The results are in. . .

A total of 66 companies have responded to our survey. Here are the combined numbers from these respondents.*

• I think defense systems should be made in the USA but they need to be the best solution too.
• We currently provide process support for many Washington state Boeing suppliers from south of Seattle north to Bellingham.  Having been a Boeing supplier for over 10 years now I feel this would be a great loss for the Pacific northwest.
• Where were our state representatives when we needed them?
• More likely to get the business from Northrop/EADS than Boeing.
• While our employment headcount will not change due to the tanker loss, it will have a significant negative revenue impact to our bottom line.  Very sad to see that Boeing did not get this contract.
• We currently don't have business with NG/EADS but will work to be one of their suppliers.
• This decision directly eliminated about $180 million from our company for the first 179 aircraft.
• We were a major design/manufacture of equipment and refueling boom support rods for the tankers to date.  This loss will additionally mean that all non-recurring costs which were absorbed by our company will not be of benefit on another platform.
• [Our company] sells products to both Airbus and Boeing and believe that either award will equally benefit us.  We prefer to have our business balanced between both carriers.  It is better balance as the airframe success cycles.  It's a global business and we have specifically expanded our customers to Canada, Brazil, France, Japan and USA.
• We lose $120,000.00 a year on parts we are already tooled for.
• The decision sucks.  Taking our tax dollars and jobs overseas is a terrible  decision. . .
• I think defense systems should be made in the USA but they need to be the best solution too.
• Why would the U.S. Military want to become dependent on a foreign company for the security of our country? Especially France. I know that they are supposed to be one of our allies but they don't seem to be on our side on as much as others. Wouldn't one then question what we would do if France decided to take a different position than us on a political position and then decide not to supply us with tankers[?] I am sure Boeing would step up to the plate and start providing their alternative but it wouldn't be overnight. It could take years.
• Where were our state representatives when we needed them?
• We have been active with the tanker and 767 programs. We installed new systems to accommodate this program that now will not be used. Maybe they should consider both tankers to make the air support more efficient.
• We have no pending Tanker contracts with Boeing or Northrop Grumman/EADS.  We may win overflow work if the new work on the Tankers at Northrop Grumman/EADS reduces area production capacity but we cannot accurately predict a jobs number based on this potential.
• Our Senator needs to bring Boeing and the USAF to the meeting table and talk their differences out.
• Unfortunate decision and a real blow to aerospace companies in the US. Federal Gov't needs to step in and award it to Boeing based solely on defense contracting issue.
• Why would our government not give preference to military work for a US company?  I think some heads should roll.
• Most of the jobs associated with the taker will stay where the actual development and parts manufacturing will take place.  With Boeing, we know that most of the work would be done in the US, with Airbus and Northrop it is questionable at best.
• The decision to move this program out of America is not a reasonable or responsible decision.  The economic impact to the country, state of Washington and Snohomish County will have long lasting negative affects.  It is time for all aviation related companies to recognize the disadvantages of this decision.  Our Federal, State and local governments should unite in one voice to change the outcome of this award and to do all necessary to retain this program here in Washington.

View more comments