The Kansas Senators said Boeing promised to stay in Kansas , if they won the tanker contract; Senators, next time get it in writing; always remember , " if God wanted Moses to have the ten commandments verbally, he would not have written them in Stone " Next time Senators, get it in a written contract.

And I am sure they all made promises that if elected they would do things they didn't.

saxon...Yes, by all means...have the Senators get their earmark promises to the red states on paper while they vilify earmarks.

So funny

Golly darn. When Brownback was running for Governor he told us he would bring jobs to Kansas. Doggone it, he was just that good.

I guess when he got sidetracked trying to close abortion clinics, tightening up voting regulations and other really, really important stuff, he must have forgotten about that job thing.

As a guy who can't tell us enough about how religious he is, I am confident he will pray about this.

Politicians complaining about people who lie. That's rich.

I guess they paid off the wrong lobbyists

saxon, great point! We should require a contract from all heads of state and their czars...are you running?

Continued jobs loses are what we can expect if we continue to pursue this misguided austerity notion. We should be taking advantage of this economy to increase our investment in this country. Labor is cheap. Borrowing is cheap. Private industry is looking for places to invest their capital.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, our electric grid needs to be updated, energy production needs to be expanded and new innovations supported. It's not a matter of IF we need to do these things it's a matter of WHEN. So what are we waiting for?

Yes government needs to "right size", yes DoD is too big and needs to be scaled back. But we shouldn't be so short sighted as to pass up this once in a lifetime opportunity to reinvest in America.

But certain politicians just don't believe in America anymore.

Um, Ok. Boeing made a deal to keep jobs in Kansas before they even got the Tanker Contract and now are closing the plant at the end of 2013. Um, well what part of the Federal Budget has cut the Defense Budget big time. Look Mr. Senator - Boeing still has to work with in their means and their budget too! And oh by the way - Where is the Budget that the Senate still has not passed now in over 900 days??? Yes Boeing finally got the Tanker Contract. Make an issue out of that now. But in the mean time other programs for Boeing now have been done away with or cut.

No the planes will from this day forward be built automagically, just roll in a fuselage copme back in 9 months and it will be finished, as for the drawings and plans, show a picture to a PC and it design it for you.

I agree fz123. He needs to live in the real world.

As I said, all you sheeple who think you are immune to the abuses of the corporate world, the ruthlessness of the repugnicrite party and the overspending of the world empire war machine, take note. The spentagon is so full of abuse and fraud, that some of the little sheeple will have to get theirs(pink slip) sooner or later.

You now will begin to see you have been supporting an agenda which has you in the crosshairs.

humansmatter - exactly what "abuse" are you talking about. It was Congress and Obama who implemented cuts in the defense budget. They were well aware that such cuts would lead to downsizings like this one. It is action by our government in Washington that lead to this decision by Boeing.

Peter, what you don't seem to understand is that any cuts in the federal budget have an impact on the private sector. It was the Republicans who refused to compromise on the budget leading to the mandatory cuts in defense. But really, why should any one particular aspect of the private sector be spared from sharing in the burden of cuts? Also, I thought I just read about Boeing getting a share of a multi-billion arms sale to the mideast. Isn't that a big enough subsidy for them?

humansmatter....so do you expect Boeing...or any Government Contractor...to operate at a loss? The budget cuts will hurt them and as good custodians of a company the Management team must make decisions based on real market conditions, less money on contracts or future contracts then fewer workers. Well unless you think the Federal Government should take over the aviation manufacturing business. Can you imagine...the government can't even administer medicare/medicaid without giving away $$$$ to thieves and criminals. Can you imagine the quality of product they would have flying overhead.

Dave...it took two sides to not get that deal done...simply by adding Nancy P to the mix showed the Dems had no intention in honoring any real negotiation.

Huge budgets for the R&D of planes no one wants and that they have no intention of even building for one.

The waste, fraud, and abuse of the war department justifies huge cuts in their budgets. You know it, I know it, the only thing is they will never let us expose it.

I would imagine you and little texmom here actually believe every department of the Federal Government should be eliminated or have it's budget cut EXCEPT THE SPENTAGON.

humansmatter...such a condescending tone...I think there are a great many places where our Government can cut waste....for one stop adding agencies. Stop the theft from medicare and medicaid by placing penalties with some teeth. It might stop corrupt doctors and vendors if they had to repay what they fraudulently billed or faced confiscation. And it might make a person think twice before they sell the SS# to be abused if they faced being ejected from the system for life. Stop the Department of Education from corrupt practices and brother in law deals through sham for sale programs....states should be able to collect and administer their own business. If we really wish to stop stupidity in this country...don't allow those who have abused their free and fair education by dropping out before they have completed their education to vote. Seriously, if they won't even complete a GED program why would we trust them to elect public officials. We have to stop the madness somewhere.

