February 29, 2008
Boeing Loses Tanker Deal
Eric normally posts about Boeing and is no doubt penning something. I just got in front of a computer and am putting this out as an open thread.
So Chicago-based Boeing lost out on its bid to replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet; a contract which reportedly would have been worth as much as $40 billion.
I hope no one here actually thought the Lazy-B was going to win this deal.
Even a cursory reading of the story foretold the outcome. The Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. variant of the AirBus A-330 frame was more in keeping with the strategic goal espoused by the Pentagon than the modified 767. EADS has already beat out Boeing with smaller tanker contract competitions between the two models.
The A-330 reportedly has greater flight endurance and a bigger payload than the 767. Boeing's product has the tactical advantage of being able to be deployed closer to frontline battlefields and on smaller runways. This has its benefits to be sure where, in theory, tankers could base in Afghanistan or similar far flung environments.
This runs contrary sixty years of Air Force doctrine where the strategic purpose of refueling tankers is to linger out of harms way for an extended period of time.
If a tanker plane design carries more fuel and flies longer it will beat any competing design lacking in those two categories; all things being considered equal.
Another issue is that the Pentagon has snubbed an American airplane manufacturer in favor of a foreign rival. The question is whether supporting a domestic company outweighs the military benefits of having a superior piece of equipment.
This is always a consideration.
Boeing could have made the decision easier by designing the plane which the Air Force brass wanted in the first place rather than dictating to the military what they had to make do with.
Posted by DonWard at February 29, 2008
02:41 PM | Email This
1. I wonder is Uncle Sam is still slapping Boeing for it's bad deeds a few years ago.
Ouch, there goes my stock.
2. Don't forget that Boeing also had Cantwell, Murray, Durbin and Obama on its side.
3. A huge round of applause goes to Jean McCain for all his efforts in vilifying Boeing.
Wake up, America - the hour is late.
4. Jefferson Paine
Can you prove that.
I know he was mad at boeing for stealing trade secrets, but.
5. Boeing was appropriately smacked a few years ago for its corrupt behavior in getting the refueling tanker contract. You can't "vilify" vile people by merely telling the truth about them.
The airplanes will be built in Alabama. There is no reason to claim that we will be subject to restrictions by the Europeans. The planes will be based on their design, but won't be built by them. If there are some unique parts that would cause the fleet to be grounded by a refusal to supply them, guess what a rational person would do about the source for those parts. Hint: it wouldn't involve producing them all in China.
6. At first I was as surprised and bewildered as anyone. I talk to a lot of airline crews and the common thread is the Airbus product is inferior. I believe the Air Force may reconsider its choice in the second bid round out there in the future.
In the meantime, I wonder if perhaps strategically the US has...ala the Kissinger model...given a European nation and ersatz ally enough rope to yank them into line when they get too anti-American in their politics? Probably not, but its a nice thought.
7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there really is a need for a tanker that can linger close to a warzone? The Navy currently uses modified A-6 Intruders and soon will be switching to modified F/A-18 Super Hornets for that role, so saying that it's easier to your big, lumbering jumbo jet full of fuel near a warzone where it's an easy target isn't much of a selling point.
8. Boeing and Seattle deserved to lose this.
Boeing took advantage of the Air Force in the 2001 deal and got caught. If not for that then 767 tankers might be entering the inventory today. Maybe this time they will learn to leave well enough alone.
On a second note the A-330 is a better aircraft, larger with more modern systems. While the 767 is a good old bird it has reached the end of the line. Maybe they would have stood a better chance with a 777 derived tanker….
As for Seattle we gave them Cantwell and Murray whow are anti-military on almost everything except Boeing. (Murray can be vet-friendly when she wants a photo op though) This is just the AFs way of saying "kiss my booty."
Yes this stinks from a strategic point of view but spares for the A330 are not hard to come by so this is a prety good way to slap Boeing's PP without puting the fleet at a huge disadvantage.
9. This is what happens when US military depends on other countries:
http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/6354864-1.html
10. Mike
The new KC-45 or whatever they are calling it is a strategic tanker and will take the place of the 40 year old kc-135 and perhaps the kc-10. These aircraft will refuel virtually everything in the AF inventory from fighters to transports.
The smaller "buddy tankers" you refer to are carrier based and mainly confided to Navy and Marine aircraft althought the Marines use a tanker version of the C-130 in some situations, mainly to refuel helicopters
11. Diogenes @ 6
I have heard the same thing about Airbus beingh inferior to Boeing but it's in relation to Airbus commercial products. That matters little when hauling gas. What does matter is how much fuel it can carry and how far (or long) it can carry it. The A330 is superior to the 767 in those two categories.
To Mike H @ 7
Tankers like the KC-135 and KC-10 that are currently in service are strategic tankers. In other words they help our cargo haulers and big bombers (think B-52, B-1B and B-2) to move from one continent to another not to get a strike fighter deeper behind enemy lines. In other words this new tanker won't be "near a warzone".
12. Yeah, part of this is a nice political slapdown by the Navy for such a Blue state. Well deserved. Don't think people in the armed services are not aware of anti-military sentiment in Blue States. When they are in a position to mete out some justice, they will.
And to buy American is un-American. If the product is suited for the job, then that's what we should be buying. A good American commitment to Capitalism is not confined to our borders. May the best product and company win.
This also highlights the need for companies to compete in the private sector and not to rely on government handouts or even military contracts for success. Those who wait for the government handout or contract, just might not get it.
All of the new Ethanol companies will be in for a rude awakening too, when government realizes that grain based fuel is not viable and suddenly changes tack. Or it might just be new politics.
And aren't there some other countries that need to fuel mid-air.? Boeing should get back on the horse and go compete for those contracts as well. There's no crying in baseball.
13. It sounds like the Boeing product was designed in accordance with the Rumsfeld fast/light/agile mentality, which has taken a back seat after the failures in Iraq. I don't know if that was a factor, but I haven't seen it mentioned.
14. There is always a WHOLE LOT of vitriol on this blog aimed at the Boeing Unions because of their wages and work ethic. Having been there 30 years, I'm still amazed at what is left of the quality craftsmanship of the long-time designers and builders.
Having said that, and noting that BA is now fully managed by chart-makers and bean-counters, not the "best-of-the-best" engineers or hourly types, I eagerly await the folks on this board (and elsewhere) to DEMAND the EVISCERATION of BA management from the TOP-DOWN!
What arrogance! What collosal egotism! That *any* customer (let alone our military) would want some worn-out 30+ year old 3-rate airplane to defend this country.
From McNerney down to EVERY Factory manager, they ALL NEED TO GO! The condescending imperiousness of BA management is costing this area and this country daily! And for many, many years into the future.
15. But.... but.... whatever happened to democrat Patty Murray?
I remember that lying biatch taking credit for keeping the VA from closing facilities in this state while she ran for re-election.
Well, she's proven herself to be a political waste of skin when it REALLY matters. Gee.... where's the Duffer at when you need him to kick around?
16. cmiklich,
I haven't bashed the Boeing union. Other writers have their perogatives. A couple days need to pass before the full particulars with this deal pan out before I'm comfortable doling out blame.
With that said, this post should not be considered at all very flattering to Boeing management types. The lack of clout among local political leaders is another issue that might need addressing.
17. Washington voters continue to elect incompetent idiots and then expect no repercussions? Just look at local schools, transit and the Boeing deal as examples. Here is the reality check: Alabama, a backwater, ignorant Southern state, just kicked Washington's ass. So tell me, who has the collective lower IQ? Or better yet, how many "progressives" does it take to change an Airbus light bulb?
18. I have heard, and no I have NOT verified, that Boeing was given the task of the "virtual fence" on the southern border... and that the GAO says it failed miserably and expesively... and that the Border Patrol has complained that Boeing never bothered to coordinate with them or even ask their opinion.
19. Boeing screwed up bad, no doubt, but this has a heck of a lot more to do with favoring Alabama and Mississippi than anything else.
I mean, really, why would this military leadership under this President give a 40-year, $100bn deal to an increasingly blue state when there's an arguably more capable option that will also help support and develop the heartland of both the US Armed Forces and the Republican party?
Last I read was that the airframes were going to fly out of Toulouse, to be kitted out in Mobile with tooling and support work from Jackson, MS. (Northrop Grumman already build UAVs there.)
21.
Holes found in Boeing's 'virtual' fence plan
"....Boeing had $20 million and eight months to build a prototype, said Gregory Giddens, who oversees the project for the Department of Homeland Security...."
"...."They did not have the time to really work on the whole interface," Giddens said in an interview...."
"...And some things could have been done better, according a report this week from the Government Accountability Office...."
"....The software Boeing used to integrate all the information was a police dispatch network, not something designed to handle the data being collected by the cameras, radars and sensors on an SBInet tower...."
"... When agents started using the system, they "found limitations," such as delays in getting the camera to find a spot on radar, and rain or blowing leaves triggering the system. ..."
"... They also didn't talk to enough Border Patrol agents before designing the system, the GAO said. This led to all sorts of troubles... "
Definitely not a good day to be the PR guy for Boeing.
22. John McCain is cantankerous!
23. Gov. Christine will take care of it.
24. Read some other articles on this and apparently the USAF changed some of the selection criteria after the bids were submitted which favored the airbus proposal. Boeing will protest this.
25. Jeremiah @ 11.
I don't diasgree. I'm a pilot myself and at the end of the day, a strategic asset such as the tanker has to do a job, and it seems the better airframe was selected. That said, whether its walking cargo or sloshing cargo, (or even sloshed cargo) after a few thousand cycles I think the 330 will show its flaws sooner than the Boeing. Time will tell.
But the issue is deeper than that. Forget about the bogus virtual fence...a minority role on the F-22, loss of the JSF, funky tanker shanigans a few years ago, a FCS program that is suspect (my opinion), and now this. If Albaugh still has his job in 30 days, I'll be even more surprised then with today's news.
26. Yup, even with all the "Queen" Democraps in this state, on top of the complete DC Senate and Congress, who are all too busy counting their massive paychecks and pensions,to give a rip about jobs in this state.
I am ashamed of all of them!
I say it is a time for change in this state! BIG TIME CHANGE, get these tax and spend happy F'n idiots out of this state and start voting in some people who can concentrate on bringing real paying jobs to this state, instead of sending the work overseas.
This tanker deal sending $40 Billion dollars overseas is nothing but a damn shame!
27. Just a couple comments.
The Senator from Boeing is actually from Chicago;I'd like to know where he's been to help get this contract and what his take is.
This contract sets up another wide bodied aircraft assembly plant in North America; Mobile gets a Federal subsidy to make it work.Much like the mills that left New England after WW2,this may be the beginning of aviation manufacturing's relocation to the New South. At the very least it will create strong competion for Boeing in the future.
28. My issue is with Boeing offering up an airframe that they are going to stop producing in three years. If you look at the KC-135 Stratotanker it's been the workhorse of our tanker fleet for over 50 years. If our next tanker is going to serve anywhere near that lenght of time shouldn't it be based on an newer popular airframe?
The single biggest problem with the KC-135 isn't just age but the lack of spare parts. How many 707s do you see flying around of any arangement? How long until 767 spares become just as hard to come by and/or at what cost to the tax payers?
Boeing would have been much better served offering a tanker conversion of the 777 since it matches up better with the A-330.
As much as I'd like to slap around our Democrat "leadership" they were hamstrung by Boeing's management who can't get out of their own way.
29. HEY WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOLE IN WASHINGTON,WHATS MORE IMPORTANT A 100 BILLON DOLLAR CONTRACT FOR BOEING. OR THAT ROGER CLEMENTS USED THE JUICE.NO WONDER WASHINGTON STATE IS SO SCREWED UP.GET YOUR PRIORITIES RIGHT
30. WHATS MORE IMPORTANT THE BOEING DEAL OR THAT THE ROCKET USED JUICE.TODAY YOU GOT YOUR ANSWER
31. Watch the dems hail the loss as a victory because Puget Sound will be able to reduce it's "carbon footprint" -- besides the dems just passed a bill making it a goal for everyone to drive half as much within 40 years -- so how will all those workers get to the plant?
(Life is good)
32. With a stagnate economy and potential for jobs to be created, or even secured for Americans, this is a blow to not only Boeing, but also the American people. We deserve better than we have received from our [government]. We deserve a peace of mind knowing our troops are taken care of; we deserve peace of mind knowing our jobs are secure; we deserve peace of mind knowing we will not have to face the next four years in a stagnate economy; we deserve peace of mind knowing our children will have a better tomorrow. If we outsource all our jobs to other countries then we might as well consider our country a second-class country, because the average American will no longer be able to take care of themselves financially. This is an outrage. There should be a law stating that if there is a US Government bid posted, then whoever wins the bid must create the majority of jobs in America. [For] goodness sakes this is our future we are talking about. And by the way, the so-called tax breaks (Keynesian Economics) do noting in the long run for the economy, but jobs do. US jobs do damn it!!!
33. The Senator from Illinois is...drum roll please...Barack Obama. If he fights for his home state, he screws Alabama. If he ignores it, he screws his home state. Tough spot to be the Senator from Chicago.
I wonder if he'll just vote "present?"
34. let's see...
the northrop grummon w/ EADS contract gets a superior plane that holds 20% more fuel, 20% more passengers or 30% more cargo. it's in production and will be for several decades. it's not a defunct plane being phased out like the 767...
additionally, while the boeing contract would have initiated an additional 9,000 jobs, the northrop contract is expected to create 25,000 nationally. pretty much a no-brainer. just because it's american made, doesn't mean it's superior. if boeing had offered a superior project than they would have won, hands down. yes, let's hamstring the air force by making them use inferior products. some people in seattle are really effing dumb.
35. I'm not so disappointed. Pugetopolis is already terribly overpopulated. The tanker contract would only mean more people, more pollution, more thuggish unions, and more Dimocrats.
36. As someone who has flown tanker sorties from a carrier, and refuled from an Air Force tanker, I offer a couple of comments.
The Navy tankers are used to refuel the carrier aircraft, and can't stay airborne longer than the normal carrier flight cycle time. They stay close to the carrier, and don't carry anywhere near enough fuel to even begin to satisfy the needs of a strategic bomber.
The Navy tankers use a different type of equipment to transfer fuel and are incapable of passing gas to a strategic bomber. So while a Navy tanker could refuel AF fighters, they can't do a thing for the large aircraft such as the B-52, B-1 and B-2.
Boeing is selling 767 tankers to Italy and Japan, so there is a market for the plane.
37. I retired last year after 33 years as a civilian DOD employee at a Western Washington U.S. Naval base. I distinctly recall Scoop Jackson visiting many years ago, but I doubt Murray or Cantwell could locate Ft. Lewis, Whidbey Island NAS, PSNS or Fairchild AFB on a map. And the only congressman we saw on a regular basis was Norm Dicks, even though our base was not in his district (6th) in recent years. Other than Dicks, our state's congressional delegation has about as much clout with the military as the Berkley City Council.
38. But.... but.... Patty Powerful can fix this! She must! She must!
39. The local governments and state government here are FUBAR.
The transportation system in Western WA is FUBAR.
