March 02, 2008
Let's Not and Say We Did
An editorial in today's Everett Herald was depressingly parochial and careless in expressing dismay about Boeing's failure to win the much-anticipated contract to replace the Air Force's tanker fleet.
Now, there are reasons to raise questions and expect related answers to a number of points regarding the decision. That said, there are already some pretty clear marks against Boeing that company supporters in this region should be willing to recognize.
The company's recent track record on military contracts hasn't been stellar. The company was trotting out a proposed product based on an airplane model in the dying gasps of its commercial life. It's Its own track record delivering similar such products to Japan and Italy has not been good. And initial press reports indicate Boeing's offering may just have been out-classed. Example:
"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," Gen. Arthur Lichte, commander of the Air Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, said of the Northrop Grumman-EADS KC-45A tanker.
Sounds like at the end of the day, after the briefings have been given and the questions have been answered, that Boeing may have simply gotten beat.
We'll certainly get the chance to find out. The vocal outrage from local politicians, especially Appropriators Norm Dicks and Patty Murray, has been rather obvious. The Pentagon clearly knew they were in for serious grief from Congress in making a call against Boeing. That probably means the Northup Grumman/Airbus product won the competition rather clearly in their eyes.
The quicker the company's local cheerleaders can face that possible reality the quicker we'll all avoid looking like sore losers.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 02, 2008
07:15 PM | Email This
1. Cantwell and Murray are certainly not the gold dust twins. After 25 years as a purchasing manager in a different industry, I learned a few things. One of those is to never ever "diss" your vendors. Eventually there will come a time when you need them. If they were unhappy with what happened on the previous contract, they may not want to play nicely the next time when you really need them.
2. "It's own track record delivering..." should be "Its".
3. This is a disgusting decision to yet again send 100's of Billions of our American taxpayer dollars to another country and especially Airbus.
This state needs new leadership, and fast!
4. This is a disgusting decision to yet again send 100's of Billions of our American taxpayer dollars to another country and especially Airbus.
Actually, it was $35 billion, not "100's of billions".
This state needs new leadership, and fast!
As much as it pains me to say it, you can't blame the Democrats for Boeing offering what the Pentagon felt was an inferior product.
5. What would new state leadership solve in this case. Boeing doesn't have a "right" to every military contract just because they are a US company. It appears to me Boeing took a lot for granted in this bid, by offering them a base airplane that they are phasing out. "Eh, let's use the old crap on the military and charge them double what can in the private sector." Just like GM was getting its butt kicked by the Japanese in auto making before they finally woke up (too late, I might add), Boeing needs to realize they have competition. I've flown on both Boeing and Airbus airplanes, and as much as I fear flying on something built by someone that only works 35 hours a week 10 months out of the year, I have to say the Airbuses are better planes.
6. It it not a fair argument to discredit the 767 as being "an airplane model in the dying gasps of its commercial life." The 767 airframe has been around since the late 1970s, but it is still a new airplane. A new 767, with current wings, engines, avionics, etc., it NOT the same 767 sold in 1980. It is a vibrant up-to-date workhorse with an excellent safety record (better than the A330).
Similarly, the A330 is an "older" plane, designed in the mid 1980's to compete with the 767. Like the 767, newer models are soon to replace it in the commercial market. So, Eric, why don't you describe the A330 as "an airplane model in the dying gasps of its commercial life" as well?
7. It is funny that the same people who are throwing a fit about "no bid contracts" to the evil Haliburton are now pissed because the administration did what they asked and took bids for a military contract. You cannot have it both ways, this is what happens when you have open bidding...sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
8. It is also not a fair argument to discredit the 767 by pointing out that the A330 is larger and holds more fuel/cargo/etc. The airplanes are simply different in this respect. But bigger is NOT necessarily better, unless it is filled to capacity on every flight (which it won't be).
It is similar to owning a van vs a delivery truck. The truck will hold more, but the van gives better economy. Of course if you have cargo that fills the truck, the truck is the way to go. But what if you only fill it 10% of the time? It may be better to make 2 van trips for that 10%, rather than use an oversize vehicle the 90%.
