Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

It's the 19th Anniversary for T1B - Fuckin' A

Moderator: Jesus H Christ

User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Screw_Michigan »

I cover the Pentagon for a living now and the Northrop decision to decline on bidding for the Air Force's new KC-X tanker is easily the biggest news in months. Of course, people are melting hard in Alabama and Kansas while the folks in Washington and Chicago (and Boeing) are extremely pleased, to say the least. I'm pretty new to the whole saga, but Northrop's been pissed since their award was overturned and they are calling they got screwed from the get-go. Saying the original RFP from the Pentagon was clearly skewed to a plane model that Boeing could supply, but not Northrop.

BTW, Northrop is the partner of EADS (Paris based) to try to get the money. I was skeptical from the beginning because the Pentagon doesn't want to give the money to overseas firms.

I don't have much of a take on this situation, but I am wondering if there is any of you military guys or Chair Force vets (Sup, Smackie, Whitey?) or anyone in general here who had a take.

Thanks, now get fucked with Katy's rusty dildo.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
Smackie Chan
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7330
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Inside Your Speakers

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Smackie Chan »

Northrop Grumman builds the ships (USS SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17) Class Amphibious Transport Docks) for the program on which I work. We've had major problems with workmanship (welding, piping, etc.) on them. Both Northrop and Grumman, before merging, were in the business of building aircraft. As far as I know, neither built ships before they merged.

That's about all I have. Not really a take, I know. I did laugh at EADS, though. Does that stand for Eat A Dick, Seriously?
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Derron »

This is just a continuing saga of Northrup versus Boeing versus Lockheed versus McDonald that has been going on for the last 50 years.

Was Northrup's platform the Airbus plane ? That would highly piss off the majority of the American taxpayers...and Northrup likely did get screwed at the start, but can you imagine Boeing not getting it and Airbus getting it ?? It would actually help the Revolution out a bit though if that happened.

My Dad worked for everyone of those companies between 1950 and 1977. It was feast or famine. He did wind tunnel testing and machine work. I have some pretty cool pictures, film and paperwork on the Flying Wing (sup B-2?), F 104, Snark, F-4 and some other projects.
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
User avatar
mvscal
Blank
Posts: 12935
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by mvscal »

Screw_Michigan wrote: the Pentagon doesn't want to give the money to overseas firms.
Since when?
Screw_Michigan wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:39 pmUnlike you tards, I actually have functioning tastebuds and a refined pallet.
Trampis
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1486
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Trampis »

What did Eisenhower say? Beware the vast military industrial complex...or some shit like that.

Weve got a company in town that is making a special jack for humvees. You know, for changing flat tires. They are charging the government(us taxpayers) $1500 a piece for these treasures. Fuck, I bought a 20 ton jack at harbor frieght a couple years ago for $25. Had a peice in the local newspaper with a picture of our local US Representavive standing next to the owner of the company...grinning...so happy he brought this $X million contract to our area.
Bad spelling is a diversionary tactic
Goober McTuber
World Renowned Last Word Whore
Posts: 25891
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:07 pm

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Goober McTuber »

Screw_Michigan wrote:I cover the Pentagon for a living now
The Pentagon? They must hire jizz-moppers at $500/hr. Rack you, Screwball.
Joe in PB wrote: Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote: They couldn't even kick that doctors ass

Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
H4ever
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by H4ever »

Goober McTuber wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:I cover the Pentagon for a living now
The Pentagon? They must hire jizz-moppers at $500/hr. Rack you, Screwball.

Don't forget the $3,000 dollar jizz-mop with the 800 page spec manual or the bio-friendly jizz cleaning solution that runs about 90 bones a quart.
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9726
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Diego in Seattle »

The NG plane would have been larger, but would have been more expensive to operate (uses more fuel, it's larger size would have required the construction of new facilities to house it ala A380).

To one of Tarddowen's comments, the contract will mean up to 2,000 directly related jobs in Everett, Wa....with another 4,000 jobs that aren't directly related. So one doesn't have to be a Boeing worker to benefit from this contract.

There's some speculation that NG might be given future consideration/awards on other defense work (which they do a lot of) as compensation for dropping out of this competition.

