Warbird Information Exchange

[quote="Broken-Wrench"][quote="JDK"]"]James;

For instance, I can 'just' write; if I get people to [i]buy[/i] my stuff, then I have to write [i]better[/i] so people pay for it. Different fields, different demands and controls, but mediocrity and disengagement have always been the easy option.

,[/quote]

Buy your stuff!??? I can't understand what your trying to say for you for free!![/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EjlXaBQ ... re=related

..And as to your statement about being 'self employed' great for you! The point is...stock holders wanting bigger dividends each succeding quarter is one prime reason that work goes to the lowest bidder...does JDK Ltd/LLc own any stocks in any corporations? or are you just putting it all in the matress? If you own stocks then you too are part of the problem and all the pontificating in the world won't justify your position that it's all 'someone elses fault' If you look in the bathroom mirror and see the reflection of a stock holder then brother, you are the problem. And, yes I have about 35 shares of Boeing common that I got back in the 70's on an ESOP program, it's always paid between $11 and $14 dollars a quarter, (which used to be a free tank of gas every quarter until recently) so I'm not planning on it financing my retirement in Cancun with my vast holdings in Boeing-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I think you've lost me, Inspector. There's a welter of good points, and the normal low-grade paranoia of civilisation we all live with ("it's all going bad..")

You seem to see me saying it's all someone else's fault. Leaving aside the rather general nature of that, I don't take that view - I'm just pointing out all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Boeing case is a noise over an industry norm.

I think you are confusing my observations based on a little study of history with a conclusion as to what the answer is. (I see what it is, but I don't know how to fix it.) If I knew all the answers, I'd not be here...

As to the 'they will steal our jobs/economy' and 'kids today can't and won't work' history shows that complaint's been a standard for the whole of recorded civilisation. I don't know, but I'm sure the monks were quick to bemoan the lack of ability with the illuminated capitals with these new-fangled 'printer-kidz' back in Caxton's early days; it's well documented that the Elder Romans thought the younger Romans wastrels. Yet we are still here. Your concern over the need to maintain a car and dismissal of texting 'skill' is the same problem. Yes, I owned a 'self-maintainable' car, and I needed to maintain it because it kept breaking down. Cars today don't need that kind of looking after so why would you open the hood? You may as well bemoan the lack of horse troughs in the streets. Technological needs move on, leaving redundant skills and understanding in their wake. Yet those types of kids built an internet that means we are able to communicate, with skills you and I don't understand on an economic basis (it broke - buy a new one) we don't understand.

Australia's aviation industry beat a concerted effort by Britain's cartel to kill it in infancy, and managed to survive W.W.II. It committed suicide in the good years by thorough mismanagement coupled with air force and political stupidity; we didn't need any foreigners to steal our lunch, we burnt it ourselves. They too were worrying about union / non union workforces and the yellow peril, but what got them was the home-grown m0ron in power.

I'm not avoiding the issue with skills in the US workforce. The US, like many other countries can no longer afford to be a manufacturing economy; if that's news to you, I'm stunned, but it's obvious and had been the trend in the developed world for at least forty years.

People get motivated from various reasons. You can motivate someone - a gun to the head or enemy invasion seems to work, but doesn't have a long term success model.

Most people are dumb and lazy. Most people want tomorrow to be like today without the effort. This hasn't changed in the existence of homo-sapiens. As you've spotted, most of those people are simply wasting good oxygen. Like you, I find it rewarding to learn with those who are thinking and at least trying to make a difference.


Terrific, and I know what you mean. These are the people who matter, not those who try and dumb down or demand you talk in the little words or are disengaged. It's not the educational systems that are at fault (as you said, you can't motivated the unmotivated) but an assumption that everyone can or should be a contributor. Sadly, the majority are there just to make up the numbers. If they want out, it's up to them. In the meantime, they aren't holding me back, nor do I waste my time with them.

I don't look in the mirror at a stock holder; my financial planning isn't something for the forum, and why should it be? I try to make my society work, and the economy follows. Currently our biggest threat in Australia to a healthy economy seems to be because some American banks lent rather a lot of money to known very bad risks. We'll try and avoid the conclusions from that, shan't we.

It's interesting to discuss, but we are well off topic.

Regards,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

JDK, Never mind! I absolutely didnot attempt to pry into your finances, re-read WHAT I said- and I am concerned about uncaring people building airplanes, I could give a rip about the other 99.99999% who never touch an airplane, burn my burger at lunch, I'll get another, overcharge me at the grocery, just once, I still get emotional when I see 'Seconds from Disaster' episodes about American 191, United 232, and especially Alaska 267 because these airplanes were worked on, or maintenance was directed by uncaring idiots who placed something else above the value of human life, that has been the main direct thrust of the past few exchanges, however you continue to sound like you are running for public office and are always trying to avoid the text, or try as hard as you can to steer away from having to answer a direct inquiry.
So, I consider this subject closed because one of us showed up at a gun fight carrying a pocket knife-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Back on topic, the GAO has upheld Boeing's protest for further review and not thrown it out as EADS and the USAF had asked.

.and some of the things that have come out .........the EADS design is deficient or potentially unable at transfering fuel to some of it's potential users, is lacking in crew protection in an accident,......................

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

And everything that you are saying is coming out of Boeings Public Relations department. Potentially this and potentially that...no facts to back that up.