Most flights will NOT utilize the additional capacity of the A330. In fact a large majority of aerial refuling flight is done during training missions where the planes are not at capacity. Why would we not want a more economical airplane? Plus, there are a few places the 767 can go that the A330 can't.
9. But.... but.... Patty Powerful and Maria Mighty can FIX this! They're POWERFUL democrats! There's NOTHING they can't do!
10. This rebuttal would be quite a pertinent and precise one, had the author not left out the details that the Airbus/Northrup consortium has litigated and drawn out the process for the past year and a half, all the while starving our military defense and causing a replacement for the 50+ year old tanker to be delayed even longer. Going with a company that has been in the business of designing aircraft nearly one third of the time that Boeing has is the wrong decision. Going with a company that has zero experience in the tanker industry as opposed to a company with 70+ years in building tanker aircraft is the wrong decision. Also I raise the question to why the A400M, the European consortium never quite took off? By the way, the tanker Boeing was putting their contract up for is available and flying now. How long will we have to wait for this "superior tanker"
11. This rebuttal would be quite a pertinent and precise one, had the author not left out the details that the Airbus/Northrup consortium has litigated and drawn out the process for the past year and a half, all the while starving our military defense and causing a replacement for the 50+ year old tanker to be delayed even longer. Going with a company that has been in the business of designing aircraft nearly one third of the time that Boeing has is the wrong decision. Going with a company that has zero experience in the tanker industry as opposed to a company with 70+ years in building tanker aircraft is the wrong decision. Also I raise the question to why the A400M, the European consortium never quite took off? By the way, the tanker Boeing was putting their contract up for is available and flying now. How long will we have to wait for this "superior tanker"
12. This rebuttal would be quite a pertinent and precise one, had the author not left out the details that the Airbus/Northrup consortium has litigated and drawn out the process for the past year and a half, all the while starving our military defense and causing a replacement for the 50+ year old tanker to be delayed even longer. Going with a company that has been in the business of designing aircraft nearly one third of the time that Boeing has is the wrong decision. Going with a company that has zero experience in the tanker industry as opposed to a company with 70+ years in building tanker aircraft is the wrong decision. Also I raise the question to why the A400M, the European consortium never quite took off? By the way, the tanker Boeing was putting their contract up for is available and flying now. How long will we have to wait for this "superior tanker"
13. This rebuttal would be quite a pertinent and precise one, had the author not left out the details that the Airbus/Northrup consortium has litigated and drawn out the process for the past year and a half, all the while starving our military defense and causing a replacement for the 50+ year old tanker to be delayed even longer. Going with a company that has been in the business of designing aircraft nearly one third of the time that Boeing has is the wrong decision. Going with a company that has zero experience in the tanker industry as opposed to a company with 70+ years in building tanker aircraft is the wrong decision. Also I raise the question to why the A400M, the European consortium never quite took off? By the way, the tanker Boeing was putting their contract up for is available and flying now. How long will we have to wait for this "superior tanker"
14. I don't feel sorry for Boeing or the leftist pinheads in this state. I do feel sorry for myself and the other 26.9999% of self-identified conservatives who live in WA state under the Stalinist boot heel of the Democrat party.
15. This discussion wouldn't be complete without a nonsensical statement that if we elected Republicans and not Democrats, Boeing tanker would be built in the US by a US company.
This is a takeoff from previous posts quoting Democratic leadership in Olympia trumpeting that if we wanted US2 fixed, then we needed to get rid of Pearson, Kristiansen and Stevens- all elected Republicans in the Monroe area- and elect Democrats. Right, flag?
16. To add to Seabecker and Adam Johnson's fine points:
The 767 based tanker was offered in response to a specific request (an RFP) from the Air Force that specified in great detail the technical requirements of their preferred design. Boeing could easily have based their tanker proposal on one or another of the larger 777 variants, or even the 747, if, indeed, the Air Force wanted "MORE." That they did not leads me to believe that there is truth in the statement I read the other day, that the Air Force changed the requirements of the contract late in the process in a way that favored the NG/EADS entry, perhaps under political pressure from the representatives of the southern states which will benefit from this award. If there is sufficient evidence of this, Boeing will (and should) contest the award. We'll see.
