So much for the Boeing 767 Tanker deal

[justin1987]

I just read on Yahoo news that Congress isn't real happy either . 

Here is the link.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080301/bs_afp/useuropemilitary_080301224225;_ylt=AtpXsYwAjFyD4l3z4fXNclus0NUE

[twenty mike mike]

From AVWEB

Air Force To Fly Airbus

Anyone who thought the drawn-out battle to choose the new generation Air Force tanker aircraft ended with the Pentagon's decision Friday to go with the Northrop-Grumman/EADS consortium likely has another think coming. "This won't be pretty," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., told The Seattle Times Saturday. "There will be a firestorm of criticism on Capitol Hill," Dicks, whose Seattle-area district depends heavily on Boeing for its economic well-being, warned. Although the loss of the $40 billion deal is not expected to result in any job losses at Boeing, the contract would have created up to 8,000 additional jobs and kept the 767 assembly line going well beyond 2012 when the last commercial 767 is finished. It's an election year in which the economy is in trouble and protectionist sentiments have been expressed by both Democratic presidential nomination contenders. Not only that, the leading Republican contender is remembered as the politician that killed the original contract awarded to Boeing in 2003, so it would seem the tanker issue will have pretty long legs.
"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose district includes Boeing's Wichita plant. Leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have both been trumpeting protectionist policies of late but it's Republican front-runner John McCain who might face the most scrutiny. It was pressure from McCain that scotched a 2003 award to Boeing for a total of 100 767-based tankers. McCain alleged favoritism in the bidding process and the Pentagon rescinded the contract in 2004. Now there are allegations the most recent bidding process was changed to favor the Airbus/Northrop Grumman bid. In the end, it may well be the U.S.-first sentiment that dominates the chorus of discontent. "Obviously, Congress is going to react to the American public," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "You can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that doesn't make it American-made." Which aircraft will do the best job for the best price does not seem to figure into the current debate.

French Jobs Lost By Winning Tanker Contract

Not everyone associated with the EADS/Northrop-Grumman victory in the Air Force tanker contract is celebrating. The union representing workers at EADS Toulouse factories claims the deal will cost French jobs because of the consortium's commitment to build an assembly plant for the tankers in Mobile, Ala. In 2006, EADS agreed to build a plant in China to win contracts there and the CFDT union claims that's chipping away at the French workforce. British unions are hailing the contract saying it will secure thousands of jobs i

[AKcharger]

I just read on Yahoo news that Congress isn't real happy either . 

Well weighing in as an Air Force Guy I can tell you Congress bears a lot of the blame. It is their Constitution duty to fund the military and they've failed. We are fighting a war on two fronts and we can not get money to buy aircraft. The average USAF plane is 26 years old (Middle of Viet Nam war it was 6.8 years) in order to buy the MINIMUM number of F-22s we had to cut 30,000 people to pay for it (And believe me we are feeling the effects!)...that's right we had to generate our own funds to buy airplanes.

I'm not a fan of Airbus but if congress will not properly fund the military we have to take what we can get...the cheaper plane

[hemihead]

 So what happens when this Euro company ever decides to not sell us parts for one reason or other ? No wonder the Dollar isn't worth anything in the world anymore . We give it away to everyone else . I say the USAF should buy American above all others . What is wrong with this country nowadays ?

[twenty mike mike]

So what happens when this Euro company ever decides to not sell us parts for one reason or other ? I say the USAF should buy American above all others .

Exactly. Then cheaper doesn't matter much any more.

The Buy American Act of 1933 was supposed to address this sort of thing. The prez can waive that, but it hasn't even reached that point.

[AKcharger]

We can make parts, we made all the parts for Egyptian, Saudi and Jordanian MIG's and T-55, T-62  tanks after they turned away from the soviet bloc after the 1973 war...I'd Still rather have Boeing though

[Orange_Crush]

Economic impact of the KC-45 here: http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html#alabama

Like it or not, the military chose the KC45 based on its merits over the Boeing.  They used the standards that they HAD to use to award the contract.  The American/european thing could not enter into it.

