2016 Election
Banned
Joined: Dec 2015
Location: california
Posts: 6,035
Re: 2016 Election
Trump today tweeted that he wants to cancel the Boeing contract for the new Presidential planes (which aren't due to be delivered until 2023) because they cost too much (he quotes $4B - a number that seems to be pulled out of thin air)
I fully expect that in a few days/weeks etc, we'll see Trump tweet again that he renegotiated the deal with Boeing to $2.6B, and just saved the country $1.4B!
Just ignore the fact that when the planes are delivered that the final cost will be well over $2.6B
Welcome to post-trust politics!
I fully expect that in a few days/weeks etc, we'll see Trump tweet again that he renegotiated the deal with Boeing to $2.6B, and just saved the country $1.4B!
Just ignore the fact that when the planes are delivered that the final cost will be well over $2.6B
Welcome to post-trust politics!
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 2011
Location: Grand Rapids MI
Posts: 431
Re: 2016 Election
Well he's not all wrong. A modern jumbo jet is something akin to a ship. It can be refitted over and over again, state of the art electronic hardware installed, engines replaced. If it saves our tax money why not? The USAF still have B-52 bombers on their inventory, aircraft that were built and first flew in the 1950s
source
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: 2016 Election
Nobody is censoring you, quit being such a baby. I didn't start crying when you threw your insults at me.
Nobody can stop you, nor would they want to. It's actually very informative and I personally like to know who I'm talking to. As I said much earlier in this thread, if you choose to use certain language, people will make assumptions about you. I guess you thought I was making that up.
Nobody can stop you, nor would they want to. It's actually very informative and I personally like to know who I'm talking to. As I said much earlier in this thread, if you choose to use certain language, people will make assumptions about you. I guess you thought I was making that up.
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 201
Re: 2016 Election
Well he's not all wrong. A modern jumbo jet is something akin to a ship. It can be refitted over and over again, state of the art electronic hardware installed, engines replaced. If it saves our tax money why not? The USAF still have B-52 bombers on their inventory, aircraft that were built and first flew in the 1950s
Just look at owning a car - the first few years are relatively maintenance/repair free, but then comes a point where parts start to fail and the repair bills add up. On a plane you also have to worry about metal fatigue and cabin integrity, among other factors that don't translate to a car. There definitely comes a point in time when it doesn't make sense to pour more money into a car, and it's actually more cost effective to purchase new. Unfortunately with AF1, you can't go to a new plane store and pick one up the next day - they take years to manufacture. I read somewhere online today (unverified) that it costs $1B/year to maintain the current fleet of presidential transportation.
I agree that spending on the military in the US is rife with opportunities for improvements in efficiency. There are lots of reports of grifting and mismanagement of funds. It should also be noted that Trump has claimed that his construction projects are all under budget, because he over-inflates the budget to make himself look good at the end. He also has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would spend significant capital on arguably unnecessary military projects to help stimulate the economy and jobs (which has spurious correlation at best). All this likely means that even more taxpayer money is going to the Military Industrial Complex, for products that (hopefully) have limited value for the United States.
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: 2016 Election
It's just fantastic that Trump's ignorance touches everything.
Dunning-Kruger meets Lord of the Flies.
Dunning-Kruger meets Lord of the Flies.
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2016 Election
I saw the 4bn figure but did not think of it as a Trump made up figure.
Emperors have always had their gilded coaches.
Waste is relative but given finite resources not an obvious spend, the one thing there is not to be a likely shortage of is Politicians.
Emperors have always had their gilded coaches.
Waste is relative but given finite resources not an obvious spend, the one thing there is not to be a likely shortage of is Politicians.
Re: 2016 Election
Assumptions are what create problems on a discussion forum. I don't know anything about you nor you about me. We're just individuals who transmit electronic messages to each other thousands of miles apart.
Assumptions are what create divides and social problems in the sense that a group or an individual are assumed to be something they're not because of their race, color or culture.
In my case I only make assumptions based on actually seeing or meeting with someone and becoming familiar with that person and even then I could very well be wrong.
It's just basic common sense really
Assumptions are what create divides and social problems in the sense that a group or an individual are assumed to be something they're not because of their race, color or culture.
In my case I only make assumptions based on actually seeing or meeting with someone and becoming familiar with that person and even then I could very well be wrong.
It's just basic common sense really
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: Athens GA
Posts: 2,134
Re: 2016 Election
What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.
I'm with Trump on this one.
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: 2016 Election
I've been a member here for over a decade. I've talked to people from all over the world but primarily from the UK. A few years ago, I forget the exact context, another long time poster made a comment about not wishing to be referred to as European. She was adamant. She self-identified as British and/or English. I had never heard this before and it had certainly never occurred to me that somebody would take offense at the term. To an American, "European" sounds kind of flash. I certainly never said European in a negative way so how could anybody think that I meant it in a negative way?
Long story - short. I didn't argue with her. I didn't try to fight for my own right to call her European. I didn't dream up a million scenarios where it was okay to call British people European. I didn't belittle her, ridicule her, or try to wear her down. At the time, I formed my own personal opinion, which has changed somewhat over time, but I kept it to myself. I was actually grateful to know that this was even a thing.
It's a matter of being sensitive to the feelings of others. I'm sure I'll get insulted for saying that but seriously, IDGAF.
