U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers
 

Words can't describe how pissed off this makes me. In my opinion, the U.S. military has no business flying European Airbus planes. I realize this is good for Northrop Grumman, but the pentagon had a chance to go with an all-American design and execution and they instead chose to award the $40 BILLION contract to the commercial competitor of America's only real commercial airplane manufacturer. WAY TO GO!


EADS/Northrop upsets Boeing in Air Force tanker competition — analyst

Boeing has lost the long-awaited and lucrative Air Force refueling tanker contract to a competing bid based on an Airbus airplane, a respected and well-connected defense analyst close to the Air Force tanker deal said Friday.

Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute, cited "100 percent reliable" government sources for his information.

The outcome is a shocking upset, kept secret until just before the formal announcement, set for a 2 p.m. press conference today.

The Boeing loss means that the 767 assembly line in Everett will wind to a close around 2012 when the current commercial orders run out.
No layoffs are likely as workers will transfer to other programs. But Washington State has lost out on the chance to add as many as 9,000 jobs.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nkerwin29.html

You'd rather they fly an American plane even if it means decreased operational ability? Talk about "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

Well, Europeans do have a nasty habit of getting into wars with each other. Let's hope that European peacetime continues throughout the contract. From a strategic standpoint, anytime a country depends on another country for such things, it's asking for trouble.

It had better be a much better aircraft if we are shifting production of a war machine to another continent. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea? I'm also a big fan of keeping jobs (esp. manufacturing) in the US so this bothers me in that regard as well.

The way I hear it Boeing has outsourced thousands of jobs into China now and much of this project was not to be built in the U.S. anyway. Now it will be built in Mobile, AL with American workers. It's a good thing for Alabama's economy.

Good points. Kinda like everyone who puts down people who drive "foreign" cars that are really built in the US.

Or those who drive "US" cars that are made up of almost all foreign made parts.

As someone w/ AL ties who also has several friends who work for NG, I think this is good news. Boeing will live to bid another day, and hopefully next time they'll bring a more competitive design.

Folks are PO'ed in my state - Boeing Central... I dunno how this will work?

I don't know where you heard that, but your source is WRONG. Airbus is the one opening manufacturing facilities in China! To my knowledge, Boeing assembles ALL of its planes here in the U.S., and I know this because I've walked through the factories many times and seen the assembly lines. The aircraft Boeing was going to use for this project has been manufactured in Everett, Wash. for decades, and the planes under this contract would be built there, on that production line. Boeing would have hired 9,000 additional people to add to the production line of that particular plane.

And as far as I've heard, this plane will not be built in the U.S. now. The planes are made by Airbus in FRANCE, and I've heard they will just be flown to Alabama for configuration as needed.

Boeing has a lot of pride in its U.S. manufacturing force. The 787 (the Dreamliner) is the first of its commercial jets to have some parts made overseas (in addition to working with other U.S. partners). Even then, Boeing is flying those pieces to its Everett plant to put it all together along with the parts created in Everett. One of the reasons why it made the decision to have a few pieces of that aircraft made overseas was because many of Boeing's strongest supporters are international airlines! It was a smart business decision and a way of holding on to customers who now have their own source of pride in that aircraft.

When it comes to matters of U.S. defense, yes, I want the Pentagon to choose an American manufacturer, especially one that has a reputation for a quality product AND a history of providing such aircraft to the military. Instead, we're going to give $40-$100 BILLION to a European government-subsidized competitor. Our government essentially just gave as much as $100 BILLION to European governments. Also, supposedly each one of the Boeing tankers in this contract would have cost $35 MILLION less than the Airbus model, which meant a savings of more than $6 billion...or, 50 additional tankers. When you consider the value of the US dollar vs the Euro, the cost difference will amount to even more.

ETA: Articles in papers today are breaking the employment count down to this: N-G will add about 1,500 jobs to its Mobile, Ala. plant, and about 6,000 positions will be created at EADS/Airbus facilities in Europe (primarily France). Compared to the 9,000 jobs Boeing would have added to its plants in the U.S., mainly Everett, Wash.

Um, excuse me, I'm not the U.S. military! This cannot be compared to a family sedan or mini-van. I don't appreciate that our billions of tax dollars are being given to a foreign government to produce something that could have been done VERY well here.

Peppy--

You know our Senators and Representatives are partly to blame here... Apparently there is an appeal process...

I don't like how the Boeing folks are suffering for ignorance and negligence.

Are you in Seattle, AKA Monet? If so, I never realized that! Yes, my mother just retired from Boeing on Friday after 35 years with the company, and my bf is an engineering liaison at the Everett plant. So you could say that I've heard plenty about this and tensions are high.

They only have so much influence. They've met with the decisionmakers on this on several instances, but they're not the ones to make the call. Only folks at the Pentagon are responsible for that.

I am in Redmond... ;)

Tell me this, I am listen to the news and it is our McCord and Bragg has lost all these Stryker Brigades troops... That ENTITLES somebody up here some say in contracts.

