EADS A330/Northrop New US Tanker??

[Matt308]

My goodness. What has become of the world. My only consolation is that Northrop might have a handle that us tax payers can't fathom.

But our tanker fleet? Expect a lawsuit imminently.

A330 - larger, more capacity, bigger footprint, unproven boom

B767 - smaller, less capacity, smaller footprint, proven boom

Wow. Can you boil down a $150B procurement into 4 parameters? No. But fuel efficiency, capability, and proven technology are larger factors than maintaining a US manufacturing base?

Eff you McCain. Thanks an effing lot. And I don't even work for Boeing. [Matt308 holds his nose as he will likely vote for this POS]

 

[FLYBOYJ]

When I worked for BAE this was discussed as BAE was supposed to be one of the partners. You were correct - the big issue was the solid boom technology in which Boeing has all kinds of patents.

 

[glennasher]

Boeing got themselves into that mess, there's no getting around it, and the rebidding gave Airbus another chance, without Boeing's shenanigans in regards to bid-rigging and so forth. I'm not celebrating Airbus winning the contract, but Boeing had it coming to them.

 

[Matt308]

No arguments that Boeing deserved the punishment that they received. But to deny a US manufacturer the second largest DoD aircraft procurement program over differences in performance that are measured in pico-increments of merit is scandalous. Congress will never let it progress. Mark my words.

 

[bigZ]

Didn't the Military award the contract to the best proposal? If so I cant see Congress raising any serious challange to the desicison.

At least 60% of the labour will be American.

 

[Matt308]

Like comparing tangerines to mandarins. And your country only eats four different fruits.

Only difference is one's seeds, farms, harvesting, packaging, and distribution is in your own country. The other's... not so much.

Other than that. No effing difference bigZ.

 

[davparlr]

No arguments that Boeing deserved the punishment that they received. But to deny a US manufacturer the second largest DoD aircraft procurement program over differences in performance that are measured in pico-increments of merit is scandalous. Congress will never let it progress. Mark my words.

I don't think Congress has any love for Boeing over this issue.

 

[davparlr]

in which Boeing has all kinds of patents.

Only if they didn't accept Government money for developing it.

 

[Matt308]

I don't think Congress has any love for Boeing over this issue.

Don't kid yourself. Either decision was expected to result in a contestation of the decision. You can expect lawyers and the GAO to get involved now. Not sure if the DoD is weighing their options here or what. But lets remember that that the difference in performance of either platform technically (out of a 100pt system) is likely less than 5-10%. Therefore, it boils down to indigenous manufacturing base and its importance to a nations future security.

DoD wants B767 - EADS/NorthrupGrumman files case and the world cries foul about evil american politics and corruption. DoD gets the blame and all the fallout. Congressional review indicates Boeing should get the contract. But DoD gets all the negative press.

DoD wants A330 - DoD claims unbiased decision. Congress/GAO gets involved and politics come into play making a decision for B767. DoD gets a pass. Evil american politicians are blamed for influencing decision and suffer world derision.

Give me an effing brake. Give Boeing the contract, listen to the French whine about their gov't subsidized EADS/AIRBUS proposal (yet again), and then blow a big raspberry in the direction of Gay Paris.

Phhhhhttttttttt......

[bye the way, I live in Seattle, but don't work for Boeing]

 

[davparlr]

In general, this is a bad deal for the US aerospace. Boeing try to pull a real sleazy deal on it, knowing there was no (perceived) competition.

Too bad.

 

[Arsenal VG-33]

I say Hooray for NG/EADS! Boeing need to stop bitching about "unfair" practices when it uses tactics that effectively locks out competition, more than a bit hypocritical. Daddy-DOD's plastic doesn't come with unlimited credit anymore. The USAF obviously made the better choice. I find it even more remarkable considering how Boeing itself has outsourced jobs for aircraft parts to Europe and elsewhere. Interesting article I dug up last night:

from 2004
WASHINGTON - The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications [...] so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal, [...].

