Boeing Loses Tanker Contract Bid

[Jeff Higgins]

Hot off the press; Airbus, in cooporation with Northrup-Grumman, has won the next Air Force tanker contract to replace the KC135/KC10 fleet. The contract is potentially worth $100 Billion, the second largest defense contract ever. And the vast majority of that will be going overseas.

The illustrious stewards of our tax dollars have decided, once again, to spend them overseas. Instead of pumping our tax dollars back into our economy, they have chosen to pump them out.

[Superman]

And the military's hatred of Boeing continues to be evident. Goes back to when Boeing told the military that it would be needing jet-powered tankers to refuel B-52's without having to drop to low altitudes and low speeds. They declined, Boeing bet its entire future on the development of the 707 without a contract, and eventually the military eventually ate crow.

[Seahawk]

Big issue here is the failed tanker lease contract, with help from Darleen Druyun. Do a search on her...you will find that the Air Force tried to help Boeing in every way possible.

Lot of water under the bridge since the 707, Sup.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48241-2004Nov13.html

[HardDrive]

Giving military $$$ to ****** AIRBUS when the economy is headed south. ****** BRILLIANT.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Giving military $$$ to ****** AIRBUS when the economy is headed south. ****** BRILLIANT.

I agree, but they (the Air Force) ran a full and open competition. Believe me, the Request for Proposal and the competition itself was run with absolute scrutiny.

I would ask Boeing how they could f' it up to the degree that they couldn't win.

Also ask NG, a US company.

[LakeCleElum]

Jeff - Hope that has no ill effect on your or any of the other XXX Mob that works at the Everett plant? Probably too soon to tell?

[HardDrive]

I just wrote Murray and Cantwell expressing my disgust.

[Rearden]

The tanker will be made in Alabama.

[kimlangley7]

There was a piece on the Boeing/Airbus on tonights news..

Airbus A320 can carry twice the amount of fuel as the Boeing... A320 can refuel using boom and drogue ....

Hey > I like giving business to USA just as much as the next guy... but if the USAF says that the A320 is the superior tanker >> it's the biys in blue whos arse is on the line .. give them the A320..

ASso >> catch the piece about the "border fence"???? Boeing is prime contractor.. it doesn't work.... whoe much money down the toiet on that one.. tens of millions!!!!

If Boeing can't get it right> too bad , so sad....

[island911]

Yeah, those Boeing planes are never going to catch on. They must be doing something wrong.

[Jim727]

Just freaking INSANE.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by LakeCleElum

Jeff - Hope that has no ill effect on your or any of the other XXX Mob that works at the Everett plant? Probably too soon to tell?

It won't affect me personally in the least, Bob. I design tools and equipment to fix broken commercial aircraft, so I have no real direct ties to manufacturing or production rates or anything like that.

Drago, Ross, Wheels, and others are designing parts for new airplanes, but even they should not be affected. The tanker is a mature program, so it is only the production end of the business that will eventually feel the impact.

This will kill the 767 line. Freighters and tankers are about all that roll down it anymore. The 777 freighter will take that end of the business from the 767.

[Mo_Gearhead]

Gee, I hear that GM, Ford and Chrysler are having problems with those pesky foreign auto makers.

I'm certain all of the complainers ONLY purchase domestic vehicles ...don't you?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Mo_Gearhead

Gee, I hear that GM, Ford and Chrysler are having problems with those pesky foreign auto makers.

I'm certain all of the complainers ONLY purchase domestic vehicles ...don't you?

We are not spending tax dollars paid by the American people.

[Mo_Gearhead]

Hummm ...so the same principal does not apply?

You and I (as individuals) are free to do with OUR money as we see fit (IE: purchasing what we feel is the BEST product for the money).

BUT we expect the Gubment to spend OUR (pooled) money ONLY with USA manufacturers and on what may be an inferior product or one that does not conform to the specs. necessary to do the mission? (assuming due diligence is performed in the evaluation process).

That's a very interesting concept.