Hopefully Boeing management won't fuck this up like they have previously on this plane as well as the 7late7.
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Screw_Michigan »

Goober McTuber wrote:The Pentagon? They must hire jizz-moppers at $500/hr. Rack you, Screwball.
That's right, you degenerate shitstain. Rack me.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Screw_Michigan »

Your governor is, unsurprisingly, a fucking idiot. The KC-X process began during the Bush White House. This didn't begin Jan. 20, 2009.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
Carson
2012 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 4969
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:11 pm
Location: NOT in The Gump

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Carson »

Riley was strutting for the voters ERRR the folks who were counting on those jobs in Alabama.

He's finishing out his second term, anyway.
JPGettysburg wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2024 8:57 pm In prison, full moon nights have a kind of brutal sodomy that can't fully be described with mere words.
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Screw_Michigan »

Derron wrote:Was Northrup's platform the Airbus plane ?
Yes.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
R-Jack
Non Sequitur Legend
Posts: 4262
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 3:36 am

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by R-Jack »

KC-X tanker
I know you're fueled but what am I?
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 31740
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Mikey »

Derron wrote:This is just a continuing saga of Northrup versus Boeing versus Lockheed versus McDonald that has been going on for the last 50 years.
Haven't been keeping up much, have you? McDonnell merged with Douglas in the 60s. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Dinsdale »

Haven't checked any of the specs for the new shit, but I really hope it isn't yet another boondoggle, and the plane offers a major improvement over the venerable KC-135R, which they have about a zillion of already.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Derron »

Mikey wrote:
Derron wrote:This is just a continuing saga of Northrup versus Boeing versus Lockheed versus McDonald that has been going on for the last 50 years.
Haven't been keeping up much, have you? McDonnell merged with Douglas in the 60s. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997.
Well aware of the mergers. Just laid it out has the players involved over the last 50 years..read much ?
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Derron »

Dinsdale wrote: but I really hope it isn't yet another boondoggle,
It is a major government purchasing / graft / corruption / bribery contract.

What the fuck did you think it was going to be ??

Open??..honest ?? and the political buzzword " transparent "
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21773
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by smackaholic »

Dinsdale wrote:Haven't checked any of the specs for the new shit, but I really hope it isn't yet another boondoggle, and the plane offers a major improvement over the venerable KC-135R, which they have about a zillion of already.
Good point, which leads to another question. Does the KC-135 really need replacing? Are the airframe still servicable? We still use the B-52 which is older than the KC.

I'm kinda silly when it comes to the idea of throwing away something just because it's old. But, then again, i don't get kickbacks for pushing through new purchase orders. I just get a fukking bill. Well, technically, our grand kids get the bill.

If there really is a big gain in performance or if the old 707 air frames they are based on are toast, then do what you gotta do. Just don't do it for votes or to pay for some chairforce general's chalet in Aspen.

I suspect that most of those airframes still have some life in them because, unlike a passenger jet, the entire tube does not need to be pressurized. This pressurization cycle is what wears out passenger airframes.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Screw_Michigan »

So I take it you don't think the Pentagon needs the second Joint Strike Fighter engine?
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21773
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by smackaholic »

Screw_Michigan wrote:So I take it you don't think the Pentagon needs the second Joint Strike Fighter engine?
haven't an opinion one way or the other. didn't know they were looking for one.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Screw_Michigan »

smackaholic wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:So I take it you don't think the Pentagon needs the second Joint Strike Fighter engine?
haven't an opinion one way or the other. didn't know they were looking for one.
They're not. DOD thinks they are just fine with the current engine, but Congress insists on developing the second engine because the current JSF engine supposedly has flaws that would ground more than half of our aircraft if something went wrong. Pratt-Whitney is putting ads up all over Washington casting the second JSF engine as "wasteful spending" but the reality is if the second engine is eliminated, they win big-time.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Dinsdale »

Although this contract does explain why, a few days ago, that Boeing announced it was going to be hiring 500+ people at its plant here. Boeing is always a news topic here, always hiring and laying off people, and having the unions fuck with them. They have a really huge facility in Gresham, where they do a lot of their machining.