Besides, the KC45 is just...well...better.

[Orange_Crush]

some specs for you all.

Maximum takeoff weight:                           KC45-500,000 pounds     Boeing - 396,000 pounds
Passenger/troop capacity:                           KC45 - 280                    Boeing - 190
Pallet capacity:                                          KC45 - 32                      Boeing - 19
Maximum fuel offload rate for pod Drogues:  KC45 - 420 GPM              Boeing - 400GPM
Maximum fuel offload cenerline hose:            KC45 - 600GPM              Boeing - 600GPM
Maximum fuel offload roate for boom:          KC45 - 1200GPM             Boeing - 900GPM

Here is some more info on why the contract was awarded to Northrop EADS.
http://rbiii.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/more-detail-on-boeings-loss-to-northropeads-on-the-kc-45-contract/

[ITSA426]

A lot od these are slow reads but I haven't seen anyone mention that Airbus is government subsidised (not including our government).  I also heard today that Grumman was pretty much just a front company for the bidding.  It just doesn't feel right. 

Somewhere I've still got a sticker that says "If it's not Boeing I'm not going".  I think they always built good equipment.

[Troy]

I thought I had posted a link to a page that mentioned the government subsidies for Airbus. The opposite argument holds true as well - our government subsidizes (or gives special treatment to) Boeing which throws a wrench in a lot of the talks. In case I didn't, here's some info:

Subsidies

Boeing has continually protested over "launch aid" and other forms of government aid to Airbus, while Airbus has argued that Boeing receives illegal subsidies through military and research contracts and tax breaks.

In July 2004 Harry Stonecipher (then-Boeing CEO) accused Airbus of abusing a 1992 bilateral EU-US agreement providing for disciplines for large civil aircraft support from governments. Airbus is given reimbursable launch investment (RLI, called "launch aid" by the US) from European governments with the money being paid back with interest, plus indefinite royalties, but only if the aircraft is a commercial success.[29] Airbus contends that this system is fully compliant with the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. The agreement allows up to 33 per cent of the programme cost to be met through government loans which are to be fully repaid within 17 years with interest and royalties. These loans are held at a minimum interest rate equal to the cost of government borrowing plus 0.25%, which would be below market rates available to Airbus without government support.[29] Airbus claims that since the signature of the EU-U.S. Agreement in 1992, it has repaid European governments more than U.S.$6.7 billion and that this is 40% more than it has received.[29]

Airbus argues that the pork barrel military contracts awarded to Boeing (the second largest U.S. defence contractor) are in effect a form of subsidy (see the Boeing KC-767 military contracting controversy). The significant U.S. government support of technology development via NASA also provides significant support to Boeing, as do the large tax breaks offered to Boeing, which some people claim are in violation of the 1992 agreement and WTO rules. In its recent products such as the 787, Boeing has also been offered direct financial support from local and state governments.[30] However it has been argued that in U.S. government support of technology development, anyone can benefit from the results; even Airbus can benefit from them.

In January 2005 the European Union and United States trade representatives, Peter Mandelson and Robert Zoellick (since replaced by Rob Portman) respectively, agreed to talks aimed at resolving the increasing tensions. These talks were not successful with the dispute becoming more acrimonious rather than approaching a settlement.

[edit] World Trade Organization litigation

On 31 May 2005 the United States filed a case against the European Union for providing allegedly illegal subsidies to Airbus. Twenty-four hours later the European Union filed a complaint against the United States protesting support for Boeing.[29]

Portman (from the USA) and Mandelson (from the EU) issued a joint statement stating: "We remain united in our determination that this dispute shall not affect our cooperation on wider bilateral and multilateral trade issues. We have worked together well so far, and intend to continue to do so."

Tensions increased by the support for the Airbus A380 have erupted into a potential trade war due to the upcoming launch of the Airbus A350. Airbus would ideally like the A350 programme to be launched with the help of state loans covering a third of the development costs although it has stated it will launch without these loans if required. The A350 will compete with Boeing's most successful project in recent years, the 787 Dreamliner.

