GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Uproar over tanker contract continues as lawmakers clash

• 56141
  

  Boeing's claim about job-loss for the US worker is pure fiction. Northrop Grumman will be building these planes at Brooks Field in Mobile, ALABAMA in the USA. Boeing is just trying to save face because they were overconfident they would just win this one, they didn't because their bid sucked.

  Ben Lee Posted August 10, 2008 4:37 PM
• 49477
  

  Clearly there is a problem when the result of the RFP for replacing the KC-135 tanker is an aircraft that is larger than the KC-10 tanker, yet is far less capable as a tanker than the KC-10. Sure the 330 can cary more pallets than the KC-10, but the 330 carries more than 100,000 pounds less fuel than the KC-10 does. Was't the USAF seeking a tanker (primary mission) that could sometimes or also carry freight (secondary mission)? So why then replace the KC-135 with an aircraft larger than the KC-10, yet far less capable than the KC-10 as a tanker. The 330 won't fit in KC-10 hangers let alone KC-135 hangers. The 767 would have fit in most KC-135 hangers and parking ramps without modification. Where is the money going to come from for all the new tanker hangers and ramp expansions? Bigger is not always better. Wasn't this RFP to select a KC-135 replacement and not a KC-10 replacement. I think that is what Boeing was told and why they did not propose larger planes like the 777 and 747.

  Bill Posted April 25, 2008 2:17 PM
• 49316
  

  The Airbus A330 IS an inferior airplane, and EADS/Airbus is an inferior company to do business with!

  In addition, Airbus' business practices, financial health and lack of success delivering contracted airplanes, and their loss of commercial business by losing orders (Emirates Air and FEDEX in 2006, losing a total of 20 a/c orders cancelled) due to non-performance. This disqualifies EADS Airbus as a viable bidder!

  Also, draft RFP language referred to World Trade Organization disputes over subsidies that might have penalized the Airbus A330 derived KC-30/45. The WTO considerations were subsequently relaxed by the Pentagon.

  With this, I expected our congressional representatives to denounce the relaxation of the "WTO considerations" by the Air Force, and we should contact congress to that effect and reject EADS Airbus.

  Last but not least, the EADS/Airbus line of aircraft seems to have a propensity to shed their vertical stabilizers in flight. Recall American Airlines Airbus Flight 587 losing its vertical stabilizer on November 12, 2001 in New York? Also an Armenian Airbus lost its vertical stabilizer in flight about May 3, 2006 in Russia.

  These aircraft are expected to fly in close formation with other airplanes during refuelling. You can't do that in an Airbus - you'll lose your vertical stabilizer.

  And yet another reason not to buy Airbus, Jet Blue Flight 292 landed (9/21/2005) at LAX with its nose wheel steering locked hard-over at 90 degrees - the 9th such event for Airbus aircraft. You can't do that in a tanker!

  Boeing needs to get this contract, no doubt about it.

  Michael Posted April 23, 2008 10:21 PM
• 49300
  

  Contrary to the protestors claim that the Air Force bent over backwards to see that Boeing did not get the contract, the Air Force was very careful to be completely fair to both Northrop and Boeing in order not to delay the award of the contruct As it turned out this was wishful thinking. Politics as usual.

  Clifton S Ridgway Posted April 23, 2008 3:19 PM
• 49254
  

  The process does not allow the services to look at the finances or managemnet capabilities of the bidders. If that had been a part of the process, EADS would certainly been low on the totem pole. Since France and Germany are tired of bailing out the group it is nice that the US is going to come to their aid and maybe they will finally make a profit. That presumes that the unions of those countries will allow it. Bigger isn't always better as the mission requirements dictate the usage. Who is supposed to supply the long range needs of the services if it is not the Congress as spelled out in the Constitution. Maybe their motives appear suspect at times, but if they do not examine such major strategic decisions, who will.

  David Posted April 23, 2008 10:17 AM
• 49196
  

  I totally agree with Jeremiah. The bidding process is designed to select the best product at the best price. Boeing supporters don't seem to be insisting that there was a mistake in determining the best product, they are complaining about the (alleged) loss of American jobs. If Boeing is selected simply because it's an American company, many American businesses will suffer when competing in foreign countries, and the US government won't have a let to stand on. In addition, what would compel Boeing to ever submit a competitively priced bid if it knows that only an American company can win a contract, and Boeing is one of the few (and perhaps the only) American companies competing?

  Shannon Posted April 22, 2008 5:21 PM
• 49143
  

  I wonder how many of those Boeing employees whining about the loss of jobs to foreign competition are driving foreign cars. I guess the prospective is different when it is your job you are asking Congress to protect.

  Mary Posted April 22, 2008 11:17 AM
• 49016
  

  Boeing offered a smaller plane, Northrop a larger plane. If the determining criteria was for a larger plane, Boeing should have offered a larger plane. They have the capability and would have won the contract easily.

  John Posted April 21, 2008 11:51 AM
• 48993
  

  "The protestors accused the Air Force of stacking the deck against Boeing and, as Dicks complained, "doing tricky things" to justify the award to Northrop-EADS. "They bent over backward to make sure Boeing didn't get it," he fumed." -- Oh, please. Just how many airframes by Boeing, either by direct manufacture or by acquisition, does the Air Force have in their fleet? A decent number, to say the least. It's not like the Air Force hates Boeing, having been a prime customer of theirs for quite some time. Don't give me this "bending over backwards" stuff. It smacks of elementary-school-age playground crybaby whining.

  Tigerhawk Posted April 21, 2008 9:59 AM
• 48970
  

  Did or did I not read that EADS has said if they get slow on building the Tanker contract here in the US that they will built it in France. Well, that gives them the out to never built it here in the US doesn't it?

  wscott Posted April 21, 2008 6:11 AM
• 48911
  

  Well, it's heart warming to see that the good old American congressional tradition of hypocrisy is alive and well. Apparently, not one of our legislative solons saw fit to complain about allowing a consortium, which included a foreign aircraft manufacturer, to bid on the USAF tanker contract, but howled like the proverbial stuck pig once the contracting process played out as intended and - horrors! - the consortium actually won. Now the "usual suspects" want to wrap themselves in the flag and invoke patriotism to roll back this repugnant outcome. (I believe Dr. Samuel Johnson's defintion of patriotism as the last recourse of scoundrels is apropos here.) Of course, the same said "suspects" would howl equally loud if in the future when American airplane corporations bid on foreign countries' aircraft contracts and face overseas domestic opposition there on the same grounds, because the shoe will then be on the other foot, and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves for having changed the rules of the contracting game on an ex post facto basis to "stack the deck" in favor of a US manufacturer. Other countries can play that game also, once we (re)establish that precedent. Does no one inside the Beltway understand the ramifications of corrupting the competitive defense contracting process (rhetorical question)? The bottom line being lost sight of here is the imperative to equip the warfighter with the best possible equipment at the most economical price. If the consortium presented a better product at a better price (and why would the USAF military decision-makers knowingly take on the anticipated grief of picking the consortium as the contract winner unless they were firmly convinced that their product and price combination WAS superior to Boeing's?), so be it.

  jeremiah Posted April 18, 2008 6:48 PM