Citing irregularities with the process of the competition and the evaluation of the competitors’ bids, The Boeing Company has filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), asking the agency to review the decision by the U.S. Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial refueling tankers. “Our analysis of the data presented by the Air Force shows that this competition was seriously flawed and resulted in the selection of the wrong airplane for the warfighter,” said Mark McGraw, vice president and program manager, Boeing Tanker Programs. “We have fundamental concerns with the Air Force’s evaluation, and we are exercising our right under the process for a GAO review of the decision to ensure that the process by which America’s next refueling tanker is selected is fair and results in the best choice for the U.S. warfighters and taxpayers.”
Following a thorough analysis of data presented at a March 7 debriefing on the decision, Boeing concluded that what began as an effort by the Air Force to run a fair, open and transparent competition evolved into a process replete with irregularities. These irregularities placed Boeing at a competitive disadvantage throughout this competition and even penalized Boeing for offering a commercial-derivative airplane with lower costs and risks and greater protection for troops.
“It is clear that the original mission for these tankers — that is, a medium-sized tanker where cargo and passenger transport was a secondary consideration — became lost in the process, and the Air Force ended up with an oversized tanker,” McGraw said. “As the requirements were changed to accommodate the bigger, less capable Airbus plane, evaluators arbitrarily discounted the significant strengths of the KC-767, compromising on operational capabilities, including the ability to refuel a more versatile array of aircraft such as the V-22 and even the survivability of the tanker during the most dangerous missions it will encounter.”
Boeing is asking the GAO to examine several factors in the competition that were fundamentally flawed:
- The contract award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured against the Request for Proposal shows that Boeing had the better offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and better capability.
- Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure — a medium-sized tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the RFP — and the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker it ultimately selected. It is clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of the competition — including manipulation of evaluation criteria and application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key system requirements — resulted in selection of an aircraft that was radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to the Boeing 767 tanker offering.
- Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing’s cost/price data, the company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial-derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but also to federal statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing’s Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information, developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead treated the company’s airframe cost/price information as if it were a military-defense product. Not only did this flawed decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing’s unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.
- In evaluating Past Performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that Boeing — with 75 years of success in producing tankers — is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial-derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom. Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have enhanced Boeing’s position, the Air Force focused on relatively insignificant details on “somewhat relevant” Northrop/EADS programs to the disadvantage of Boeing’s experience.
“Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life cycle cost,” said McGraw. “We did bring our A-game to this competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and the selection of a higher-risk, higher-cost airplane that’s less suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force’s own Request For Proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be followed.”
Atom
Comments (45)
It seems quite obvious that the US Airforce continually modified the RFP so it no longer resembled that which was origianally placed.
If all these adjustments that were made were done in a manner to assist one manufacturer over another...wouldnt that ammount to unethical bussiness dealings? When the information is re-examined correctly, the Boeing 767 Tanker will better match the original RFP and be deemed the correct plane, How then does the Airforce do an about face? If we end up re-bidding I think it NECESSARY to remove the restriction on verbage concerning Subsidization.
Posted on March 18, 2008 01:14
Should be an investigation, Contract should remain with an American company, lets stop sending our business out of the country.
Posted on March 18, 2008 08:11
WE do not see all of the information that Boeing employees see, but by my observation of this contract set aside the differences from these two planes is the jobs that wil be lost in the Puget sound area and America. Most people don't realize that Europe protects their high tech and blue collar jobs. They do this by requiring you have an EC passport. How do you get this by being born in the European countries. I have tried to get a job in France and Italy and have been turn dowm. EADS has said that they will build it here good for manufacturing, but not good for engineering because they have not pointed out where that will be done and that effects me. It is sad that we have lost so many aerospace jobs in engineering and manufacturing to other countries already by outsourcing we don't need to lose more through government outsourcing.
Posted on March 18, 2008 08:41
Boeing,
Thanks for establishing this blog,
and opening it for comments.
First, of course, the RFP link:
"KC-X Aerial Refueling Tanker Aircraft" FA8625-07-R-6470
Second, regarding:
“It is clear that the original mission ...
where cargo and passenger transport
was a secondary consideration ..."
So, what did USAF mean by "secondary"?
The RFP language, when using "secondary",
explains in the immediate context
what USAF means by "secondary".
"secondary":
without interfering in any way
with the simultaineous availability of
all refueling capabilities
on the same mission.
In other words, "secondary",
the way USAF uses it in their RFP, means:
there is no limit to how much "extra"
fuel, freight, passengers and/or patients
may be carried,
as long as,
at all times,
the full array of refueling functions
are always available, too,
on those very same missions.
This is just like the requirement
for having both boom and hose/drogue
methods of refueling available
on the same missions. No ground
reconfiguration is to be needed
to switch from one to the other.
That same "original mission" requirement
is what is meant by "secondary",
that no reconfiguration is ever needed
to perform all refueling functions
on any mission that also carries "extra"
fuel, freight, passengers and/or patients.
This "original mission", then,
would be perfect for a Boeing KC-777.
It could haul a lot of "extra"
fuel, freight, passengers and/or patients
while also having all refueling functions
fully available on every one of those flights.
The KC-30 does this, already, of course,
but not as well as a Boeing KC-777 would.
That is why the contract award to the KC-30
is such a disappointment, because it should,
and could, have gone to the Boeing KC-777.
Thank you,
Eddie Maddox
Posted on March 18, 2008 08:43
I still have not seen anything about ITAR issues.
Posted on March 18, 2008 09:14
Boeing,
Thank you for protesting, at least we will see another third party go through the decision.
We are still lacking a lot of substance to show the Boeing aircraft was better than then Northrup aircraft, for example I have been reading that the KC-767 needs more runway then the larger Northrup aircraft, and the KC-767 cannot takeoff with full gas from a number of USAF tanker bases.
Hopefully this can be cleared up by the GAO.
I hope you know what you are doing with the protest, it is holding up getting the tankers to where they are needed.
Posted on March 18, 2008 09:29
Response to Geoff L of Buffalo, NY:
Caveat - While an employee of Boeing and a former military member - I do not work on/for the Tanker project.
A careful review of the other blogs on this topic have revealed, that the Boeing offering based on the 767 frame - is capable of operating on all existing runways without their modification.
It is the Airbus airframe that will require extending some runways to make the aircraft mission capable at those facilities. The exact numbers of runways which will require modification and the expected cost and time, have to my knowledge not been specified or identifed as yet. Though it would seem, that those costs should be considered into the cost of the EADS/Airbus offering. Either that or they should have a non mission capable rating for existing airfields that aren't long enough.
Posted on March 18, 2008 12:38
It is a misnomer to call this a Northrup aircraft, it is EADS or Air Bus pure and simple.
If Boeing should achieve a reversal of this contract award, I hope the do not embarass us all by farming out major components to Japanese industries.
Posted on March 18, 2008 18:12
I believe sole source is Justifiable due to the nature of what is being built. We are building refuelers (Tankers) that fuel our Military fighter/Cargo planes in the air, who’s to say a foreign Company (Airbus) France will not turn their back on us in a political Crises? Making commercial airplanes is one thing, building strategic military requirements is something that can’t be taken lightly, you are talking about the security of this great country and putting it in the hands of someone else’s beliefs and political policies that is not always the same as ours. I hope we do the right thing, and think twice about awarding a contract that is without a doubt, should be made in the United States.
Posted on March 18, 2008 18:52
Boeing has the right to defend itself and the nation from what I think is an unbelievable sequence of flaws, inconsistencies and misjudgements caused by U.S. Air Force's decision.
Choosing the Airbus A330-200 instead of Boeing 767-200ER, the U.S.A.F. actually has neglected important issues concerning the American economy, politics and national security.
Far more jobs would be created across the United States if Boeing had awarded the bid.
Both planes fly about the same distance, but the larger and heavier A330-200 consumes 24 percent more fuel per trip than the 767-200ER.
As oil prices climb, this should be a key element to be considered by the R.F.P.
However, U.S.A.F. officials have said that the impact on American jobs was not one of their criteria for awarding the contract. They also said that it was placed little value on fuel and maintenance lifecycle costs, despite paying $6.6 billion on aviation fuel in 2006.
Do they ever think about taxpayers?
Boeing is the best planemaker to fulfil this task and America deserves the best tanker.
Posted on March 19, 2008 05:22
In a news article dated 18 Mar, Paul Meyer, Program Manager for the NGC/EADS Tanker, denies NGC threatened to pull out of the competition if the A330 could not be their offering. I still have the article where NGC states "we will not be a stalking horse in this race". In other words, we will not enter the race unless we have a chance to win.
Who's zoomin who?
Posted on March 19, 2008 11:15
Boeing has every right to protest this curious decision. Those who are concerned about awarding EADS this contract can visit our site www.tankerblog.com anytime.
Posted on March 20, 2008 16:40
Sour grapes from the great northwest. Why aren't you Boeing supporters mentioning that Boeing outsources a great number of it's components of the planes they build now? Subcontactors from Japan, China, and Italy all build parts of Boeing's planes now If Boeing would not have tried to steal the contract away to begin with they might have more credibility. The award will stand, get over it and move on.
Posted on March 20, 2008 17:40
I memory serves me correct, doesn't the KC-767 already have FAA certification? Has EADS/Northrup even built one of their proposed tankers?
There were reports that EADS/Northrup would have 49 tankers ready by a certain year (2013?) and that Boeing would only have 19 built by that same time. If Boeing is already making the KC-767 (2 already delivered to Japan) they should be able to deliver them to the Air Force quicker.
Posted on March 20, 2008 18:28
I am waiting for the congress to get off their duffs and see how all the specs were changed from what I have read and heard on the news. When it comes to the defense of our country and also the health of our economy, we should buy American. I hope you remember this Boeing Aircraft. Made in America, gives jobs to Americans.
Posted on March 20, 2008 19:18
From a semi neutral point of view,
Boeing and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all five evaluation factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past Performance, 4) Cost/Price and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment.
Both planes can do the job, there would be no point being in the competition if the plane could not, so clearly the competition would come down to the added extras the offerings could bring to the table, not being an aviation expert the benefits of the EADS offering are
-It carries more fuel
-It carries more passengers
-It carries more cargo
-It will benefit from the constant upgrading of the commercially successful A330 (the 767 was a success, just those days are now behind it)
-There will be a plentiful supply of spares long into the future
I cannot see the advantages of the 767 derivative, it is 24% more fuel efficient but carries 24% less fuel, so its no big advantage (do they regularly fly half full? i don't know, if they do then it is a genuine advantage)
The 767 offering seems to be an attempt to keep a production line open, it's a pity as I'm sure a well developed 777 derivative would have comfortably beaten the A330 derviative.
What I don't understand about the outrage is why Americans are so willing to send their men to war in what appears to be the second best tanker, when in every other field they have the best equipment, the best fighters (F22, future F35) best bombers (B1, B2, F117A), best helicopters etc....
Posted on March 21, 2008 07:28
in response to Geoff L (Buffalo, NY):
"I hope you know what you are doing with the protest, it is holding up getting the tankers to where they are needed."
The same could be said for John McCain's protest of the "original" contract awarded to Boeing. This gave EADS time to modify their proposal and time to complete their "boom".
Posted on March 21, 2008 09:31
@Colm:
Your assessment is correct. The EADS proposal of the A330 is bigger than the 767 and generally would outshine the 767 in almost any mission capability. However, just because it is "bigger" doesn't necessarily mean it is "better". Does it meet the original design specifications and RFP set forth by the Air Force?
That's the bigger question.
All in all, if the Air Force wanted this sort of aircraft in the first place, it needs to give all candidates who are proposing a plane the same information. Based on what's been disclosed on all sides, it seems like there is a number of issues where one company was given one set of requests while another was given a different set of requests. It is as if they were competiting for two totally different projects!
Posted on March 21, 2008 13:18
Response to Geoff L & Douglas Laurell: There is almost no way the nearly 100,000lb heavier A330 would have a shorter runway requirement than the 767-200. I also wonder if the cost to modify facilities to accomodate the much larger A330 have been factored into the cost(I'll bet few of the current KC-135 hangers will hold the A330). The Tanker competition was for a Kc-135 replacement. What the Air Force bought was a near equal of the KC-10. If The Air Force wanted this size aircraft then a 777-200er tanker would have been the easy choice. I believe the Air Force brass dont think they will get a 1 for 1 replacement for the KC-135s so they are attempting to buy the largest aircraft offered to offset a smaller fleet. With politics as they are, I understand that line of thought. But if that was the line of thought(What plane will do the most with the least # of aircraft),then that should have been clearly made known to both bidding parties at the start.
Posted on March 21, 2008 13:27
I see a lot of comments basrd on nationalism but everybody forgets the fact that Boeing is an international company that sends the work anywhere they think it will make profit and that is the way it should be. Now it is sat that Boeing chose ti present only their plane capability instead of being fair and present both planes technical data in paralel. Is shows unfairness from their part. As it was said before THEY chose to present an older plane modified to compete with a newer generation airframe and they lost. Next time take your best at the racetrak.
Posted on March 21, 2008 14:19
Those people that are doubting that IN TIME OF CRISIS bla bla please take time to think about it long and hard. For those folks that say we need to protect US jobs , pleas also take time to think about it hard. Look at the Defence equipment that Europe buys from us and then compared the $$ spent , and compare that to what trade surplus or deficit exists . They buy are fighters , missiles , recce aircraft , missiles etc etc . How many hundereds (or is it thousands? ) F-16's are operational wit European Air forces ? How many Aim-120 AMRAAMS ? How many transport planes ? How many US bases in europe ?
Protectionism is a 2 way street!
Having said that , its boeing's right to protest and if they have a better product then by all accounts they should win . Best of luck to boeing and hope they win but lets not get into this foreign bull please
Posted on March 22, 2008 04:55
On April 15, 1986, President Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for Libya-sponsored terrorist actions. Part of the mission called for F-111's based at RAF Upper Heyford and RAF Lakenheath to bomb targets in Libya.
Because the French and Spanish governments were opposed to the raids, they would not allow over-flight of their countries. This added 2600 miles and about 5 and a half hours of flight time to these missions.
While these missions were a success, I can see a time when we are engaged in some military conflict that the French government opposes. I can also see some critical spare parts shipment being held up waiting for some sort of government export approval, and our tankers will be sitting out of service on the ramp awaiting parts when they should be in flight refueling combat aircraft.
This award is a huge disservice to the loyal, patriotic members of the United States Air Force.
Posted on March 22, 2008 13:32
Well, well... of all countries the US has always been THE advocate of of free trade and competition. And now that this principle is at work against a big US company, now that another foreign company has a better and cheaper product, everyone is agitated and screams 'unfair'. How funny must that look from outside the US...
Posted on March 24, 2008 18:56
How can Boeing complain about the loss of US jobs when so much of the 787 is built abroad?
The loss of US jobs is a fallacy as KC30 and A330 freighter production (currently 77 orders) will support more US jobs than the KC767.
Boeing objected fiercly when the losers of the CSAR-X helicopter competition filed a protest with the GAO, yet they're doing it too.
The KC 767s for Japan and Italy have suffered massive delays while the KC30 has had a relatively smooth development.
Do Boeing really expect us to believe that 'right sized freighter' rubbish they use to disguise the fact their plane carries less fuel, less troops, a lot less freight, over less distance?
It seems to me that the best plane won.
Posted on March 25, 2008 12:50
Foreign governments "embargoing" parts of the KC30 is a non issue. If it were we should ground all the USAF planes flying with CFM56 engines, like all the KC135R/Ts flying today! The CFM56 are half "French" made whereas the A330-200 airframe is at most a third French. My understanding is the boom will be made in the US and with hundreds of A330s flying with commercial airlines(and Northwest being the largest A330 operator and USAirways and Hawaiian getting quite a few too) it won't be too difficult getting parts for the airframe in N America should there be a "embargo". I'd worry more about parts for those "American" GE engines which are over 10% French being scarce than parts for a "French " airframe! NG could also , like Sikorsky did for the VH71 competition, re source "critical " parts to US companies from non US ones if people are that paranoid.
Posted on March 25, 2008 13:42
I applaud Boeing for putting up this blog but it will be in vain. EADS will win every contract they bid for. I'm in the hangar with their new helicopter I see major deficiencies first hand but it's nothing that lots and lots of money can't fix. Once they get their foot in the door with the new tanker it will just be a matter of time and lots of money till it's an adequate product.
Posted on March 26, 2008 07:45
Again, it is extremely sad and stupid how our citizens are losing jobs when it is absolutely unnecessary. The unfair decision against Boeing sends a clear message to the working class; that being, they just don't really care. When will they ever learn? You are correct in saying, "It doesn't add up"!
Thanks for printing the page in the Detroit Free Press. It opened my eyes to another major flawed decision made by people who claim to know what they are doing. Obviously, they don't.
Posted on March 26, 2008 07:53
I was surprised when the announcement was made about
the air tanker contract. After reading the "Tanker
Decision" in today's Wall Street, I wonder how the
Airforce decided for EAD/Northrop Tanker! May be
political influence is more important than the
efficiency, as well as the job for Americans, when
most of the manufacturing is going overseas!
As an American, I am really disaapointed by the Air
Force cecision. I hope, it is not too late to change
to Boing Tanker.
Amaran.md.
Posted on March 26, 2008 13:16
This is not right. I can not believe we would send this work to Northrop. We need to look at what our Dollar means to other countries, They want to stop reconizing it. The Dollar is down compared to the Euro, our economy is not in the best of shape, and we are sending work to another country - what's up with that? Can't our Goverment stop this? They should. Look at how many job's could be at risk.
Posted on March 26, 2008 17:34
In my opinion some comments are ludicrous. The US were always supporting the globalisation regardless the job situation in other countries. If consumers in the rest of the world were as patriotic as Americans, US export business would have a big problem...
I´m no expert in aviation, but with offering a renewed 767 it seems to me Boeing tried to maximize the profit of this deal by minimizing the costs. Furthermore Boeing felt certain to win this deal justified with experince in building tankers and mutual trust with US military in the past. Airbus and Northtrop went the other way and - proven by the decision of the USAF - offered the better product.
Posted on March 26, 2008 17:58
I read the add you placed in the Dallas Morning News.This add was to deep for the average USA citizen to understand. For Airbus to get this contract is an atrocity on the USA Taxpayer. I do not support giving Europe billions of USA Taxpayer dollars. I do not support giving Europe 100,000 jobs. The things which upsets me the most are USAF Military and Civilian Employees not complying with Federal Acquisition Regulations FAR Subpart 15.3 and knowing that Airbus can not and has not built an aircraft with the reliability, maintainability, and quality of a Boeing Aircraft. The United States of America will be paying for this dumb decision for years. I want to know who the Source Selection Authority was? I have no ties to Boeing.
Posted on March 27, 2008 11:44
It is Airbus that is pulling the Plug on the A330 and replacing it with the A350 that is why they needed this contract. Boeing has ordes for the 767 for years also. Why was the board the made the decsion made up of ONLY Northrup Personal these are the same people that kept the best anti RPG defense out of the field in Iraq also. Called if you are not from their company you will not win.
Posted on March 27, 2008 15:54
I have a copy of the "Situation" as stated by Boeing...Bravo.
I think it is time the US and Foreign Goverments "Play fair" in the "Sand-Box".
Having a EADS Lobbiest on your staff abd Taking a Large Donation to the Influencing US Government Party then making a decision in "their favor" would not appear to be practicing "Good Ethics" and should NOT be tolerated by either party. (Unfair??)
The Bid appears to have many serious Flaws based on the US Govt evaluation. The 767 is in no way in competition with the larger Airbus Plane in their quote.It would seem they (the US Govt) changed Direction in Mid-Stream". (Unfair??)
Then for the Europeans to award Their Tanker Program to Eads WITHOUT ALLOWING BOEING TO BID seems unfair too???
We are; 1. Using American Tax Payers Money to by these planes.2. We re "In a Recession" with HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT" yet we send business overseas???
This seems like an EXTREMELY EASY "NO BRAINER" decision to me.(But perhaps I give TOO much credit to our elected officals) I think even an idiot could have made a better decision rather then try to "hide" and continue to try to justify "what they did".
DO What is GOOD FOR OUR COUNTRY, and TREAT OTHERS AS YOU ARE TREATED.
Laws to LIVE BY.
"All American Boy"
Posted on March 27, 2008 20:46
I don't really understand how Boeing is basing part of its protest with the argument they were "led to believe" the Air Force wanted a mid-size tanker. It seems obvious to me that sides were handed the same RFP and Northrop Grumman got it right. Complaining about the rules after the game is a bit disingenuous.
As for Boeing's 41-newspaper "It Doesn't Add Up" advertising media blitz, they might want to take a look at Northrop's home page (www.northropgrumman.com) today. They hit the nail right on the head.
Posted on March 27, 2008 21:10
Boeing has every right to protest this serious and curious decision. Why have a bid process , then choose the most unlikely product. I believe this has happened many times when the government is lax and very free with our money. Is there money crossing someone's palm ???
Posted on March 28, 2008 06:40
I appreciate Boeing's full page ad in The Telegraph (Macon). As others have written, there are many reasons to "buy American". In this case, national security must be the key. This essential part of our defense does not need to be farmed out to a company in a country that is not our friend.
Posted on March 29, 2008 02:36
As usual with blogs not managed by a tough editor, comments herein contain some nonsense such as the complaint that a US person cannot get a job in Europe. (I doubt the many people I've encountered who worked in Europe snuck into those countries.) The commenter should try being a European trying to get a job in the US, and should look at NAFTA for comparison with the intra-Europe freedom of movement.
Other comments reflect the short-sighted protectionist view of too many people. Not only short-sighted but hypocritical, given the proportion of Boeing's commercial and military transport production that is exported - now including C-17s and KC-767As. Trade is a two-way street, whereas complainers seem to believe Mercantilist and Marxist views that the exploitation of their desired one-way street is possible - views that are based on negative views of humans as incapable of creating and defending, which Boeing's products are clear repudiation of.
Boeing appears to have strong reasons on merit to protest the government's management of the actual bid evaluation process, such as failing to follow the RFP and miscalculating/mishandling data on airfield capability, program risk, and cost.
In my opinion the xenophobes and other non-objective complainers will only serve to hurt Boeing's case by confusing people in government thus fostering an irrational decision-making process (effectively what Boeing is protesting) and by tainting the discussion with political dishonesty.
I will say that Boeing's protest document could be tighter, but I recognize it was done in the heat of meeting the deadline for formal protest. Some of its criticism is most unwise, such as pointing to Airbus' record of program delays when Boeing too has a poor recent history (Wedgetail and the 787, for example) and briefly noting its workers are American which is misleading, since parts of its aircraft are built outside of the US, and irrelevant, but overall is not bad. (I of course cannot vouch for the accuracy of most of it, not having access to essential data.)
Posted on March 29, 2008 08:53
Boeing, you get points for hosting an open forum on a very controversial subject. From what I have been able to glean from local media, AWST and Flt. Intl. the most advanced platform won. Next subject, please.
Posted on March 29, 2008 14:44
My country has spend billions on hundreds of US made aircraft for decades & will probably order more JSF's soon.
I don't remember discussion about European jobs exported / national security concerns.
I don't think buying european aircraft by the US is a bad thing.
Posted on March 31, 2008 06:48
The saddest aspect of this whole process is,that there only seem to be 2 qualified companies to compete for this contract.A few decades ago there would have been twice that(Lockheed,McDonnell Douglas,Vickers)stimulating innovation and competition.
I hope Airbus and Boeing are not considering to merge....
Posted on March 31, 2008 10:47
I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH NEW PRODUCTS BEING DESIGNED,ENGINEERED, AND MANUFACTURED BY A U.S.A. AND A GERMAN COMPANY (EADS WAS PART OF THIS COMPANY) AND I FACTUALLY STATE THERE WERE MANY DELAYS AND COST OVERRUNS DUE TO THE FACT THAT WORKING TOGETHER AS ONE COMPANY ON A COMPLEX PRODUCT IS NOT GOOD AT BEST. THERE ARE CULTURE, VALUE, KNOWLEDGE, AND UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENCES THAT MADE THESE PROJECTS VERY DIFFICULT TO EXECUTE. I KNOW THAT NORTHROP/EADS WILL EXPERIENCE THESE SAME DIFFICULTIES.