Long story - short. I didn't argue with her. I didn't try to fight for my own right to call her European. I didn't dream up a million scenarios where it was okay to call British people European. I didn't belittle her, ridicule her, or try to wear her down. At the time, I formed my own personal opinion, which has changed somewhat over time, but I kept it to myself. I was actually grateful to know that this was even a thing.
It's a matter of being sensitive to the feelings of others. I'm sure I'll get insulted for saying that but seriously, IDGAF.
My mother didn't like it if people referred to her as European, but certainly didn't get angry about it- though she would point out that she was English and not European.
I agree just common courtesy to be sensitive to the feelings of others, but is equally difficult in today's world sometimes to be aware of how sensitive some people are. As I explained in my case I was just astounded at the interpretation maybe because I have the last few years been around quite a few Mexicans, and before that I had employees in Mexico- and I still find it curious that a non-Mexican would take offense at something a Mexican would not. Hence my initial thought just another example of PC getting out of hand.
Oh well, can't disagree never good to hurt the feelings of others,
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 201
Re: 2016 Election
For Trump to threaten to cancel the contract without really understanding the cost of construction, and the reasons behind those costs is just utter stupidity. If he truly does cancel the contract, then he risks creating job losses for an American company, when a big part of his platform was the opposite. The other challenge is that there's no other US based manufacturer capable of building the planes, so he's unlikely to award the contract to another manufacturer. Therefore, my opinion is that he'll bluster and then pull another (lower) number out of thin air, and claim it as a 'win', even though the final cost still won't be determined for years.
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2016 Election
The figure is in line with the Air Force estimate. The Government Accountability Office figure is lower because they estimated lower research and development costs, at just under $2 billion. YES, $2 billion!
What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.
I'm with Trump on this one.
What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.
I'm with Trump on this one.
Re: 2016 Election
The figure is in line with the Air Force estimate. The Government Accountability Office figure is lower because they estimated lower research and development costs, at just under $2 billion. YES, $2 billion!
What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.
I'm with Trump on this one.
What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.
I'm with Trump on this one.
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
Re: 2016 Election
Because the operating requirements for AF1 don't really allow for significant refits to be performed. To perform an upgrade to the hardware and wiring systems could take months, and AF1 has to be able to launch within minutes in the case of a crisis. As the plane accumulates miles, it starts to cost more and more to maintain.
Just look at owning a car - the first few years are relatively maintenance/repair free, but then comes a point where parts start to fail and the repair bills add up. On a plane you also have to worry about metal fatigue and cabin integrity, among other factors that don't translate to a car. There definitely comes a point in time when it doesn't make sense to pour more money into a car, and it's actually more cost effective to purchase new. Unfortunately with AF1, you can't go to a new plane store and pick one up the next day - they take years to manufacture. I read somewhere online today (unverified) that it costs $1B/year to maintain the current fleet of presidential transportation.
I agree that spending on the military in the US is rife with opportunities for improvements in efficiency. There are lots of reports of grifting and mismanagement of funds. It should also be noted that Trump has claimed that his construction projects are all under budget, because he over-inflates the budget to make himself look good at the end. He also has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would spend significant capital on arguably unnecessary military projects to help stimulate the economy and jobs (which has spurious correlation at best). All this likely means that even more taxpayer money is going to the Military Industrial Complex, for products that (hopefully) have limited value for the United States.
Just look at owning a car - the first few years are relatively maintenance/repair free, but then comes a point where parts start to fail and the repair bills add up. On a plane you also have to worry about metal fatigue and cabin integrity, among other factors that don't translate to a car. There definitely comes a point in time when it doesn't make sense to pour more money into a car, and it's actually more cost effective to purchase new. Unfortunately with AF1, you can't go to a new plane store and pick one up the next day - they take years to manufacture. I read somewhere online today (unverified) that it costs $1B/year to maintain the current fleet of presidential transportation.
I agree that spending on the military in the US is rife with opportunities for improvements in efficiency. There are lots of reports of grifting and mismanagement of funds. It should also be noted that Trump has claimed that his construction projects are all under budget, because he over-inflates the budget to make himself look good at the end. He also has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would spend significant capital on arguably unnecessary military projects to help stimulate the economy and jobs (which has spurious correlation at best). All this likely means that even more taxpayer money is going to the Military Industrial Complex, for products that (hopefully) have limited value for the United States.
Looking at Trump's comments during the primary and campaign it is a bit hard to know what he will end up doing.
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 201
Re: 2016 Election
The figure is in line with the Air Force estimate. The Government Accountability Office figure is lower because they estimated lower research and development costs, at just under $2 billion. YES, $2 billion!
What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.
I'm with Trump on this one.
What amazes me is Boeing's statement: "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States," Why are they being paid to determine the capabilities of their own plane? Surely they know that already. If not, then I will continue flying airbus whenever possible.
I'm with Trump on this one.
The payment allows the company to hire the requisite staff to perform the design work, without risking a company becoming insolvent before the design is completed. The R&D cost is part of the total cost of the project (and usually included in the bid), it's just paid up front (sort of like hiring a contractor to perform a home renovation - you have to pay a portion of the reno up front so that they can complete the design work, pay for the permits etc, before they even begin to start work on the actual reno)