This plant closing has nothing to do with defense department cuts. Boeing got the new contract and they are just consolidating the work at three other locations. It's as simple as that. Maybe this location was not kept "modernized" like the other locations? Maybe the workers just aren't as productive as at the other plants? Maybe loss of other contracts (non-US DoD) also led to this closing? Companies do this all of the time. I wonder how that new facility in the SE is going to make out in their production plans. Will the cheaper labor there really provide a better product produced faster and at a lower cost?

Your right txmom, and putting Mitch McConnell on it ensured that the republicans agenda was for the super committee to "make sure Obama is a one term president"

Dave...I don't think Obama really needed help from Mitch Mc Connell or anyone beyond himself and his personally appointed brain trust to assure one and done.

dave-735909 - President Obama's Policies are NOT working!!! When you work for a company and something is not working - you do whatever you need to do to fix the problem. In this case - alot of people want President Obama to be a one term President. Get over it! Democrats will always be the first to slam a Republican President and still to this day do! Yes now the agenda for the people is to make sure that President Obama is a one term president because his POLICIES are NOT WORKING!

Donna.

Really? what exactly would you suggest. People scream about cutting spending, yet OMG they complain when the impact of that cutting spending takes effect.

Jonathan-1917156 - Take a chill pill! I am not complaining about cutting the spending.

Donna; exactly what policies has The President been allowed to put into place that are 'not working'?

Exactly how many policies have your obstructionist masters not blocked from going into effect????

humansmatter - LOL - Now after reading your comment and hearing your tone - I will not even try to have a civil discussion with you. You and the President will always find someone else to blame.

Donna-367223

I will not even try to have a civil discussion with you.

Guess that was easier than answering the question.

...too bad it came across as too combative.

would you answer it if someone else asked you nicely? ^_^

I'm sorry if obstructionist masters was not nice enough for either of you. From where I sit, it is the nicest thing I can muster up to describe the evil, hateful, repugnicrites. .

BTW, Srs, there is no way any sheeple would have ever answered those questions no matter how framed. There is no civil discussion possible with the brainwashed sheeple of the FOX noise army.

Facts are rebuffed with hate and talking points. Next comes projection and more talking points. Then comes the spewing of how disgusting anyone is who does not support the 400 families, the high profit wars, the criminal banksters, the ceos of corporations and the unholy repugnicrite agenda.

When given a taste of their own medicine, they scream and cry that they are not being treated fairly.

Poor little sheeple.

Donna

I am kind of curious too:

President Obama's Policies are NOT working!!!

Which Policies are not working?

My complaint with Obama is he hasn't really implemented any policies. The reason for that is the GOP has been more interested in opposing him then they have been in helping us.

They have opposed him in nearly everything.

Where Obama has done well is as Commander in Chief, it is there they are not able to oppose him.

That tells me a lot.

Humansmatter....ya know I read your response...then I read your response again...and all I can manage to ask is....are you high? That made no sense what so ever.

Wrong answer Dave #4.3; The cuts you reffer to do not take effect untill the end of 2013. If they do take effect they will be in addition to these cuts. These cuts were Obamas dicressionary cuts!

If you think for a moment, in SC they build commercial airplanes, that has nothing to do with military aircraft. Maybe they moved to consilidate the military plants down, to save money! Since thay already have military inspectors at the other locations, it will save both Boeing, and the Military money by working in fewer places.

Not everything in life has to so with a ploitician.

plus the tanker is a 767 anyways, so it makes sense to keep the work in Seattle where they are built.

Boeing has been losing so many contracts to lockheed though that this doesn't shock me.

It is not the govt suing Boeing, it was the NLRB (the union) and the suit was dropped when the IAM accepted the extended contract. But everything is Obama's fault, correct?

former Boeing employee

He is the president. Doesn't everything stop with him??

Age,

No they were not being sued for opening in SC, they have 5 plants all operating just fine there. The union filed a complaint that they were moving work as punishment, but the case was dropped by the union.

edward,

NO they were NOT sued for opening up the SC plant, they were sued for USING THE SC PLANT TO BLACKMAIL THE UNION EMPLOYESS TO BASICALLY GIVE UP THEIR NEGOTIATING RIGHTS.

Not sure why that STILL doesn't get through peoples heads.

Boeing broke the law, the remedy had NOTHING to do with the SC plant which is operating at this moment, though I am not sure if they have yet to built a plane.

Jonathan=1917156 - Boeing did not break the law. The Union went on strike so many times and for to many years and then Boeing was behind in producing airplanes for their customers. You better go back and do a little research on the real facts of this and STOP spreading your LIES!!!!! The President could have stopped this un-necessary lawsuit and chose to not to. Oh and why all of a sudden now does the NLRB drop the lawsuit with Boeing! The Union gets a contract. Hm - Do you even know what the contract is? Settle down next time and before you use such words as blackmail and broke the Law. If this were the case then the lawsuit would not have been DROPPED.

Donna

This action:

USING THE SC PLANT TO BLACKMAIL THE UNION EMPLOYESS TO BASICALLY GIVE UP THEIR NEGOTIATING RIGHTS

is most definitely against the law. Blackmail is against the law. What part of that is so hard to understand. The statement that they used in the legal union negotiations was very much a violation of the law. Now you may say you agree with them saying it, but it STILL is a violation of the law.

NLRB dropped it because boeing accepted the compromise, which was to make the THIRD plant in Washington a permanent plant, which is what the whole thing was about. It was NOT about the SC plant

It's a shame that we cut government spending during a time of extremely high joblessness and an already saturated market full of qualified people.

We can never seem to get government to act counter-cyclically to the ebbs and flows of prosperity.

Politicians always seem to spend too much in times of plenty and then cut the supports when people need them.

wasn't it boehner that said that if private jobs are eliminated as a result of spending cuts, then so be it?

Yup! I wonder if he'd be acting the same way if his home state would be seeing the job-cuts from his slash and burn philosophy toward responsible fiscal governance?

Heaven forbid we raise taxes in any conceivable fashion.

It's still hilarious to watch Brownback go nuts however

Too bad it has to come at the expense at good paying American jobs.

seriously,

from a business standpoint though, it does make sense. Boeing has been bleeding major prime military contracts for a while (they still have significant non major prime contracts though, but you can't take say, a missile contract and put it in a factor that is meant for building planes), and really this is a correction to that. The tanker contract really didn't even fit for that facility either. If there is no work for the facility, then there is no work.

Now if there was some civilian work to replace it, that would be different, but this isn't work that is being offshored, it is just work that is going to be spread around other underutilized plants.

As for the plant itself, Spirit will probably buy it as they are next door, since 737 sales are still strong (they make the fuselage for the 737)

B from E

Which door are you leaving by?

B from E

Goodbye Obama. It's time to take out the trash.

Hehehe

So...what are you going to do if the Republican lose the Whitehouse again this year? You seem rather presumptuous, particularly given how shaky the GOP is regarding settling on getting behind a candidate

Are you new to defense contracting?

justin-341935 - See the problem is with people like you who get upset and yell that the Government needs to CUT the Defense Budget. So now that there have been Billions cut from the Defense Budget you all get upset because a company got the Tanker Contract and need to close a plant. The Tanker Contract justs takes the place of jobs and Revenue from the programs that were CUT or done away with. People like you can not have it both ways. Airbus did not win hands down.

By the way Donna

Not a single dollar has been cut from the defence budget yet.

Jonathan-1917156 - Yes there have been many, many, many cuts in the Defense Budget. As a matter of fact - Right now turn on your TV and the President and Mr. Panetta are speaking about CUTTING the DEFENSE Budget.

Donna

they are TALKING about it.

As of this time, there have been NO cuts to the defence budget, unless you call ending a war in Iraq a negative event, but that spending is separate from the work that Boeing does.

Jonathan - There has been a cut in spending with the programs at Boeing. The C-17 is almost gone if it isn't already. The F-15 has basically no new orders from our Country - the F-15 did just get an order from Saudi Arbia, orders for the F-18 have been cut back - there have been many budget cuts over the past 10 years. There will be more Budget Cuts coming! The Harrier Plane stopped production years ago. So stop with your anit Boeing and saying that there has not been any cut to the Defense Budget. BTW it is Defense not defence.

I'm guessing you do not work in the Defense Industry.

Donna

So you are saying that contracts ending are the same as cuts in spending?

There is NO obligation to build products beyond the contracts stipulated numbers, and to even presume such a thing is just pointless.

As for boeings recent troubles in the market, Lockheed has essentially been taking away all of boeings business, as lockheed won both the F22 and F35 programs, and that is where the new dollars is being spent. So no, spending has GONE UP, it just isn't going to boeing anymore.

As for the spelling, go look it up in an ENGLISH dictionary, not an American one. Would you like me to go spell colour as well for you as well.

And I do have experience in the defence (yes defence, note the ENGLISH SPELLING, as I was raised in a country that uses the QUEEN'S english, NOT american english) industry, only right now, we deliberately chose NOT to work in the defence (again note the ENGLISH SPELLING) industry any longer for various reasons so the business that was involved in the DEFENCE (note the ENGLISH spelling) was sold off to another company.

As for the defence (yes again, note the ENGLISH spelling) industry itself, spending has not been cut, though Boeing has NOT been receiving as much of the money because quite frankly, Lockheed has been the baby of the industry over the last decade, so Boeing hasn't been receiving as many of the contracts.

I really don't understand how people can see the defence (yes note the english spelling) spending go from around 250 billion in 2000 rise to around 700 billion dollars today and say that defence (note the ENGLISH spelling) has decreased.

And by the way, I am NOT anti boeing, nor am I pro Boeing, they make a mighty find airliner, but their internal management has basically shot themselves in the foot many a time recently ever since Mulally left the company to run Ford, including criminal corporate espionage in their space launch business, more criminal graft in the contracts leading up to the initial air tanker bid, and also in their labor negotiations.

Seriously, is it so hard to say, 'we have a long term costing issues in relation to the financial impacts of strikes and may need to restructure our operations if we can't change it' instead of 'if you don't give up your legal right to strike, we will move all of our work down to south carolina'? Really? is that so @!$%#ing hard?

Only in Wasingtonese does "cutting" mean "reducing the rate of projected increase."

Has every program requested by DoD been fully funded? No. Is everywhere defense dollars are being spent getting every dollar that they used to? No. Is the aggregate defense budget fewer dollars than before, year-on-year? No again. Everything isn't being funded and programs budgets aren't going up as fast as they once were. But calling this "budget cutting" is like me saying that I made $40,000 last year and $45,000 this year but my pay was really cut $5,000 per year because I meant to make $50,000 a year.

Lets hope they do, if they follow a smart thinker like you, it will be a great day for the Carolina's.

Gee thats a good idea ProAmerica, increase taxes on Corporations. You clearly are not proamerican if you are for more taxes because you probably are not even paying your fair share. Increasing taxes slows growth and overburdens the real taxpayers. Since 2007 the average income of a household has continued to drop while property taxes on average have continued to increase, why because of the Union contracts the communities are locked into. If you want to pay more feel free and back up your words. I know I don't want to pay more, it sickens me enough to know our household has to fund the costs to educate and feed half a child a year via property taxes yet we have no kids all because others chose to be irresponsible.

Ever since the Bush tax cuts the economy has gone down.

The tax cuts for the wealthy have created no jobs.

On the other hand the wealthy have purchased a lot of things with their new found wealth.

Mercedes, BMW, Ferrari, Second homes in Croatia, Yachts, .........

You're right because there for a minute I was wondering why the jobs were going to be going to Seattle and San Antonio instead of China but you just hit it, they aren't interested in having to buy back their own technology from China. Other than that they would do anything to increase the bottom line and their bonuses if Congress would let them; they scared Congress into pulling the contract back from "foreign" Airbus which was going to do most of the work in Alabama by showing how it would be in a lot more different states if they (Boeing) were allowed to do it.

As it should be.

Pobrito..

Unfortunately, we the American people have already sealed our own doom. We've allowed virtually all of our heavy industrial and consumer manufacturing bases to be off shored. First to Mexico then ultimately to China.... all in the name of saving a few pennies at the checkout register.

Today, we're for the most part nothing but "greeters" and cashiers at the retail outlets selling the products of the Peoples Liberation Army of the Peoples Republic of China. And what's really sad about that is we borrow the money to fuel our society from China and still continue to provide China with Foreign Aid.

You have to love how we really screwed ourselves and never thought twice about it.

@XDm...

So, to your point, perhaps the resources we spend on defense procurement should be redirected to revitalize the rest of our manufacturing sector.

XDm9mm

We've allowed virtually all of our heavy industrial and consumer manufacturing bases to be off shored. First to Mexico then ultimately to China.... all in the name of saving a few pennies at the checkout register.

Oh? Last I checked, the only group that was actually reaping the benefit of Chinese labor were the executives pocketing the extra profits.

Or did I miss the massive price drop in Apple and HP products when the companies offshored their manufacturing to China? How about Nike? Kenmore? etc.

Short of buying cheap Chinese crap at Walmart and Target, the US consumer gets very little benefit from the offshoring and outsourcing of American jobs. The primary benefit goes towards the gross margin of the companies that can offshore the most of their labor abroad.

You are absolutely correct, if we had small defense contractors they could go out of business when they weren't needed.

Maybe you should look at the bigger picture. The Obama Administration is forcing Boeing to move jobs to Seattle for that Union. No sense in closing a new plant when you can close a much smaller older plant.

In the meantime, the American taxpayer pays for higher prices in order to keep the Union happy.

These are the Budget cuts Moran and the rest of the GOP, said we needed.

Arthur_500

You are absolutely correct, if we had small defense contractors they could go out of business when they weren't needed.

If that were the case, then how come there are still small defense contractors? Based on your (flawed) assumptions, wouldn't such a hostile, high-volume, low margin environment such as defense contracting make being a massive conglomerate a prerequisite to operating in the market?

I've seen your other posts, you're just an apologist for abusive monopolies

Anyway, if Boeing was seriously being hammered by its unions, then why on earth was Boeing able to put together a giant international assembly line for the Dreamliner? How about Boeing's production operations in China?

Boeing was getting sued by the NLRB and Union for overtures by the CEO that the S.C. plant was done (at least in part) because of their labor issues...retaliatory actions are illegal, and Boeing has settled the suit.

Perhaps you didn't read the other people also making the same correction to your flawed assertions elsewhere on the vines.

But please, by all means, continue to be led by the nose and propelled by fear, I have no vested interest in changing your mind. But it is fun to watch you flail about pointing fingers.

Agreed! Funny thing about the rust belt, if the US had been adequately investing in revitalizing infrastructure over the last 40 years, the US Steel Industry might still exist

It's funny to watch a right-winger argue FOR government spending, LOL

Don't forget the virtues of unfettered monopolization and collusion in our markets.

Surely companies will act in their overall best interests (which are of course 100% in tune with America's best interests) and make the most optimum long-run decisions in the absence of proper regulations and oversight!

I'd love to get Ron Paul's opinion on major tech companies being sued for collusion by making an agreement to not hire each others employees so that they can negotiate lower wages

GOOOOOOO FREE MARKET! Yippeee!

One thing about Ron, he isn't a big fan of the Sherman Antitrust Act or the Clayton Act.

Page 13 of his Manifesto

Freedom Under Siege
The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
by Ron Paul

The trends in legislation in this century are clearly anti-free-market, starting with the Sherman Antitrust Act passed in 1890 to the strong federal control over trade with the Clayton Act of 1914. With the establishment of the FTC to current-day regulations, this century has certainly witnessed a loss of confidence in a truly free market.

Apparently he is under the belief Monopolies help create free trade.

Yeah,interesting that Microsoft is no longer part of the investigation.
Wonder why? It sure as @!$%# isn't because they aren't guilty.

Interesting, since even Adam Smith himself warned about the damage to the free market caused by colluding business owners in The Wealth of Nations in 1776 and seemed to suggest that the legitimate role for government in the marketplace was only to prevent collusion and monopolies. If Adam Smith favored antitrust regulations, who in the world is Ron Paul to oppose them? If a "truly free" market is one in which all of the competitors in a field are allowed to sell out to each other or form a cartel then it is a really poor idea to have a "truly free" market.

Thanks for that bit of info Riquall

seriously,

it isn't that they can't hire, it is that they can't recruit employees from other companies. There are more issues than just keeping wages down though.

It costs me about 100K to train an employee on our new equipment. So I spend that money and all of a sudden another company that uses the same or similar equipment can offer a buck an hour more (or basically any amount more that is less than the cost so lets say amortized over 3 years, up to 30K more). So I end up training another company's employees. (and don't think that doesn't happen, when we bought all of our new equipment we ended up losing a few people because of this. Admittedly our costs were less when we bought the equipment as we had the company come in to do the training, but now that is pretty much our book cost).