EU trade officials are questioning the funding provided by NASA, the Department of Defense (in particular in the form of R&D contracts that benefit Boeing) as well as funding from US states (in particular the State of Washington, the State of Kansas and the State of Illinois) for the launch of Boeing aircraft, in particular the 787.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus#Subsidies

Troy

[hemihead]

Economic impact of the KC-45 here: http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html#alabama

Like it or not, the military chose the KC45 based on its merits over the Boeing.  They used the standards that they HAD to use to award the contract.  The American/european thing could not enter into it.

Besides, the KC45 is just...well...better.

I find it interesting that any time  America and Americans get screwed over you always hear things like " The American / European thing could not enter into it " . I for one am tired of this country having to do what is best for the world instead of doing what is best for America .

[Orange_Crush]

Economic impact of the KC-45 here: http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html#alabama

Like it or not, the military chose the KC45 based on its merits over the Boeing.  They used the standards that they HAD to use to award the contract.  The American/european thing could not enter into it.

Besides, the KC45 is just...well...better.

I find it interesting that any time  America and Americans get screwed over you always hear things like " The American / European thing could not enter into it " . I for one am tired of this country having to do what is best for the world instead of doing what is best for America .

Don't talk to me about it...take it up with your elected officials.  They are the ones who allowed the bidding to be opened up to airbus through Northrop/EADS.

Besides.  Any way you look at it.  the A330/KC45 is better suited to the role of a tanker than the 767.  That's just the facts.  In any case, this contract will create about 40,000 jobs in the US.

[Troy]

Economic impact of the KC-45 here: http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html#alabama

Like it or not, the military chose the KC45 based on its merits over the Boeing.  They used the standards that they HAD to use to award the contract.  The American/european thing could not enter into it.

Besides, the KC45 is just...well...better.

I find it interesting that any time  America and Americans get screwed over you always hear things like " The American / European thing could not enter into it " . I for one am tired of this country having to do what is best for the world instead of doing what is best for America .

I believe he meant the rules for contracts - the ones in place to avoid favoritism so that the best offer is chosen instead of the one with the most kickbacks. I think almost all government contracts (if not all) must have open bidding and pass some sort of vetting process. It's exactly what people have been asking for to protect "what's best for America" instead of "what's best for Mr Politician's wallet (or constituency)".

I still think it will be challenged by Boeing and probably overturned. Without getting too political... there's another article that discusses the politics of the two companies. Boeing is primarily Democrat while Northrup Grumman is primarily Republican. With the Democrats controlling Congress Boeing has more clout and the next President may have a lot to do with how this whole thing ends up (if Boeing can stall it for another year).

Troy

[hemihead]

 I , myself am tired of the globalization policy we seem to be caught up in . I know the younger generations are all for the PC stuff but it will come back to hurt us in the end . Most of the world hates the U.S. but who is the first one that has to give out big contracts like this one to keep another country's people working ? The U.S. that's who . I don't think it had much to do with who's plane was better . It had more to do with International relations and pressure . France's unemployment rate is climbing . So we are expected to bail them and Europe out at the sacrefice of our own people once again .

[Troy]

I , myself am tired of the globalization policy we seem to be caught up in . I know the younger generations are all for the PC stuff but it will come back to hurt us in the end . Most of the world hates the U.S. but who is the first one that has to give out big contracts like this one to keep another country's people working ? The U.S. that's who . I don't think it had much to do with who's plane was better . It had more to do with International relations and pressure . France's unemployment rate is climbing . So we are expected to bail them and Europe out at the sacrefice of our own people once again .

I agree and should have included this.. It's not the planes,  it's the politics.    I can't find anything in my house that's " Made in America" when's this going to stop?

When people agree to pay more for disposable stuff... <ducks> Just kidding! Ok, not really but I said it jokingly.

Troy

[BrianShaughnessy]

Handing defense contracts to foreign manufacturers reeks of politics...   continuing to have to buy allies in the war on terrrr ( ) or payback as such.

