Air Force concedes 767 lease price is high but stresses its need

[Ediacara]

Saturday, July 12, 2003

Air Force concedes 767 lease price is high but stresses its need

By CHARLES POPE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force conceded yesterday that leasing 100 aerial tankers from The Boeing Co. is significantly more expensive than buying them outright, but said the cost is acceptable because leasing will get the planes into service years sooner.

The admission was included in a 13-page report to Congress explaining and justifying the controversial $17 billion deal. The report is considered one of the final steps before a deal two years in the making is made final.

"The dominant reason for proposing the lease is the advantage it affords for quickly delivering needed tankers to our war fighters without requiring significant upfront funding," Air Force Secretary James Roche said in a report that was delivered to the four major defense committees in Congress.

More at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[classics]

1. Kinda like renting that big screen TV.

Dont have to pay for it up front. Surrrrre the 'low weekly payment' is only $40 a week for 500 years, but you can get it NOW!

[KeepItReal]

2. Why do they keep blowing smoke on this?

"In all my years in Congress, I have never seen the security and fiduciary responsibilities of the federal government quite so nakedly subordinated to the interests of one defense manufacturer. Indeed, any objective analysis of the deal would conclude that the sole purpose served by this lease is to maximize the profits of Boeing, with the consequent under-funding of other defense priorities." - John McCain

What is wrong with retrofitting and upgrading (at much cheaper cost) the existing KC-135s (other than no new phat contract for Boeing)? Remember that is what is keeping our B-52s in the sky right now and into the next decade.

Where is the fire? Why do these leases have to be done so fast? Maybe because a Democratic administration and Congress (dare I dream?) in '04 might rein in this DoD contractor spending spree?

On Edit:
By the way, I love Boeing commercial jets - especially compared to the Airbus. I just think they should not be using the Air Force's perceived need as an excuse for ripping off the U.S. taxpayer. Why don't they create some new designs appropriate to the market and get out there and compete?

[pigle36278]

3. And the corruption never ends.

As an aviator, I watched this deal from beggining to end. This was a sad story of bribery, decite and out and out fraud.
Only in the Bush White House could the taxpayers end up paying twice to lease then to buy. And the press...not a word, with the exception of a very small article in the back of the Seattle papers.
It went like this...Boeing Bribed Republican lawmakers(let's drop the "donate" crap, shall we) and as soon as the mid term elections were over....BOOM, this great plan was hatched. And the reason is Bullshit too. It takes 4 months to assemble a 767, period. Whether it was leased or purchased, production time is fixed.
What I want to know is...why the hell is the Air Force agreeing to this..? They could use the money in other places(like paying their troops more.HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA)
I suppose we merely don't know who bribed the Air Force Brass.


PS-
DU, please end the Login process. It took me 19 minutes 2 wrong passwords and a lot of frustration to log in. Also, please don't sell my information.
THANX

[classics]

4. Great post, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Ediacara]

5. I thought that was odd too

it sounds like it translates to, "if the Air Force buys, we'll slow production."

[newyawker99]

6. Hi pigle36278!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: