consideration what the maintenance costs of 40 year old aircraft are when they start flying more and more.

I fly a 35 year old helicopter, and understand this to some degree. The cost of parts and man hours to keep these things flying is overlooked, but everyone gawks at the price of a replacement saying it's too much. Sometimes you need to pay now to save later.

While I don't know enough details about this lease to completely argue for or against it, I wouldn't jump immediately to ideas that its some corrupt, evil deal to rip off tax payers. Sounds to me that, because they aren't given the funds now, but the equipment is needed now, it's gonna cost more in the long run. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Just thought I'd throw a possibility of the other side of the story out there....


Bill

 

[Spencer]

Maybe its simplier than that--helping Boeing out? Its common knowledge, on top of the entire airline industry's woes, boeing's been having trouble selling passenger aircraft, losing contracts to Bombardier and Airbus. It's in America's best interest to help Boeing out--both economically and militarily.

There has been some speculation here in Seattle that without the tanker order the 767 program might be discontinued. So it really might be as simple as that.

And for those among us that seem to continually be in the "bash the U.S. / can't do anything right" mode...there is NO question that the Airbus program is a highly subsidized European joke. It's amazing that Boeing can competitively manufacture and sell ANYTHING against Airbus.

Sometimes it all boils down to a simple question. Do you want to do what it takes to keep the engineering/tooling/assembly line/personnel around long enough to manufacture the product...or do you want it to float out with the tide?

Or maybe we can just buy all of our weapons systems from the Peoples Republic of China...

 

[Eric5273]

Our military budget continues to rise each and every year. It's now over $400 billion per year. To put that in perspective, China spends less than 10% of that number. So does Russia, Britain, France. In fact, I believe we spend more than the rest of the world put together. It is ludicrous that we don't have enough money to buy some planes which we "need".

Perhaps we are over-extended because we have troops stationed in over 90 countries around the world. We have military operations going on in more places than just Iraq, such as Afghanistan, Liberia, Columbia, Phillipines, Bosnia, and Georgia.

Yet, with this astronomically high budget and all these resources, there managed to be only 5 jet-fighters protecting the entire eastern seaboard on the morning of 9/11/01. Just lovely.

I think the military ought to stop waging war on the entire world, bring the troops home (from everywhere), and use their resources to protect us. Then they will have money to purchase all the planes they need. After all, they are no longer called the "Department of War", but are now called the "Department of Defense"

 

[Moab]

There has been some speculation here in Seattle that without the tanker order the 767 program might be discontinued. So it really might be as simple as that.

If the airline industry has righted itself by the time the lease expires, maybe Boeing can convert the tankers in to passenger jets they could market cheaply. Another advantage created by the lease agreement (for Boeing)?

 

[Eric5273]

There has been some speculation here in Seattle that without the tanker order the 767 program might be discontinued. So it really might be as simple as that.

So are you promoting corporate welfare? Sounds to me like you are. So my tax dollars will go to pay for Phil Condit's multi-million dollar salary and dividends for the stock owners. Sounds like the American Way to me.

 

[Spencer]

....Perhaps we are over-extended because we have troops stationed in over 90 countries around the world....

Well, oh my goodness! Can that be right? This sounds like we're some out of control militaristic power bent on world hegemony!

I'll bet that counting up military staff protecting embassies (which I would bet is what this is referring to...if, in fact, it's true) even our dear friends, the French, are probably fielding military personnel in 90+ countries. (And if they’re not, they should be.)

Keep in mind, though, the same people carping about our military preparedness would have a bird if something breaks out in Korea, Japan, or heaven forbid, Europe, and we were powerless to assist our allies. (Such as they are…)

 

[Spencer]

So are you promoting corporate welfare? Sounds to me like you are.

Not promoting it at all. Galls me too, in fact.

But re-read my statement...

"Sometimes it all boils down to a simple question. Do you want to do what it takes to keep the engineering/tooling/assembly line/personnel around long enough to manufacture the product...or do you want it to float out with the tide?"

The question remains...if you want Boeing to keep the 767 program and hence the tanker around...you have to pay them the $$. They're not going to make this available forever, just because the like keeping a near empty assembly line around at the plant. It's that simple. Eventually, it becomes a little like trying to get all of the Apollo contractors together to make another lunar launch vehicle.

Maybe we should simply use the existing tankers until they start falling out of the sky.

 

[Eric5273]

Well, oh my goodness! Can that be right? This sounds like we're some out of control militaristic power bent on world hegemony!

I'll bet that counting up military staff protecting embassies (which I would bet is what this is referring to...if, in fact, it's true) even our dear friends, the French, are probably fielding military personnel in 90+ countries. (And if they’re not, they should be.)

Actually, it does NOT include embassies. The number was around 60 when Bush took office. Since January 2001, we have placed military bases in 30 more countries, most of them in Central Asia and the Middle-East.