[Orange_Crush]

I keep reading how much better the 330 is suited to the task than the 67. maybe so, if the air force is looking for a bigger tanker that costs more. when Boeing  chose to submit the  67 it's because that's what fit the bill.  it was close to the criteria for the vehicle that the Air Force wanted.

This compares easily to going to two different car lots ( lets say Dodge and Peugeot) and telling them both that you want x amount of seating and x amount of trunk space for x amount of money. the Dodge dealership shows you exactly what you asked for a, midsize car at a price close to what you asked for. and the Peugeot Dealer shows you a full size car for more money. So you choose the Peugeot and go back to the Dodge dealership and break the news to them that theirs is too small and too cheap.

             that's nuts

If the size of the plane is why we lost the contract, then Boeing like the dodge dealership has more to choose from.. 37, 47, 67, 77 and coming soon the 87 and multiple size variences in all of those accept the 87 I'm pretty sure the AF knows that. if they changed their minds and wanted something bigger they should have said so.

About the US jobs that will be created by Airbus.. so what? Going with Boeing would have created more, lots more. and our tax dollars would have stayed Here! this is a huge amount of money were talking about leaving the Country. and not just in Seattle or Chicago, Boeings supply chain is huge.

And what about repair and maintenance for the next forty years,  do we want France dictating what that will cost?
I don't. I doubt we will stay on good terms that long, then what?  Ted Nugent said it best..The French are a lot like Dear, all they think about is where do I get my next meal? can I outrun my enemy? and who am I going to screw next.

Aaron

I'll repost the link for you.

http://rbiii.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/more-detail-on-boeings-loss-to-northropeads-on-the-kc-45-contract/

This is a brief explanation of WHY Boeing lost the contract.  It involves a LOT more than just the size of the planes.

Incidentally.  There is no tanker version of the 777 or 747.

[Orange_Crush]

I'll just go ahead and paste it:

1. Mission capability.  Arguably the most important factor, this metric compared the teams on performance requirements, system integration & software, product support, program management and technology maturity.  The teams tied in most measures, but the Northrop offering was deemed to offer superior refueling and airlift capacity at 1,000 nm. range and substantially superior refueling and airlift capability at 2,000 nm. range.  The superior airlift capacity of Northrop's plane was deemed a "compelling" consideration in giving Northrop the edge for this factor.

2. Proposal risk.  This is the sole factor in which Boeing managed to match the appeal of the Northrop proposal, but it did so only after being pressed to accept a longer development schedule for its tanker.  The Boeing proposal was initially rated as high-risk because reviewers felt the company was offering a plane that in many regards had never been built before, and yet claiming it could be built fast at relatively low cost.  The company was forced to stretch out its aggressive schedule, adding cost.

3. Past performance.  The Northrop Grumman team received higher ratings in past performance due to satisfactory execution of half a dozen programs deemed relevant to the tanker competition.  Air Force reviewers had less confidence in Boeing's past performance due to poor execution in three relevant programs.  In addition, Northrop's subcontractors were rated more highly on past performance than Boeing's.

4. Cost/price.  This was the factor in which many observers expected the Northrop-EADS team to shine, because EADS subsidiary Airbus usually underbids Boeing in commercial competitions.  But Boeing compounded its difficulties in the eyes of reviewers by failing to adequately explain its assumptions in calculating the cost of developing a tanker.  The resulting low confidence in Boeing cost projections undercut its claims of lower life-cycle costs.  Northrop was rated higher.

5. Integrated assessment.  The "integrated fleet aerial refueling assessment" was designed to compare how the competing planes would fare in an operational setting using a realistic wartime scenario.  The review found that the Northrop Grumman proposal could accomplish specified missions with nearly two dozen fewer planes than the Boeing proposal, a big advantage.

[Orange_Crush]

Um yeah, allready read it, do you want me to pick it apart for you? okay.
1. allready did that with the Dodge/Peugeot scenario. we offered what they asked for. and now they say it wasn,t enough.

