The Wall Street Journal and other news media reported today that the Government Accountability Office denied motions from Northrop Grumman and the U.S. Air Force to partially dismiss Boeing’s protest of the tanker contract award to the Northrop Grumman-EADS team.
Northrop and the Air Force had contended that Boeing’s protest over losing the contract came too late and that its concerns should have been addressed earlier with the government, the Journal reported.
Read the GAO’s statement here.
This website is made available to the general public to express opinions regarding the Tanker competition and contract award. As such, the opinions of the commenters expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of The Boeing Company (Boeing). Further, Boeing does not make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor does it assume any liability or responsibility, for the information contained on this site.
In the last 10 years Boeing Commercial has produced 10 major derivatives, all delivered on time with the exception of one that was rescheduled due to 9/11.
Atom
Comments (12)
Boeing may have the legal right to protest -- but it doesn't mean they are in the right. The fact are that Northrop Grumman, a Los Angeles based company, will bring 2,500 jobs to Mobile, 5,000 to Alabama, and 25,000 jobs nationwide to 230 different companies located in 49 states -- that's good for the economy in places other that just Washington and Kansas.
Boeing lost their contract in 2003 after fraud was discovered that sent one of their execs to prison. I believe the GAO will see that everything was done properly this time and that the contract will go forward with Northrop Grumman.
Posted on April 4, 2008 10:22
How come when I hear talk about past performance I never hear the A400 mentioned? How many years behind schedule and how much money is that over budget? Wouldn't that be EADS closest defence project to this one? Or doesn't it count just because Northrops name is first?
Posted on April 4, 2008 12:51
Jane, I noticed you haven't addressed Boeing's protest points specifically. But you've got NG's PR points down to a science, well at least this week's version of them.
If Boeing can prove the survivability, cost, and other technical issues, then the Tanker contract will be re-bid. Oh, and here's a reality check for you... THE KC-30 is NOT built in America, period. Would you like an example of "program risk"? Maybe you should ask Boeing about the issues they are running into with the 787.
There is no reason Airbus can not build that assembly plant in Mobile without the KC-X program win. And I have a feeling that Boeing will ultimately get this contract.
Your blind trust in NG, while admirable, it's also naive. Grumman used to build aircraft here on Long Island, but since Northrup purchased Grumman, all that work has disappeared. Had NG licensed the A330 design and actually built the aircraft, there would not be the backlash we're seeing here in the States.
Posted on April 5, 2008 08:47
EADS/Northrop-Grumman may be adding 25,000 jobs throughout the US, but it is unrealistic to assume that all of the subcontractors for the 767 are limited to Washington and Kansas. And there are more than 25,000 employees building 767s everyday IN THE US. I understand the popularity of EADS with the people of Alabama, as it is a very attractive opportunity, however let's look at the big picture. We as Americans are being asked to allow a massive portion of the defense of our nation to rely on a product produced and supplied by the governments of other nations (EADS is patially owned by the governments of France and Germany). What happens if the policies of our nation don't coincide with the policies of those nations who own the company producing those aircraft? Boeing is an international employer, however almost all of the production of the 767 (especially the airframe) is based within the United States, and cannot be bargained or leveraged through the political devices of other nations. Let us also keep in mind that those Airbus A330 airframe components are produced overseas before being shipped to Alabama for assembly. That is American money being sent away, never to be reinvested in the US again (unless all of those Airbus employees in Tolouse and Hamburg suddenly get the urge to visit the United States).
Furthermore, the 767 tanker is already in production (being produced for Italy and Japan), and FAA certified. This is a massive savings in both time and money, and also since the Air Force already operates the 757 (C-32), it holds the similar type rating for pilots, so very little re-training, or developing new training programs is involved to bring it up to speed in the current force.
The 767 just makes more sense.
Posted on April 7, 2008 16:39
Reuters is reporting that the EU has decided to proceed with it's rival to the U.S. GPS system, Galileo. This move is to lessen the reliance on the U.S. for all things aerospace, precisely at the time when our own Air Force is doing the opposite. The KC-30 will have wings made in the UK and the fuselage sections made in Europe; Russia still owns at least 5% in EADS. This selection is simply bad news for the U.S. aerospace industry. Not only that, but the Bush Administration has given the "Airbus" countries a de facto veto over how these tankers will be used in the future. Imagine that...France will have the ability to tell us that if we deploy our forces in "such and such" a manner, they will cut off the spare parts!
Posted on April 8, 2008 03:22
It is sad as a tax payer to see our government giving a contract to a company that as using a non made american product for our military. Northrop Grumman is using a plane built by European countries. As americans we need to support companies that supply our government and military with american built product. The answer is BOEING!
Posted on April 8, 2008 10:39
All I can say is welcome to the 21st Century!
International collaboration in major defence programmes is becoming the norm and even the mighty US will have to get used to it.
As a UK resident I am surprised by the attitudes of US citizens expressed in this blog.
The UK selects equipment based on performance, not on country of manufacture. As such we buy a lot of American kit, but also a lot of kit from around Europe. If we were to slap a UK only ruling on procurement decisions then our troops would suffer.
Do US Troops not deserve the best equipment, regardless of where it is manufactured? Or are they expected to risk their lives with inferior equipment just because it is made in the US? That should be the first concern of US citizens.
A lot of US programme already include elements manufactured overseas. The F-35/JSF uses significant airframe elements manufactured in the UK. Like KC-X, Boeing lost a competition and played the 'not made here' card. Anyone spotting a trend?
Also worth noting is that Boeing's performance on similar programmes in not perfect. On the Australian Wedgetail programme, a similar conversion of a civilian aircraft design (737) to be equiped with military equipment, the in service date has been severely delayed and Boeing accepted responsibility for this.
http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/NelsonMintpl.cfm?CurrentId=5775
It also seems a bit of sour grapes from Boeing given that the competition was only reopened due to them acting illegally first time round.
This is not an attack in Boeing, just an attempt to present a balanced arguement. They make lots of good kit (Apache, F-15, C-17, Chinook etc) and have won lots of contracts based on this. They should just admit defeat on KC-X and move on.
Posted on April 9, 2008 06:00
I think what perplexes me the most about NG/EADS prevailing is that Boeing probably has the best ability of any manufacturer to modify an airframe...to customize it by stretching, widening, or otherwise converting a passenger-style 767 into an extended range, extended capacity, or otherwise modified airframe to best suit a tanker's characteristics. Model T's came in one shape, size and color. The 767 doesn't have to. And yet the Air Force used an apparent 'primary discriminator above all' that the KC-30's size was a (or the) deciding factor. If Boeing could be faulted in any way, it was not fully emphasizing how any airplane it makes can be modified in variants to address preferences for weight, speed, capacity, runway length, etc. Indeed, perhaps Boeing did do this. Obviously, an aircraft's ability to meet objectives must be the real chief factor for a contract, but I still think that net of all non-US part and assembly work, Boeing would still have provided a larger number of domestic jobs, and by a significant margin, and in regions where aeronautical specialists already reside. The good news is this is only the first of 3 Air Force air tanker tenders...the first to NG/EADS and the next two for Boeing offers long term advantages of diversity of aircraft without the need to have too many spare parts and techs. Boeing, maybe form an arms length company...I don't know, call 'em McDonnel Douglas or something...and let that company offer its own aircraft in addition to a Boeing-branded aircraft.
Posted on April 9, 2008 13:01
Merits of the Boeing and Northrop-Grumman Tankers
Both offerings will perform the Air Force tanker mission. I take exception to the comment that the Boeing offering is a “Frankentanker”, and is a higher development risk. Replacing commercial 767-200 with 767-300 and 767-400 components is not a higher technical risk. All the component substitutions have a service history on 767-300s and 767-400s. Most substitutions have the same form, fit, and function, and are only stronger than the corresponding -200 component. Getting an assembly plant for the KC-45 up and running in the United States is a higher risk. In addition, the KC45 is based on the passenger A330-200 and not the A330-200F freighter.
Are we forgetting the European Airbus A330 was brought in to provide competition? Since these tankers are based on off the self aircraft, all performance parameters should be rationalized on each aircraft’s max fuel load and not based in absolute terms. If the KC-45 exceeded the KC-767 by less than 25% in the majority of fuel off-load scenarios, and exceeded the KC-767 costs by more than 25%, the KC-767 should have won. The KC-767 carries a 200,000 lbs fuel load, while the KC-45 carries a 250,000 lbs fuel load. The evaluation standard should have recognized, the KC-767 could not compete with the KC-45 in size, and the KC-45 could not compete with the KC-767 on ramp footprint. Since these two aircraft are dissimilar, the competition should have ignored all evaluation aspects that would have required Boeing and Northrop-Grumman to design a whole new base aircraft to win. If the Air Force wanted a larger aircraft, they should have asked Boeing to compete the KC-777.
I can understand that the Air Force may prefer the KC-45 tanker, while they will have hundreds of KC-135Rs in service after the 179 KC-45 deliveries. What happens when the last 200 KC-135Rs have to be replaced? The Boeing 767 will have been out of production for 15 or more years. Tankers based on the Boeing 787, Boeing 777 and Airbus A350 will be too big. The only option then will be to design a new tanker from scratch to replace the last KC-135Rs.
Posted on April 14, 2008 18:13
This is beyond common sense? How can USA hope to maintain a private company who must compete with the national Governments of 4 European Countries, when we give a strategic work program to them. Where is the 187 x 220 million per aircraft contract Europe will provide to the USA.
It is time we get some leadership in Washington, that quits spending American gold overseas and pulls this country back up to it's rightful strong position. We need to lead from internal strength, not from sending our capital overseas
Posted on May 10, 2008 07:39
What people do not realize is that even if EADS/Northrop creates more american jobs, many more current american jobs are being lost due to the tanker not being built by Boeing, than would be created by EADS/Northrop
Posted on June 5, 2008 16:53
The Boeing tanker will create 9000 more american jobs then the Airbus tanker.
the Boeing tanker can use exisiting infrastrucutre where the Airbus tanker will require modification$$$$$
The Boeing tanker keeps more money in the USA compared to the airbus tanker.
Boeing has a much better grip on tanker technology, where Airbus is still struggling with it.
Bottom lin eis Boeing is the only intelligent decision, and if our government does not over turn it, there will be outrage.
Posted on June 18, 2008 10:42
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.