Looking for work, Toddowen?
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
BSmack
2005 and 2010 JFFL Champion
Posts: 29350
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:21 pm
Location: Lookin for tards

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by BSmack »

Screw_Michigan wrote:Northrop decides not to bid on the IKYABWAI-X tanker
FTFY
"Once upon a time, dinosaurs didn't have families. They lived in the woods and ate their children. It was a golden age."

—Earl Sinclair

"I do have respect for authority even though I throw jelly dicks at them.

- Antonio Brown
User avatar
Screw_Michigan
Angry Snowflake
Posts: 21096
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:37 am
Location: 20011

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Screw_Michigan »

Yeah, that's what R-Jerk said, you fucking idiot.
kcdave wrote: Sat Sep 09, 2023 8:05 am
I was actually going to to join in the best bets activity here at good ole T1B...The guy that runs that contest is a fucking prick
Derron wrote: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:07 pm
You are truly one of the worst pieces of shit to ever post on this board. Start giving up your paycheck for reparations now and then you can shut the fuck up about your racist blasts.
User avatar
Mikey
Carbon Neutral since 1955
Posts: 31740
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Paradise

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Mikey »

Derron wrote:
Mikey wrote:
Derron wrote:This is just a continuing saga of Northrup versus Boeing versus Lockheed versus McDonald that has been going on for the last 50 years.
Haven't been keeping up much, have you? McDonnell merged with Douglas in the 60s. McDonnell Douglas merged with Boeing in 1997.
Well aware of the mergers. Just laid it out has the players involved over the last 50 years..read much ?
Thought maybe you were talking about McDonald's. They don't actually build airplanes.
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by War Wagon »

smackaholic wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:Haven't checked any of the specs for the new shit, but I really hope it isn't yet another boondoggle, and the plane offers a major improvement over the venerable KC-135R, which they have about a zillion of already.
Good point, which leads to another question. Does the KC-135 really need replacing? Are the airframe still servicable? We still use the B-52 which is older than the KC.
ah yes, the good old workhorse, the KC 135 Stratotanker...

Those are the planes I worked on 30 years ago during my stint as a not so glorified flightline grease monkey/gas station attendant. They were headaches then, they have to be complete maintenance nightmares by now.

The B-52 may be older, but not by much. One thing they have in common is the JP-7 screaming bitch of an engine. Designed to lift and carry heavy payloads, these fuckers generate some raw thrust. If you've ever seen one of them take-off, you've seen the black smoke pouring out the exhaust. IIRC, that's from water vapor being injected into the combustion chamber, but I'd have no idea how that works.

At one time, I thought the whole KC-135 fleet was going to be replaced by KC-10's. I guess that was on a limited basis, but that KC-10 looked sweet to a guy covered in hot engine oil from a JP-7.

And btw, Boeing has a plant in Wichita so not so sure that Kansas minds what happens to NG.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Dinsdale »

War Wagon wrote:If you've ever seen one of them take-off, you've seen the black smoke pouring out the exhaust. IIRC, that's from water vapor being injected into the combustion chamber, but I'd have no idea how that works.
Well, as long as the guy wrenching on the planes has no idea how it works, it's all good with Uncle Sam.

In my limited knowledge of turbine engines, I believe they turn on the water injectors to aid cooling, which allows them to crank a bunch more kerosene through the sucker at takeoff. Taking off with a heavy load takes a lot more thrust than keeping one in the air. Plus, I believe the vaporized water coming out the ass actually provides a little extra thrust, the obvious limitation being that water adds weight, so there's definitely a point of diminishing returns on how much/how long of a "water assist" is ideal.

I stood near two of those suckers warming up for takeoff at Fairchild AFB, and those engines ain't fucking around.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
PSUFAN
dents with meaning
Posts: 18324
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm
Location: BLITZBURGH

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by PSUFAN »

Dinsdale wrote:In my limited knowledge
A pig just flew overhead...
King Crimson wrote:anytime you have a smoke tunnel and it's not Judas Priest in the mid 80's....watch out.
mvscal wrote:France totally kicks ass.
User avatar
Dinsdale
Lord Google
Posts: 33414
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:30 pm
Location: Rip City

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Dinsdale »

Toddowen wrote:
Maybe I'll foreward them a resume' and see what gets offered.
You can make it a pretty short commute -- if you don't mind living in the shithole known as Gresham. Boeing isn't too far from more tolerable neighborhoods, though.
I got 99 problems but the 'vid ain't one
User avatar
Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Insha'Allah
Posts: 19031
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 5:58 pm
Location: filling molotovs

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Shlomart Ben Yisrael »

PSUFAN wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:In my limited knowledge
A pig just flew overhead...