So, if you went to these two dealers and  Peugot was offering you a larger car with more options, higher comfort, higher horsepower and a proven reliability record, built in America by Americans and powered by an engine designed and built by an American company here in the ew ess of ay at 200 dollars more you would take the Dodge because, well, it meets the minimum requirements.

2. proposal risk! we were forced to  add time/cost because they don't believe we can do it for we say. that's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard, Boeing is very good at staying on budget and even doing better than expected. I think our track record proves that.

Obviously, the military doesn't think so.

3. what are the "deemed"relevant programs? sounds like political bla, bla, bla. to me. the validity of that will be brought to light soon I hope.

It means just what it says...programs relevant to this particular contract which boeing apparently screwed up one way or the other.

4. cost price. see #2

The military HAS to take that into consideration because Boeings ultra-agressive time table had them doubting that they could deliver on time and perform as needed.  Delays are very costly and Boeing was apparently not being realistic.

5. see #1 and wow they came up with a specific mission where a larger capacity plane could perform better. does anybody need help with that one?

Well...THIS explains it all:

The review found that the Northrop Grumman proposal could accomplish specified missions with nearly two dozen fewer planes than the Boeing proposal, a big advantage.

Two dozen fewer planes...

As for there not being any tanker versions of the 77 or 47 I didn't say there was, just pointing out that there were more airframes that could be developed into tankers.

Aaron

And those would have taken even longer to develop.


Face it.  The A330 is the better plane for the job...any way you cut it.

NOW, if Boeing had a KC777 to offer, this would probably have turned out very differently.

[70charginglizard]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_air_force_tankers

[69_500]

Its tough to decide which side to take on this one. Being an unbiased outsider, with nothing to gain or lose by either side getting the deal. I can see goods and bads about each side getting the deal. Yeah politics plays a major role in a lot of things these days, and especially when its global politics that we are talking about. When it comes to being the big brother who helps others out, that is what has in the past made America what it is today. However at many times I think that we overstep our boundaries, and obligations to other countries. Granted it is nice to always be the one people look to when they are in need of some help. However at other times I feel like if we spent half as much time concerned with our own prolbems as we do in solving others we would be 10 fold off for the better. That is to not say that I think the bid should go to the company that has a facility in the USA just because of that. I do prefer to buy American made products at any chance that I can get. But I am also realistic in knowing that at many times products from outside of the US are just as capable, have as good of quality, and cost less. I'm all about buying the best product for the $$ that I can. If I had a choice between a Chinese made part and an American one, of similar prices I'd chose the USA made product every time. However if the Thailand part beats both parts in price by 80%, and has a similar quality of make to it, you bet your bottom dollar tha I'm going to buy that part.

[ITSA426]

Trade policies can protect our country and its security; or allow its collapse.  Buying offshore doesn't do anything for this country.  When the money is gone its gone.  Our currency is devalued and the next logical step would seem rampant inflation. 

People need to start thinking long term because our trading partners sure are.  As people of a nation we can not afford not to buy American when ever that is a choice.  The American sounding corporation with its headquarters in the Caymans and manufacturing facilities in some third world country doesn't give a rip about patriotism.  It's why most American flags aren't made here and so on.....  I can rant on this for hours. 

Sorry.  It is about living wage jobs and the downward spiral of our lifestyle.

[Troy]

Ooooh, there's a surprise!

Troy

[hemihead]

I was just reading a piece on Yahoo News that McCain wanted a " fair, open and transparent "  bidding on the contract . Well it seems that most of the lobbyists for the Airbus company now work for McCain . Hmmm , can we get some transparency from Mr. McCain on why this is ?

[70charginglizard]

EADS' interest in the tanker deal is evident in the political contributions of its employees. From 2004 to 2006, donations by its employees jumped from $42,500 to $141,931, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. So far this election cycle, company employees have donated $120,350. Of that, McCain's presidential campaign has received $14,000, more than any other member of Congress this election cycle.