It makes perfect sense the Air Force wants the work done in Alabama - even if that means working on EADS aircraft.
40. Perhaps if Senator Pattycakes put more effort to building bridges with the defense community (DOD officials, senior military officers, etc.) instead of pandering to the abortion industry (her largest contributor is Emilys List, an abortion industry PAC), Boeing would have stood a chance in this solicitation. And the Boeing employees who vote lockstep for the Democrat senators and congressmen their unions endorse need look no further than the mirror to cast the blame.
41. An internal document leaked last night from the Pentagon offers the following insight.
They (the Air Force) is concerned that, in the event of war, the shipment of mission-critical parts for the 767-variant may be delayed by hostile forces.
Newspaper accounts report human blockades and demonstrations at ports trans-shipping U.S. military equipment. These demonstations appear to have support from local government officials. In fact, some have openly encouraged locals to block even in-bound equipment...
... at the critical ports of entry: Port of Olympia, WA and Port of Tacoma, WA.
[end of summary]
42. @29
It'll ALL be okay, remember, a few days ago Queen Christine said that if Boeing didn't get the contract "questions would be raised".
What-flippin-ever THAT means!
43. Hey guys, lay off Boeing. It doesn't seem right to hold against us the fact that an /Air Force/ procurement officer and a salesman made a bad deal /eight years/ ago. I wasn't even workng for Boeing until years later.
The major work is going to happen in Europe, not in Alabama. Just some systems integration by Americans. What this deal means is that more really high tech work is going overseas. Soon the US won't be building any airframes larger than a cessna. The 767 would have been built all new all right here in the US.
You might be right about there being some quid pro quo by the military against anti-military legislators. But then why send the work to anti-american Europeans?!
Say what you like about the politcs, but there's no reason to believe Boeing /deserved/ to lose.
44.
Wake up...the loser gets this deal.
45. France's Sarkozy promised a reinvigorated Airbus as center of his national industrial policy. Sounds like a conservative in France isn't all it's cracked up to be.
46. Hmmmmm who do we blame for this?well lets start with our Stupid Governor Chris Gregoire, the our Utterly Totally Incompetent Senators, Maria Cantwell and, Patty Murray also our Moronic Congressional Delegation Jay Inslee, Rick Larsen, Brian Baird, Doc Hastings, Cathy McMorris, Jim McDermott, Dave Reichert, Adam Smith. These Short Bus Riding retards left 40 Billion Dollars $$$$$$$$$$$ on the table and let themselves be out smarted by some Backwoods Rednecks from Alabama and some Frilly Foo Foo French. Now they will raise our taxes through the roof and toll every road, bridge and sidewalk in the State of Washington because there is a huge budget short fall due to the lack of tax revenue. Well if you let go 9,000 plus jobs that pay between 60k to 100k each, per year, that is a ton of local tax revenue left on the table. We need to vote all these retards out of office. Thanks guys we appreciate all your hard work.
47. How many of you whining Machinists have foreign cars out in your garages? Oh but wait, its assembled here! Like Tenn. or Ala. Look for Boeing assembly to move to Ok. or Tx. sometime in the not too distant future. Meantime keep swilling the Sweeney Koolaid.
48. The children attending Evergreen State College are celebrating...any company with a lick of sense would not conduct their business operations in a Business unfriendly state like Washington. I can't blame them.
49. It seems to me that for Boeing this is a pretty small contract in the big picture. This really does not seem that much different than Boeing selling C-17s to Europe. I am sure the Europeans could be complaining about not purchasing Airbus products. Also, isn't Boeing and Airbus using the same suppliers for both planes? Casa in Spain, Alenia in Italy, probably a large Korean supplier, etc.
Besides, Boeing cancelled the best tanker out there, the McDonnell Douglas DC 10/MD 11 tanker.
50. @37: I work at Fairchild. Both Murray and Cantwell have visited in recent years.