If any other country was to act this way and send troops all around the world, we would accuse them of being aggressive and evil (like we did the Soviet Union). In fact, I find it funny that some of the countries Bush has called evil have never sent a single soldier across their own borders.

For example, the only time Iran has ever even used their military was when they were attacked by Iraq and they defended themselves. And North Korea has not moved a single soldier across their border in 50 years. Yet we accuse them of being evil and dangerous.

Yet, here is a list of countries the United States has invaded or bombed since 1950: Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Laos, Lebenon, Libya, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Guinea and probably a few others I cannot think of at the moment.

So then which country is the biggest threat to World Peace? Iran? North Korea? Syria? Hrmmmmmm

 

[Eric5273]

Not promoting it at all. Galls me too, in fact.

But re-read my statement...

"Sometimes it all boils down to a simple question. Do you want to do what it takes to keep the engineering/tooling/assembly line/personnel around long enough to manufacture the product...or do you want it to float out with the tide?"

The question remains...if you want Boeing to keep the 767 program and hence the tanker around...you have to pay them the $$. They're not going to make this available forever, just because the like keeping a near empty assembly line around at the plant. It's that simple. Eventually, it becomes a little like trying to get all of the Apollo contractors together to make another lunar launch vehicle.

Maybe we should simply use the existing tankers until they start falling out of the sky.

If you believe Capitalism is an economic system that works, then I'm sure you believe that if there is demand for such a plane, and there is money to be spent, then someone will make a plane for this purpose. If not Boeing, then someone else. What happened to promoting the "free market economy" and the laws of supply and demand?

Your suggestion of corporate welfare and government economic planning (building a plane that is not profitable) sounds more like what a communist government would do.

Now there was quite a bit of sarcasm in what I just wrote. I'm a socialist, so in theory I agree with your original point -- the government should determine what is built and should provide the funding to Boeing for these planes no matter if they are profitable or not. I object to this particular purchase however, because I think we spend way too much on the military as it is, so more certainly is not warranted. Their $400+ billion annual budget certainly contains enough money for them to get new planes.

 

[Justin664]

Yet, here is a list of countries the United States has invaded or bombed since 1950: Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Laos, Lebenon, Libya, Guatamala, Nicaragua, Guinea and probably a few others I cannot think of at the moment.

So then which country is the biggest threat to World Peace? Iran? North Korea? Syria? Hrmmmmm


North Korea actually did the invading...the US was part of a UN response
Iran took American hostages
Iraq invaded Kuwait
Afghanistan harbors terrorists (oh, that's right, the US perpertrated 9-11)
Somalia was a UN operation

 

[Spencer]

North Korea actually did the invading...the US was part of a UN response
Iran took American hostages
Iraq invaded Kuwait
Afghanistan harbors terrorists (oh, that's right, the US perpertrated 9-11)
Somalia was a UN operation

Agreed, Justin664. To which I should add: Somalia – tried to bring order to chaos where ordinary people WERE STARVING TO DEATH, Bosnia – tried to bring order to chaos where ordinary people WERE BEING BUTCHERED, Haiti – tried to bring order to chaos where ordinary people WERE STARVING TO DEATH AND BEING BUTCHERED…

I could go on with every other country on the list, but why bother?

There will always be self-loathing Americans who believe our government can't do anything right and that our actions are steeped in some kind of dark Machiavellian motivation.

But in the end, that's the beauty of the United States. We have defended the rights of every citizen to be as opinionated and as "fringe" as they'd like…and we've done it longer and more vigorously than any other government in history. And I guess that's what makes us strong.

 

[Spencer]

If you believe Capitalism is an economic system that works, then I'm sure you believe that if there is demand for such a plane, and there is money to be spent, then someone will make a plane for this purpose. If not Boeing, then someone else. What happened to promoting the "free market economy" and the laws of supply and demand?

What am saying simply is...if you let Boeing shut down the assembly line and then order these tankers, say, 10 years from now, you will need to pay a lot of money to Boeing to restart the program or a lot of money to Airbus to design another tanker. A LOT OF MONEY. It would be (as said before) a little like trying to re-order just one more Saturn V rocket. You would end up spending A LOT OF MONEY to restart the program.

It is not a simple matter of "someone 'making' a plane for this purpose" -- you make it sound like Nike designing a new model of sneaker for chrissakes! It is modifying an existing airplane program (note: engineering already done) that Boeing probably has billions of dollars invested in (that's with a 'b') for a very specific purpose and with very little demand outside of the Air Force.

Glad you admit to being a Socialist. That actually explains quite bit.

 

[huckster]

When you talk about our foreign policy, you need to understand the nature of the foreign 'governments' youre referring to. Some of them you referenced have undisputably commited atrocities of genocide,torture/rape, against their own people, let alone other countries. To believe that they would 'live and let live' without our presence is naive. Are you naive, or do you simply not care? Some people believe that the US should be non-interventionist at any cost. Please elaborate at to why you think our presence elsewhere is wrongminded.