In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.
The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.
[...]
But the e-mails and other documents show just how intent the Air Force was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were more capable and cost less.
In one document, Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for tankers, noted that one objective in rewriting the specifications was to "prevent an AoA from being conducted." "AoA" stands for "analysis of alternatives" or, in essence, a look at serious competitors.
[...]
"This was a negotiation between the Air Force and Boeing; they weren't giving it to Airbus," said Steven Schooner, [...]. "It definitely lends support to the generally accepted reflection that this was never intended to be an open competition.
"In a competitive procurement, you don't let one of the competitors write this because it gives them a competitive advantage," Schooner said.
Senate investigators have plowed through some 8,000 pages of Boeing documents that were so embarrassing and revealing that the company last year fired one of its vice presidents, Darleen Druyun. Druyun had been an Air Force acquisitions officer involved in negotiations on the tanker deal. Boeing also fired its chief financial officer, who had hired Druyun. Boeing chairman and chief executive Phil Condit also left the company in an attempt to help Boeing put the scandal behind it and get the deal back on track. "



I also find it hilarious how, despite Airbus being a European-wide consortium the French are always singled out. Last I checked, the French are using and holding on to their Boeing tanker aircraft, but you don't hear them screaming about it. The global market works both ways. Boeing shouldn't complain, it has enough orders on contract right now to keep it going quite safely for the next decade and beyond.

Besides, I doubt you hear the folks in Alabama and the Gulf region complain about their news jobs. Instead of rolling around and crying like little babies, perhaps Boeing could take this opportunity to straighten itself up a bit and find a better approach to things. Boeing dug it's own hole, so stop blaming Airbus/France/Europe for it's corporate problems. It's amazing to me why Boeing didn't push their new 777 for this project!

I can recall hearing on NPR last week a very interesting report on the run-up to the USAF decision, and Washington congressman Dick Norm, the "congressman from Boeing" as he is sometimes called, held a pro-Boeing rally. The audio clip was telling - Not really knowing how to begin, Rep. Norm decided to spend much of his opening monologue by whipping up the crowd with anti-French "jokes" and slurs.

how pathetic.

 

[Matt308]

Boeing wrote the procurement spec. Right. So now we are not only accusing Boeing, but all of DoD of fraud. Nice post.

 

[bigZ]

BAE had a little problem with sweetners to the Saudis'. But it was all nicely resolved when the government thought it would be best intrest of national security not to investigate it further.

 

[plan_D]

For once, I agree with VG-33.

Both Boeing and Airbus have been caught up in one large argument about foul play. With or without all the dirt being thrown around this world is an open market - there's no reason for an Airbus offer to be turned down just because people in the U.S think everything there should be American. If the A-330 is the superior machine, then it should be accepted - end of.

Airbus is not French - it's a subsidary of EADS which was formed by German, French and Spanish companies. Airbus has manufacturing plants in Great Britain, France, Germany and Spain. The only reason people seem to believe Airbus as being French is because the final assembly plant is in Toulouse. BAe used to own 20% of Airbus , but sold it all off to EADS.

BAe had lots of "problems" with filling up the Saudis- but they did an excellent job of dumping worn out Lightnings on 'em !

 

[Matt308]

Again. Idigenous development and manufacturing of primary weapons systems are in the firstmost interest of any nation. And when the procurement process is written such that both competitors are virtually inconsequentially different in technical capability, why would the same nation choose foreign procurement?

Anyone?

Please. That may be a common practice amongst other nations, but I, for one, am not willing to promote it for my country. Especially at the expense of my nations defense.

 

[plan_D]

How is your nation's defence at stake ?! You are basically saying that any country that buys foreign military equipment is stoo-pid and everything should be homegrown. Best tell the army to rid themselves of the M1 Abrams 'cos that's a combination of European countries that made that thing a reality ... !

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have to agree with pD here. We expect other nations to buy our products we can buy other peoples products.

The question should be what is the better product. I am not sure, but if EADS is offering a superior product for less money, who cares.

 

[Matt308]

You guys aren't reading my posts carefully enough. Or I'm not making them clear enough. The two products are virtually identical in technical performance. So much so that the decision became as arduous as it was. Therefore, why reward such a large contract to a foreign entity. And countries do it all the time.

And Pd, your stoo-pid comment was beneath you.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why not?

I understand what you are saying Matt but if EADS is offering it for less money then that is why they did it. I am sure there is more involved, probably politicians that own stakes in certain companies or something like that.

 

[plan_D]

"Stoo-pid" comments for stupid arguments. I don't see your problem Matt, really it's an open market. You say that the two designs are almost equal, but you've handed no specifications that back up your assumption. If the A330 is superior to the B-767 for the job - then good on the DoD for using some sense. If it's not, but the A330 is cheaper then again - good on the DoD for using some sense. If Airbus are easier to deal with then good on the DoD for using some sense. If, however, Boeing are easier to deal with, the B-767 is better and cheaper - then there's a problem.