51. From Wichita Ks. Very disappointed. But, should Boeing management be the ones we point the blame to? Should they have offered the 777 platform as the tanker variant to be offered? 767 is a little long in the tooth.
52. From Wichita Ks. Very disappointed. But, should Boeing management be the ones we point the blame to? Should they have offered the 777 platform as the tanker? 767 is a little long in the tooth.
53. I can't believe some of the comments on here. First, to be clear, this is a $100B+ contract by the time it is done. When you consider foreign purchases that will follow, it will probably be double that. This is a huge contract, and it will have lasting ramifications for decades. We are in the process of ceding one of our last bastions of economic dominance and our largest export industry. This is the beginning of the end for Airframe manufacturing in the US, and for those who can't see the forest for the trees - ask anyone involved in aviation in Great Britain in the 1950's if they ever though that GB would be out of the aviation market (reduced to a niche player) by 1980. It will have the following effects:
1) Airbus will build 100's of airframes (for the US and other countries), perhaps increasing total production of the A330/A340 airframe by 25% - 50%.
2) Finally this year, after 4 - 5 years, Boeing has regained the upper hand in their battle w/ Airbus for commercial positioning. Airbus problems stem from the tremendous costs and slow sales of the A380. The A380 is the wrong product at the wrong time. Airbus made a strategic blunder that should have benefited US competitiveness. The Air Force rectified this problem for Airbus with the stroke of a pen. This order, immediately solves many of the Airbus problems, by giving them ample funds (near and long term) to compete against the 787 and future airframes.
3) Boeing will see the writing on the wall and move most of their production overseas. They will simply become an integration company in the US, with little manufacturing capability. Clearly, where product is produced and where jobs are created is not important to their largest customer. Expect to see this on the commercial side as well, with a second line for the 787 built overseas, as well as all production for the successor to the 737.
4) Expect defense budgets to be slashed dramatically in the near future, as public support for defense appropriations collapses. Why should US tax payers foot the bill to employ foreign workers.
54. there's no way the pentagon would give the contract to boeing after darleen druyun and her boeing bubbies got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.do a tiny bit of searching and you'll be surprised that more boeing white shirts haven't been arrested.
55. there's no way the pentagon would give the contract to boeing after darleen druyun and her boeing bubbies got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.do a tiny bit of searching and you'll be surprised that more boeing white shirts haven't been arrested.
56. Blame Boeing, for not having the deal the Air Force wanted. AND thank the Air Force for making a decision that is best for the military defense of the country, not the economic or political benefit of a few.
57. If I recall Boeing was going back and forth on offering a 767 or 777 version of the tanker, aircraft with quite a few differences in size, range, and payload.
My problem with the Airforce is that they apparently did not specify which capabilities they were putting priorities on. If it was short field capability, great - offer the 767. If it was endurance and payload, that's fine to - the 777 it is. I can't imagine it was won by EADS based on price, as the last time I checked, they still sell in Euros.
I also wonder how much of this is political, with McCains mood re Boeing.
58. Anonymous @ 53
If Boeing can't put a competitive offer on the table or if they offer and inferior product then they should lose the contract.
Paul @ 57
Don't take this as me picking on you but more of a general (and rhetorical) question for those that have raised much the same thing.
I'm not sure where this idea that the Air Force wanted a tanker that could use a short field came from but since most aircraft in the Air Force arsenal need nice prepared long runways to being with then wouldn't it be logical that a short takeoff capability would be silly? If I missed it somewhere please let me know.
59. Structurally, the Airbus product of any type, whether single aisle or wide body are suspect. The airplanes do not have clad aluminum. Cladding is a corrosion control mechanism. It is the last line of defense after primer, paint and chemical conversion. This why airbuses have to be completely painted.
Whether the the DOD and Air Force screwd up is up for discussion. On my part as an old Navy Airframer who did 4 tours at Whidbey,They blew this one out their tailpipe.
60. The competitive process is very fair and open with the aim of meeting needs of the service at minimum cost to the taxpayer. The best proposal wins, regardless of the location. That's the law.
The operational requirements are developed by the users of the system, in this case HQ Air Mobility Command (HQ AMC) at Scott AFB, IL.
When all the minimum operational requirements have been established, the relative importance of each is given a weight within the program. Obviously, in a tanker procurement, the amount of fuel will be very important. Failing to meet the minimum fuel load, would disqualify the bidder. You may get extra points for exceeding the minimum to a point. Operating from a short air strip was not a requirement.
As for Airbus being an international prime contractor, it's not a problem. They will give us jobs and technology, not the other way around. Alabama is delighted they will complete final assembly in Mobile. Undoubtedly a part of Northrop/Grumman's strategy was to pay workers in dollars rather than euros whenever possible.
I suspect that Boeing and their unions got greedy again and assumed they would win. Certainly, their management have requested a debriefing on the selection process including how they lost. Unless there is some major legal problem, Washington lost the competition.
BTW, KC-135s refuel all the jets - fighters, bombers and transports - near the war zone and far away from it. Also, the USAF maintains their aircraft differently than do the airlines. It's called phased maintenance. Periodically based on flying hours, the aircraft are sent to a depot and completely rebuilt. Airlines do progressive maintenance to avoid talking the aircraft off the flying schedule. After every sortie, they check this and change that. The Airbus depot will have all the capability that EADS has.
61. The competitive process is very fair and open with the aim of meeting needs of the service at minimum cost to the taxpayer. The best proposal wins, regardless of the location. That's the law.
The operational requirements are developed by the users of the system, in this case HQ Air Mobility Command (HQ AMC) at Scott AFB, IL.
When all the minimum operational requirements have been established, the relative importance of each is given a weight within the program. Obviously, in a tanker procurement, the amount of fuel will be very important. Failing to meet the minimum fuel load, would disqualify the bidder. You may get extra points for exceeding the minimum to a point. Operating from a short air strip was not a requirement.
As for Airbus being an international prime contractor, it's not a problem. They will give us jobs and technology, not the other way around. Alabama is delighted they will complete final assembly in Mobile. Undoubtedly a part of Northrop/Grumman's strategy was to pay workers in dollars rather than euros whenever possible.
I suspect that Boeing and their unions got greedy again and assumed they would win. Certainly, their management have requested a debriefing on the selection process including how they lost. Unless there is some major legal problem, Washington lost the competition.
BTW, KC-135s refuel all the jets - fighters, bombers and transports - near the war zone and far away from it. Also, the USAF maintains their aircraft differently than do the airlines. It's called phased maintenance. Periodically based on flying hours, the aircraft are sent to a depot and completely rebuilt. Airlines do progressive maintenance to avoid talking the aircraft off the flying schedule. After every sortie, they check this and change that. The Airbus depot will have all the capability that EADS has.
62. Now they will raise our taxes through the roof - Posted by: Guy on March 1, 2008 11:18 AM
WILL???? Where the heck have you been?
63. We buy weapons from overseas - Beretta's , H&K's .... so what?
64. I see a lot of people bashing the French and EADS. But the simple fact is that the Boeing Aircraft being offered is not as good as the airbus option. So far the British RAF contract went to Airbus and so did the Australian RAAF order. So do people see a trend or is it just me.
65. I see a lot of people bashing the French and EADS. But the simple fact is that the Boeing Aircraft being offered is not as good as the airbus option. So far the British RAF contract went to Airbus and so did the Australian RAAF order. So do people see a trend or is it just me.