 

[Eric5273]

When you talk about our foreign policy, you need to understand the nature of the foreign 'governments' youre referring to. Some of them you referenced have undisputably commited atrocities of genocide,torture/rape, against their own people, let alone other countries. To believe that they would 'live and let live' without our presence is naive. Are you naive, or do you simply not care? Some people believe that the US should be non-interventionist at any cost. Please elaborate at to why you think our presence elsewhere is wrongminded.

Your main question: "Are you naive, or do you simply not care?"

I think you are buying into the propoganda. The reason for these invasions is never the reason the government gives the people. And that goes for all governments, not just ours.

Here's a quote:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

And yes, as you can see from snopes, this is a real quote.

Do you think that the Iraqi soldiers who invaded Kuwait (and Iran 12 years before) knew they were doing so for and oil grab? Of course not.

As Goering referred to above, Hitler justified the invasions of eastern European countries in the late 1930s by telling his people the governments of these countries were committing attrocities against their own people. Or in the case of Poland, he said they were a threat to peace and were plotting to invade Germany. I can post segments of some of his speeches on German Radio if you don't believe me. And they will sound very familiar if you get my drift....

Yes, you are correct that some of these governments have committed attrocities against their own people, as well as during war against their neighbors. But if that was really our reason, then it's difficult to explain why we have given support to some governments like this. Remember that we supported Saddam in the 1980s, as long as he was fighting against Iran. We even sold him Chemical weapons to use against them. And remember General Pinochet in Chile? I seem to remember a CIA sponsored coup which assasinated elected president Salvador Allende and replaced him with Pinochet who later tortured and murdered tens of thousands of his own civilians. Yet no peep out of Washington about that. In fact, many members of Pinochet's government later came to the United States to avoid prosecution and they live here today. This then leads into my next thought...

As far as some of these countries harboring terrorists, many countries in the world are guilty of this including the United States. Do you know that most members of the Pol Pot regime today live in Westchester County NY even though they are wanted for tens of thousands of political murders in eastern Asia?? Our own former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger cannot leave the country because the moment he steps on foreign soil he will be arrested and extradited to be tried for War Crimes. A few weeks ago Iran accused the US of harboring terrorists. A terrorist organization called MKO (which is currently listed on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations) has been carrying out attacks against Iran from inside Iraq, yet the US has been negotiating with them and has allowed them to continue their attacks on Iranian civilians. What happened to Bush's policy of never negotiating with terrorists?? What about our support of the Contras in Nicaragua during the 1980s? Reagan used to call them "freedom fighters", yet it was known that they targeted civilians. In 1991, the United States was found guilty by the World Court of supporting the Contras, who were blamed for the deaths of 30,000 civilians. We were ordered to pay reparations to the Nicaraguan government, which we quietly did without a peep from the American press on the subject. Maybe it's true what they say: "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

I can also give similar examples for many of our allies, as many of them are also guilty of "harboring terrorists". Argentina and Israel both come to mind, as they both have policies about this and have refused to extradite any criminals to other countries. It has made these 2 countries a safe-haven for foreign terrorists.

And for the argument that we went into Somalia, Bosnia, and other places because people were startiving to death, i.e. "humanitarian crisis", I will tell you this.......Our government has never sent troops to the countries with the worst humanitarian crisis over the last 30 years.....countries like Etheopia, Rwanda, etc. The reason? I would guess that these countries had no strategic importance to our military or major industry. At the time we invaded Somalia, both Rwanda and Etheopia were both in far worse shape. Liberia also has had tens of thousands of deaths due to a terrible civil war. And after presure from the international community, Bush has sent a couple hundred troops....what an insult. 140,000 troops in Iraq where they don't want us, and a couple hundred in Liberia where they actually asked for our help.

So in answer to your original question, I do care about the people in these countries which is why I am against these wars. These wars (or "police actions" as they like to call them) have reaked havoc on the populations of these places killing tens of thousands of civilians, dropping thousands of tons of poisonous depleted uranium on these people, and destroying their infrastructure, which is rarely fixed after we leave. The people of the world deserve better.

Before you said: "When you talk about our foreign policy, you need to understand the nature of the foreign 'governments' youre referring to."

I will counter with this: you need to understand that your own government is not so different than those governments. You are just vulnerable to their propoganda just as the people of those other countries are vulnerable to their own governments propoganda. Try to think "outside the box" and see the big picture. The world is not made up of "black and white", or "good vs. evil".....there are mostly just shades of grey.

 

[Eric5273]

Here is an article in today's Guardian, Britain's largest newspaper.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

This article basically explains my reasons for being against most of our recent military actions. Read the whole thing if you really want to know why I think what I think. The first few paragraphs do not really say much.....most of the conclusions come near the end.