This is from aero-news.net:

Northrop Grumman Launches Website To Show National Support For KC-45A
Sat, 05 Apr '08

'America's New Tanker' Garners "Tens Of Thousands" Of Letters, NGC Says
Two can play at that game. Responding to a flurry of recent press announcements by Boeing, attempting to garner public favor for its protest of the awarding of a lucrative US Air Force aerial refueling contract, Northrop Grumman recently launched its own "America's New Tanker" website "to inform the general public about the facts surrounding the US Air Force's selection of Northrop Grumman to deliver the KC-45 aerial refueling tanker aircraft."

"This website serves as a central point of accurate information and current news for Americans who want to learn the facts about the KC-45 Tanker -- from the 48,000 US jobs this program will support to how citizens can take action and contact their elected officials," said Randy Belote, Northrop Grumman vice president of corporate and international communications.

Northrop adds citizens across the nation have responded to the selection of the KC-45A, by generating "tens of thousands" of letters to their respective congressman, senators and governors in support of the Air Force's selection of Northrop Grumman to provide the KC-45 Tanker.

The website also offers a capability that enables visitors to receive e-mail news updates about the program. (One wonders what Boeing's response to this will be... perhaps the KC-767 will get its own MySpace page? Ed.)

"Following the Feb. 29 Air Force announcement that it had selected Northrop Grumman to build and deliver the new fleet of KC-45 aerial refueling tankers, supporters of the losing bidder spread misinformation about the basis for the Air Force's decision," Belote added. "We believe that citizens who visit the site will learn the facts surrounding the program - like the fact that the program is led by an American company, that the aircraft will be built in the United States in four new factories, and that the KC-45 is the superior tanker for our Airmen at best value for American taxpayers."

The KC-45 Tanker aircraft will create 48,000 new American jobs at 230 companies in 49 states. The aircraft will be assembled and modified at new, state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities in Mobile, AL while the KC-45's refueling systems will be built at new facilities in Bridgeport, WV and delivered to the KC-45 Production Center for aircraft integration.

The KC-45 will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, GE Aviation, Sargent Fletcher, Honeywell, Parker, Goodrich, AAR Cargo Systems, Telephonics, Knight Aerospace, Astronics and Aircraft Safety.

FMI: www.americasnewtanker.com

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

...and just how much is the NORGRUMBUS P.R. department giving you for that pile of bovine byproduct?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

That sounds like Boeing!
Just back up your accusations with solid facts? Tell it to the 48,000 new jobs with 230 new subcontractors that supports this effort.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

48,000 "new" jobs that would have been created either way because they both use a lot of the same subcontractors. Funny how they forget to mention that.

Oh, and BTW, those jobs aren't "new". Most of the "48,000" already exist. It's not like they're going to create 48,000 new jobs just to build another 100 A330s....

But then again, NG/EADS is the one who put out a letter that failed to be clear that it was from NG/EADS and claimed to be from 22 Generals "supporting" the KC-45 without explaining that those 22 Generals work for the NG/EADS KC-45 team...

Boy oh boy, that thing sure is a job producer isn't it? When first announced it was going to create 2500-3000 new jobs, now you're telling us (via what reads like a word for word press release) that it'll create 49,000 new jobs!?! At that rate, by this time next week the entire state of Alabama will be working on that thing, but, isn't that an awful lot of people to install rugs and consoles and a 'made elsewhere' refueling boom? Talk about labor intensive!

According to an article in the newspaper on Friday, the Air Force, in it's evaluation gave the KC-767 higher marks in maneuverability when heavily loaded into a refueling zone, the flight deck displays and communication systems were better than the KC-30.

The GAO also said that it had reviewed 'significant portions' of the arguments and also looked at the Air Forces requests to dismiss parts of Boeings protest. The GAO responded that 'we donot find, at this time, that summary dismissal of any of Boeings protest grounds is appropriate'

Norgrumbus responded that Boeing got poor marks from the Air Force in tha area of program risk and management. Northrop points out the difficulties Boeing has had in delivering tankers to Japan and Italy.
The problems with the Japanese tanker stems from the JSDF wanting a military aircraft/freighter with a cabin that meets FAA requirements for passenger cabins (lemme see, you want a 5 ton truck that rides and is as smooth as a stretch limo?) and the problems with the Italian aircraft is in fact all the screwups and mistakes being made by AERONAVAL on their parts of the project. I see perfect examples of 'Italian craftmanship' every day on the half assed, half assembled, filled with FOD sub assemblies that we get in from Italian subcontractors for the 87, and I DO NOT work directly for Boeing, I too am a contractor to the 87 project.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Where were these high ranking general officers when it came to picking a new tanker? Where was their input into the decision making?

The highest ranking four star general (CO of the AMC, ie, the customer) picked the Northrop Grumman aircraft as the best value and met the RFP and decided that the Boeing design failed to meet several key parameters of the RFP.

Was the higher maneuverablity a specification in the RFP? If it failed to meet spec, then it failed to meet or exceed spec. If it was not in the spec, then it doesn't matter.

The aircrafts mission is not soley a tanker, it also has to haul cargo and litter patients.

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.

WRONG. I cannot be any more forceful, but you need to read the RFP. Nowhere within the RFP is there a single mention of the cargo role for this aircraft as being an evaluated measure. It stresses replacement of the KC-135, a tanker, not the KC-10, a dual-role airlifter/tanker.

BINGO!!!!!! and thank you CAPFlyer

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-