66. The competitive process in government contracting is not fair and not really open. I am a former contracting officer and protection of the taxpayers' interests is not a priority of government acquisition personnel. Was Boeing so arrogant they ignored the Air Force requirements or was the Air Force vague and ambiguous with requirements and rating factors. Maybe a bit of both? Was the Berry Amendment waived for Airbus, and the Buy American Act, and the ball bearing restrictions? What about the social programs, small disadvantaged businesses, disabled veterans, HUB zones, Native Americans, etc. did Airbus comply? French fries are unpatriotic but French airplanes are not? Boeing has been lauded for the 787 and even used as an example of innovation and forward thinking for car manufacturers. This DoD contract offers an advantage to Airbus in the commercial sector where Boeing is the standard bearer for the industry. This was a bad decision with wider implications than one air platform for the Air Force.
67. The competitive process in government contracting is not fair and not really open. I am a former contracting officer and protection of the taxpayers' interests is not a priority of government acquisition personnel. Was Boeing so arrogant they ignored the Air Force requirements or was the Air Force vague and ambiguous with requirements and rating factors. Maybe a bit of both? Was the Berry Amendment waived for Airbus, and the Buy American Act, and the ball bearing restrictions? What about the social programs, small disadvantaged businesses, disabled veterans, HUB zones, Native Americans, etc. did Airbus comply? French fries are unpatriotic but French airplanes are not? Boeing has been lauded for the 787 and even used as an example of innovation and forward thinking for car manufacturers. This DoD contract offers an advantage to Airbus in the commercial sector where Boeing is the standard bearer for the industry. This was a bad decision with wider implications than one air platform for the Air Force.
68. The competitive process in government contracting is not fair and not really open. I am a former contracting officer and protection of the taxpayers' interests is not a priority of government acquisition personnel. Was Boeing so arrogant they ignored the Air Force requirements or was the Air Force vague and ambiguous with requirements and rating factors. Maybe a bit of both? Was the Berry Amendment waived for Airbus, and the Buy American Act, and the ball bearing restrictions? What about the social programs, small disadvantaged businesses, disabled veterans, HUB zones, Native Americans, etc. did Airbus comply? French fries are unpatriotic but French airplanes are not? Boeing has been lauded for the 787 and even used as an example of innovation and forward thinking for car manufacturers. This DoD contract offers an advantage to Airbus in the commercial sector where Boeing is the standard bearer for the industry. This was a bad decision with wider implications than one air platform for the Air Force.
69. Don makes good points about the Airbus plane's greater payload and endurance, but the Airbus bird costs ~$35 million apeice more than the KC-767. Was it stated in the RFP a willingness to pay extra for these things? If not, and assuming all other criteria is equal, then Boeing should have received the award for meeting the RFP criteria with the lower cost choice.
This is what we need to learn from the Air Force debrief.
70. The Boeing plane is the best option. I am married to a tanker pilot who flew in both gulf wars. The Boeing plane is smaller and can land on any runways. Then Airbus plane is too large to land on many runways. This can be a problem when you have downloaded your gas to fighters. The Boeing plane allows pilot override of the computer in certain difficult situations. Then Airbus plane does not allow pilot override of the computer. I would prefer to rely on the USAF pilots instead of the French computer! Bad decision!
71. The Boeing plane is the best option. I am married to a tanker pilot who flew in both gulf wars. The Boeing plane is smaller and can land on any runways. Then Airbus plane is too large to land on many runways. This can be a problem when you have downloaded your gas to fighters. The Boeing plane allows pilot override of the computer in certain difficult situations. Then Airbus plane does not allow pilot override of the computer. I would prefer to rely on the USAF pilots instead of the French computer! Bad decision!
72. The Boeing plane is the best option. I am married to a tanker pilot who flew in both gulf wars. The Boeing plane is smaller and can land on any runways. Then Airbus plane is too large to land on many runways. This can be a problem when you have downloaded your gas to fighters. The Boeing plane allows pilot override of the computer in certain difficult situations. Then Airbus plane does not allow pilot override of the computer. I would prefer to rely on the USAF pilots instead of the French computer! Bad decision!