[jyl]

Hard to weep for Boeing. Boeing has commercial aircraft orders coming out of its ears. They've got something like a 5 year backlog of orders worth something like $330BN.

Being in a duopoly with Airbus is a great thing. There will be cyclical ups and downs, but over the coming decade Boeing is almost guaranteed to do okay if they don't mis-execute badly.

Meanwhile, for the US military, you're wouldn't want to see a duopoly turn into a monopoly. How many US heavy aircraft makers besides Boeing are in the military business? Hmm, can't think of many. So, if the Northrup/EADS aircraft was superior, or for that matter even equal, why wasn't it in the US military's interest to go with it?

[beepbeep]

Dude, chill.

American taxpayers got better bang for the buck. KC30A tanker is bigger, more advanced and is drawing advantages from economies of scale (it's being sold to UK, Australia, South Africa etc. Boeing fusched up the first time when they tried to grease the deal by employing Airforce purchase person.

In the end, tax payers got value for the money. Stuff is going to be assembled in Alabama, not in Europe. Don't know what Alabama folks are doing, but they are certainly attracting industry. They got all of these guys lately:

GKN
Thyssen-Krupp
Kommerling
Mercedes plus numerous Euro parts suppliers associated with them
BAE
Siemens
Meggitt

Boing folks lost their deal beacuse of inferior product. Alabama folks got more. Tax payers got more for their money and Airforce got superior product. A330 isn't "built in France"...it's bits and pieces are comming from US, UK, Germany etc.

It's a global market. Protectionism is just making stuff more expensive.

Go Alabama go!

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by Mo_Gearhead

Hummm ...so the same principal does not apply?

You and I (as individuals) are free to do with OUR money as we see fit (IE: purchasing what we feel is the BEST product for the money).

BUT we expect the Gubment to spend OUR (pooled) money ONLY with USA manufacturers and on what may be an inferior product or one that does not conform to the specs. necessary to do the mission? (assuming due diligence is performed in the evaluation process).

That's a very interesting concept.

Certainly, if one of the competing bids offers superior performance, we would expect the government procurement folks to give the nod to that bid. In a case where either will perform the desired mission, and there is no clear technical of economic superiority contained in one or the other bid, we would hope other factors would be considered. Like the creation (or sustaining) of American jobs, the fostering of technical development, strategic importance of having military equipment developed and produced withing our borders, and such.

There was a very intersting program on defense procurement on Discovery, or the History Channel, or some such several years ago. Several retired Air Force generals were discussing our current capability to produce fighter aircraft, or, more precisely, avionics for fighter aircraft. In a nutshell, we simply cannot. We neither know how nor have the infrastructure within our shores to do so. The Japanese do; we buy it all from them, after having taught them how do do it a generation ago. Once they were up and running with this technology, we dropped any efforts to develop and produce it. These generals warned that we are looking at a minimum eight to ten year horizon to catch back up, if we started in earnest today. If relations with Japan ever soured to where we could no longer procure fighter avionics from them, we would be in a world of hurt.

The charge to Japan in that arena was led by folks with your mentality. Buy from the cheapest source, with no thought given to the long-term ramifications of doing so with military (or even other high tech) equipment. We will, inevitably, provide Airbus with improved technology so that they can provide us a better product. If not out and out giving it to them, we will at least help them develop it. It is in our mutual best interest. Then as they get proficient, we will one day wake up to discover we don't know how to do this anymore. Just like with fighter avionics and Japan.

Defense procurement, and the technology it spawns, is far different in so many regards than other areas of government procurement. In addition to at least some obligation to spend our money here, the government has some obligation to us to maintain our capabilities in areas of strategic importance. They have failed to do so many times in the past. They just failed again.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

Giving military $$$ to ****** AIRBUS when the economy is headed south. ****** BRILLIANT.

If you put up a fence on a military base you have to guarantee that the materials are from the USA. But hey, multi-million $ aircraft, who cares.

[boxster03]

Thats too bad