And let me reiterate that to say that the 767 is "in the dying gasps of its commercial life" reflects a great deal of ignorance. It is true that there may not be enough current and future orders on the books to keep the 767 in production; however, it is also true that the thousands 767s in use by the world's airlines are very nearly state of the art, they are not worn out, and they have a fantastic reliability rate (Hawaiian Airlines lost money with DC-10s and returned to profitability when they replaced them with 767s, primarily due to decreased fuel and crew costs and canceled or delayed flights due to maintenance issues). The 767 is truly at the peak of its commercial life, not in its dying gasps. Just as new 737s (an even older basic design than the 767) is going to make a terrific basis for a new Multi Mission Naval patrol aircraft (replacing the P-3), new 767s would have made a terrific platform for a tanker.
17. @swatter, the statement that "if we elected Republicans and not Democrats, Boeing tanker would be built in the US by a US company" is completely sensical.
Defense contracts of this scale are all about politics, period. If Washington State had Republican senators, a heavily Republican house delegation, and reliably voted Republican in national elections, this contract would have come home. This was Jeff Sessions' baby all the way.
It also helps that Alabama & Mississippi are already the prime meat suppliers for the military. Something like 40% of all recruits across branches are from the South. How many recruits does Washington supply by comparison?
So, yeah, if Washington were more like Alabama, then we'd have the contract. But then if a frog had wings...
18.
Oink. Oink. Oink.
You Wash-In-Toonians get more pork than the fried rice at Hunan #1 restaurant.
Aren't Boeing fleecers happy enough to triple bill every scrap of iron you sell the American taxpaper?
19. It's easy to beat the competition when they know every detail of their competitors proposal for years in advance, then given a clean slate to beat it. Boeing has BIGGER planes that would make fine tankers. If that's what the Air force wanted they should have said so. The fact the 767 is an older plane has NOTHING to do with it. The planes fly better than the Airbus, old design or not.
This is just an outright lynching by John McCain and Republicans. He's been hammering Boeing for years.
It doesn't help that Washington is about the biggest liberal bastion this side of Berkeley. Still, the GOP in this state will not be making any inroads with voters with decisions like this one, based mostly on Republican decisions. Sorry, but I think Boeing was set-up by McCain and the GOP, which I really hate because I am a conservative, now no longer a "Republican". All you free trade Republicans out there know this is a fiasco. American taxpayers should be able to know that the jobs created in the US by these huge military expendatures will be at least partially made up for in taxes of US workers on those programs. That ain't gonna happen. Throw in the weak dollar and you have a real sucking sound headed from our wallets to France. And we all know what a staunch supporter of US foreign policy France has been...
I certainly won't be voting for McCain or any other Presidential candidate this fall. I also will be looking closely at any GOP candidate for doing more to create real "FAIR TRADE"; not this ridiculous sham that's taking place now where other countries can get American companies to pay poverty wages, throw their untreated waste in the nearest canal, and let emmissions flow freely from their factories; while the EPA in the US continues to slam our industry with enormous costs for environmental regulations.
20. re: #17 -
"So, yeah, if Washington were more like Alabama, then we'd have the contract."
We could ask Starbucks to start selling boiled peanuts.....
21. And by the way, Senators Murray and Cantwell were so concerned about Boeing getting this contract, they didn't even make the effort to even KNOW what the general requirements were. They have no clue why Boeing lost and Airbus won. I bet they didn't even talk to the Pentagon about this for 3 years. That's your democrats for ya. Between this debacle, the ferry debacle, the roads debacle, and the soon to be ruled "unconstitutional" 60% majority for new taxes, AND a proposed "engine displacement tax", how is it possible that democrats can continue to get elected? Well, because of stupid GOP decisions like this tanker deal. The perception is that the GOP doesn't care about US Workers. And you know what? I am starting to think that may be true.