I CONCLUDE THAT BOEING UNDER ONE MANAGEMENT, CULTURE, AND MUCH, MUCH MORE EXPERIENCE IN BUILDING AIR TANKERS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE CONTRACT. WE WILL RECEIVE A LOWER COST, BETTER QUALITY, ON TIME AIRCRAFT FROM A BOEING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED NORTHROP/EADS JOINT VENTURE............TAKE IT TO THE BANK!!!!!!!!
Posted on March 31, 2008 14:04
The Airbus/NG KC45 can carry more fuel, more troops, much more freight (32 pallets, 19 in the 767), further. It can use a lot more airfields than the 767 as it's take off run at max take-off weight is considerably shorter, which means more options and flexibility when deploying around the globe. It's based on a much newer airliner (designed at the same time as the 777), one that is still competitive rather than one that's reached it's sell-by date like the 767. It's obviously the best plane.
Not only is it built in the US but all A330 freighters will be too. With 72 orders so far, even if no more A330Fs are ordered (which is highly unlikely), that's 72 MORE aircraft built in the US compared to if Boeing won the tanker bid.
US workers will benifit more from the NG/Airbus bid than if Boeing won. It's 58% US built compared to 80% for the 767 and it's only 7% (yes seven %) French! All those scaremongers warning the public about buying a 'French' plane have a lot to answer for.
Why are so many people trying to force the USAF to accept an inferior tanker, in the shape of the 767? Why should the USAF make do with second best when it's allies in Europe and elsewhere get the world's most capable tanker?
By appealing to the GAO, Boeing is delaying the entry into service of a much needed asset.
Posted on April 1, 2008 08:17
In terms of risk, Boeing management bears the responsibility for their poor score. The aircraft Boeing proposed to the Air Force-the KC-767AT -- is not the same jet it sold to Japan and Italy, which remain two and five years behind schedule respectively. The foreign KC-767s carry only 160K lbs of fuel, which is 20% less than the current KC-135. The proposed KC-767AT combines the wing, fuselage, and landing gear from different KC-767 models and has never been built, flown, tested, or certified. It uses a new engine never used on a B767 before. Boeing proposed integrating a digital cockpit with the old hydraulic flight control system, which historically has led to problems. Not to mention that they had not started boom development and continue to have problems with their drogue pods. The AF concluded that Boeing's proposed development plan posed greater risks in contrast to Boeing's assessment that their offering reflected "inherent manufacturing genius."
Posted on April 1, 2008 12:41
Suffice it to say the Air Force changed the rules in the middle of the game for some unknown reason. We cannot continue to send our most important contracts out of the country especially when we have the best manufacturers right here in the USA. Boeing has demonstrated for decades that they are proficient in what they do and are dedicated to producing a superior aircraft. It appears to me that Boeing submitted the best proposal to meet the requirements of the RFQ and that they should be awarded the contract.
Of course, we also need to consider the loss of jobs to US citizens giventhe state of our economy.
Posted on April 2, 2008 10:38
It's amusing that while Boeing was favourite to win they were full of praise for the way the competition was run.
"We continue to have confidence that the Air Force is going to continue a fair and open competition" said Boeing vice president Mark McGraw.
Also Sen Patty Murray, D-Wash, stated, "I'm proud that the process for selecting a company to supply these tankers has been a truly open one."
Now they've lost it was suddenly the most unfair, corrupt, badly run competition ever!
Posted on April 3, 2008 04:29
We welcome your comments. However all comments are moderated and may not post immediately. Offensive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not treat any comments you submit as confidential information. Please do not submit comments that contain any confidential information belonging to anyone else.
By submitting a comment to Tanker Facts, you agree to our site terms and privacy policy, and to having your name displayed with your comment. All or part of your comment may be posted or cited in the blog. Your name and personal information will not be used for any other purpose, and we will not publish your e-mail address.