@ Jonathan-1917156

That's indeed what I said.

They made an agreement not to hire each others employees to artificially lower the demand for the skills in their immediate limited labor pool.

Isn't agreeing not to recruit another competitor's employees the same as agreeing not to hire another competitor's employees?

I guess we'll be dissecting the nuances of recruiting vs. hiring then aren't we? ^_^

chalk my prior statement up for being poorly phrased if you misinterpreted it. You and I are in agreement.

It costs me about 100K to train an employee on our new equipment. So I spend that money and all of a sudden another company that uses the same or similar equipment can offer a buck an hour more (or basically any amount more that is less than the cost so lets say amortized over 3 years, up to 30K more). So I end up training another company's employees.

That's why you need to have sufficient incentives to keep your employees that you train. It sucks when a competitor is able to poach your staff, so make sure that if you can't beat your competitor on pay alone, then do so with less monetary perks like better health insurance, or ensuring a more friendly and cohesive work environment.

Basically, conduct exit interviews and find out why they are leaving. If it is simply for more money, then figure out what your competitor does that you don't do currently that could set you apart and keep your employees engaged even if you can't go toe-to-toe with the more wealthy adversary.

Not knowing how vast your talent pool is, you can also start building teams that are not as monetarily driven but more creatively driven, or driven by a desire to leave their mark on something. Allow your employees to share in the creation and royalties of patents, it could save you on bonuses and it will help you milk their creative sides for novel devices that you might not get out of them without such an incentive.

Money is not everything in business. I am much happier working where I do because I can be creative and rank is not much of an issue when expressing ones ideas and pushing forward with them. Just as importantly, my superiors are results oriented and not micro-managers, so as long as I'm always delivering top-notch, they really don't care how I get there.

Sure...I could leave my industry, or even just my company and go into one of the more lucrative ones doing the same thing I do now for over 2x as much, but then I'd leave the team that I enjoy working with and lose a lot of the flexibility that I have.

seriously,

no it isn't the same thing.

There is a difference between a company actively recruiting your employees and a company hiring your employee's if they take the action and apply at the other company. I don't care about the latter, I care about the other company identifying my company as a source of their employee's.

And we KNOW what the other company does, they don't train any new employee's (there was 3 companies that were doing it actually). That allows them to take the 33K cost (spread out over 3 years which is how we amortize the training), offer the person a 10K raise and pocket the rest. The option for us is to not train, but this is pretty specialized CNC equipment, so that would limit our pool of applicants, and would in turn further increase our costs because we won't have as many people to choose from. The C&D has stopped 2 of the companies, bankruptcy stopped the 3rd company (hence we had a few people trying to come back).

And we are a manufacturing shop, there really isn't a lot of room for creativity. It has pretty much stopped because several tried to come back and we said no.

You really would be surprised the tricks that companies can play. and again, there IS a difference between an agreement to not actively poach another company's employee's and and agreement not to hire another company's employee's.

Jonathan-1917156

You really would be surprised the tricks that companies can play.

I'm not, I've learned most of the tricks in the book.

I'm in an industry where poaching among the major competitors is common practice as well.

and again, there IS a difference between an agreement to not actively poach another company's employee's and and agreement not to hire another company's employee's.

Indeed, my prior post was poorly phrased.

BTW, I'm glad you didn't let those workers come back, that's not the kind of precedent you want to set with those you still have on board.

My guess is that many of the "blue collar" jobs are those being relocated to other facilities. It will be the white collar support jobs that are eliminated because their work can be absorbed by existing staff elsewhere. The closing of a 2,100 person facility is not all that significant to Boeing. They have 80,000 workers just in the state of Washington.

But consolidation where and at what cost? This is fly over country being left behind. If there wasn't oil in ND and coal in Montana, you could almost bring back the open range and the buffalo.

Witchita will continue to have many players in the aerospace industry. As federal government spending is reduced over the coming years expect to see more of this happening.

But when/if the economy comes back, there will be renewed demand in the private marketplace for aircraft, and they are one of the manufactured goods that most of the world still recognizes that North America does best, so the situation is far from hopeless; some of the workers will get a chance to do similar jobs somewhere else in Wichita; doubt that much of the plant is still the original one that Boeing bought about seven decades ago so maybe someone will even buy and reopen it; haven't been to that one so I don't really know if it would be worth buying and refurbishing.