22. And by the way, Senators Murray and Cantwell were so concerned about Boeing getting this contract, they didn't even make the effort to even KNOW what the general requirements were. They have no clue why Boeing lost and Airbus won. I bet they didn't even talk to the Pentagon about this for 3 years. That's your democrats for ya. Between this debacle, the ferry debacle, the roads debacle, and the soon to be ruled "unconstitutional" 60% majority for new taxes, AND a proposed "engine displacement tax", how is it possible that democrats can continue to get elected? Well, because of stupid GOP decisions like this tanker deal. The perception is that the GOP doesn't care about US Workers. And you know what? I am starting to think that may be true.
23. I'm a retired Navy Officer who spent 24 years in Naval aviation. I must say that I have not studied either company's offer, but freinds who have, tell me that the Airbus proposal offers two things that I learned were important during my service years. More range and more fuel "give". I suspect that those two capabilities wheighed hevily in the Air Force decision. They (the Air Force) had to know that this was going to be like kicking over a hornet's nest. I can assure you that very few military officers would send a contract to Airbus because they love the French. Quite the contrary. Add to that, my natural suspicion that there must have been a reason that the Boeing senior leadership was willing to taint them selves with a payoff of an Air Force contracting Officer last time around.
I just wish that Boeing had presented a clearly superior bid proposal that had won the contract fair and square. Because I would like to have seen the planes built here.
24. The first contract was a no-bid. The whole thing was done due to the fact that after 9-11 the US Aerospace Industry, and Boeing in particular, was devastated by the cancelled commercial airplane orders after the attacks. To my recollection, the contract was widely called "corporate welfare" because the Air Force didn't really need tankers at the time, but congress wanted to lessen the blow on our aerospace industry. This being the case, I don't know what advantage a payoff from Boeing to a procurement officer would have accomplished because it was not a competitive bid.
Well, McCain got the contract yanked, and thousands of jobs were lost as a result. The intended rescue of the commercial aviation industry didn't happen. It turned out that the industry bounced back stronger than ever and the whole bailout was not needed. Most of those jobs were back within about 2 years.
The real question here should be; "Does the Air Force actually need tankers"? If the real reason was to save jobs, but that never happened, then why are we buying any tankers we didn't really need then or now?
25. scott, regarding your post at 22, do you really think they can understand more than even the most simplistic concepts?
26. Scott.
Yes the tankers need replacement soon. The KC-135 have thousands of flight hours on the frames (cycles)
Plus the 135 have limited fuel caring.
PS Not only did Boeing get in trouble with the tanker mess, the a short time later they were caught with stolen papers from another company on missiles.
27. Swatter, I would hope Murray and Cantwell would have spent a sizeable portion of their time to at least get familiar with the basics of the proposals and help Boeing make their case. I'm pretty sure Sen. Sessions did his homework. I don't think the entire issue was even on our dynamic duo's radar.
As for the missile thing, yes Boeing got in trouble for that, but I believe the news reports said the documents were left there by an Air Force person there to review Boeings bid. B got in trouble because a manager looked at the materials a little too closely before giving them back. Shows how one or two people can cost a company millions and it's reputation. Hopefully lesson learned. Pretty much everyone involved from the CEO down to the manager who did that are gone. Same on the tanker scandal. Fines were paid, contracts were yanked, prison time served. It's over, at least it should be. How much punishment is reasonable? Why beat up on the workers? It's always the innocent people who remain who have to deal with the punishment...and in this case the Taxpayer is getting punished as well.
28. We fly 50 year old B-52's that get a lot tougher duty than tankers do. Those 707's can fly another 20 years.
29. The local liberal press has been badmouthing (major local employer) for decades. Now our reps are whining because the money went elsewhere...these people can't make up their minds.
Totally gags me to think my tax dollars will be going to Airbus.
30. The local liberal press has been badmouthing (major local employer) Boeing for decades. Now our reps are whining because the money went elsewhere...these people can't make up their minds.
Totally gags me to think my tax dollars will be going to Airbus.