Image
rock rock to the planet rock ... don't stop
Felix wrote:you've become very bitter since you became jewish......
Kierland drop-kicking Wolftard wrote: Aren’t you part of the silent generation?
Why don’t you just STFU.
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by War Wagon »

Dinsdale wrote: Well, as long as the guy wrenching on the planes has no idea how it works, it's all good with Uncle Sam.
:lol:

I kicked tires. The OMS (Organizational Maintenance Squadron) had a different shop for every specialty... hydraulics, sheetmetal, avionics, engines, etc.

My job was to launch and recover... Aside from the mundane duties, we got to marshal in aircraft. I was that guy standing there waving flashlights at night trying to park these sumbitches in their designated hole. I was that guy the pilot completely ignored.
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Derron »

Those KC-135's got to have some serious frame fatigue going on.

I decided I did not like that airframe in the 707 configuration when I flew back from Denver to PDX in one about 1979.

Not that it is every rough or turbulent around Denver :doh: , but the fucking wings on that bitch were heaving up and down about 3 to 4 feet at the tip. Roughest ride I ever was on...feet braced..hands on the overhead...it was nice to see them go from domestic service, plus a long takeoff roll..
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21773
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by smackaholic »

my gramps was an engineer at P&W in the 50-60s. He said they would run a wide open fire hose into the intake while testing them and that they ran better that way.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by War Wagon »

Derron wrote:Those KC-135's got to have some serious frame fatigue going on.
The KC-135 design preceded 707's - but I've read that many of them are good to go until 2040. There are only a handful of aircraft models that have been in service for 50+ years.

Rack! those old bitches.
User avatar
Derron
Eternal Scobode
Posts: 7644
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:28 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Derron »

All depends on how many cycles it has been through....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
Derron
Screw_Michigan wrote: Democrats are the REAL racists.
Softball Bat wrote: Is your anus quivering?
User avatar
smackaholic
Walrus Team 6
Posts: 21773
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: upside it

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by smackaholic »

there is little frame fatigue because the entire fuselage doesn't go through pressurization cycles. the wings flapping like a goose can be managed through maintenance. i suspect they just change the entire wing out when they show signs of fatigue. are they still using the old P-7 engines? i would suspect they'd go to a more modern hi bypass design by now for better economy or maybe the larger diameter newer engines wouldn't have enough ground clearance.
mvscal wrote:The only precious metals in a SHTF scenario are lead and brass.
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9726
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Diego in Seattle »

Dinsdale wrote:Although this contract does explain why, a few days ago, that Boeing announced it was going to be hiring 500+ people at its plant here. Boeing is always a news topic here, always hiring and laying off people, and having the unions fuck with them. They have a really huge facility in Gresham, where they do a lot of their machining.

Looking for work, Toddowen?
I think Tarddowen would find more of his peers working in Charleston (at least based on Charleston's previous performance on the 787).
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9726
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Diego in Seattle »

Toddowen wrote:I'm staying put.

It took me a long time to find a shop that wasn't run as if the V-2 needed to be rolled out the door yesterday in order to secure victory for the Führer.
Figures that Tarddowen is too much of a pussy to handle pressure. Glad you enjoy making paper airplanes.

What kind of an aerospace manufacture can you work for if they don't handle AOG orders?
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
User avatar
War Wagon
2010 CFB Pickem Champ
Posts: 21127
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Tiger country

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by War Wagon »

Why you hayting on Todd?
User avatar
Diego in Seattle
Rouser Of Rabble
Posts: 9726
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Duh

Re: Northrop decides not to bid on the KC-X tanker

Post by Diego in Seattle »

War Wagon wrote:Why you hayting on Todd?
Because he's there.
“Left Seater” wrote:So charges are around the corner?
9/27/22
Post Reply