Now maybe NG and Airbus can build a better and cheaper plane. But given their track record (i.e. not having one) for this kind of plane, nothing can delete 50 years of building this plane like Boeing pioneered... So, are folks telling me Boeing is gonna want to give up trade secrets?

I know a few engineers... I think there is a gross mistake...

Funny you should mention trade secrets, because Airbus has a history of actually ripping off Boeing's planes. They take Boeing's plans and tweak them slightly to make their own product. Few people know this, but the double-decker plane that Airbus just launched was actually discussed and drawn up at Boeing decades ago...but Boeing rejected that idea in favor of the 787, which they believed was a better solution to airlines' needs. So far, that bet looks to have been the smart one.

So how did NG/Airbus get the contract is EVERYBODY knows they bootleg chit off of Boeing? Be creative, make your own chit!

Folks wonder why some planes fail to work, especially military planes...

It's gettin' political! John McCain might get a question or two about this as the election approaches.
Words of warning from D.C.: Expect "firestorm of criticism"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...olitics01.html

Wow!!! :eek:

Wow!!!

Well, the essential difference here seems to be that Airbus just chose a bigger plane as its base. You'd think the Air Force would have concerns other than just size...how stereotypically American. A guy from the Pentagon is on record as saying that the Airbus option supposedly delivers better reliability, too, but I fail to see how they could possibly know that when this plane (with its systems) has never even been built before!

So, I guess the the US government won't get tax dollars from the US part of this consortium.

Here's a link to a story about the deal:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...orce-deal.aspx

A couple questions occur to me.

Might it be that Boeing really did have an inferior bid?

Or a much more expensive bid? Anybody seen a comparison?

If so, wouldn't Congress and the GAO be all over the Air Force for choosing Boeings bid?

Does Boeing not outsource parts, etc. outside the country?

Won't the loss of new jobs in Seattle be a gain for Mobile? They're both in the US, right? My wife's family has included numerous Boeing employees and engineers in both Seattle and Huntsville, AL, but this, unfortunately, is business, not Washington vs. Alabama.

Will the fabrication of this new plant in the South bring more aircraft building and sales into the overall US economy in the long run with more capacity to build and assemble airframes?

Finally, if the Airbus design is technically superior and more efficient shouldn't it win? Obviously, the Air Force thinks so.

As for the car analogy you take to task, the point simply is that buying something simply because it is allegedly a US product doesn't really hold water anymore in this day of globalsim. The computer you're reading this on may well have been assembled here, but the parts that made it probably weren't.

One - the A330 MRTT airframe which the KC-45 basically is has been selected by the UK, Australians, USA, Saudis, United Arab Emirates so far so I think it's safe to say that the airframe has advantages to off-set the slightly smaller size (aside from cost).

Reliability and durability being the main one (at least from talking to the airline pilots): airframe and systems like engines and such - more reliable, easier access for repairs and higher stress tolerances for loads thanks to carbon fiber re-enforcement that is a standard introduced into Airbus frames since the mid-80s.

I don't know a lot about it, but at some point if we're bidding out government contracts, it's based on being a competitive process. If Boeing is the only US company in the running, it makes sense that international bids would be considered, or the military is just at the mercy of whatever Boeing wants to build and charge, right?

Going domestic is absolutely worth something, but if you only have one viable domestic bidder, you've got a problem.

Scenario #1, Boeing gets the contract- "More no-bid contracts by Bush and his gang to fatten the pockets of political allies."

Scenario #2, Boeing doesn't get the contract- "The Pentagon is once again selling out America."

Tough to win in the "court of public opinion" under either, isn't it?

i think people should suffer for their own negligence and if they are ignorant then maybe they learned something and can do a better job next time

Awarding Govt Contracts has gotten so involved they announced recently they are giving it it's own command and will be headed by a 2 star general. It's no secret that in the past the contracts were written with certain contractors in mind and nobody else could possibly win the bids. They are trying to get away from that and make it more fair.

Not only in the military. I've done it myself on a much smaller scale.

Which doesn't make it right.

From what I read in the media, NG/Airbus, had a better plane in many ways and cheaper.

Do I like it as Boeing has a big plant in Kansas, no. One of our Senators was livid and is I think he is the armed forces committee chairman.

Boeing did not lose the jobs they planned to add as there were not there to beging with (3,800).

The world is a Global economy today, we have to admit it. American Flag Carriers are buying Airbus products and I wonder why?

If our product is better, we should win the prize of the contract. If not, well then what?

Congress IS calling on Gates and Air Force leadership to explain to them why they chose NG over Boeing for the new KC-X refuelers, so they seem to be as concerned as well over Boeing losing out. Boeing pretty much had this no-bid contract in the bag until people started crying foul over the billion dollar DoD no-bid contracts. From what the Air Force tells me,(I unfortunatly have a direct line) they wanted something that had more versatility for the new tanker and what Boeing offered as a update to the KC-135 wasn't as good as NG's design.

While part of me says "buy USA", another part says get the best product you can, that does the mission the best, at the best price.
From what I have seen and read, that would seem to be NG rather than Boeing.

As for the prior Boeing deal, remember that not only did people go to jail, one person died; they committed suicide.

The words from Congress bring back an action by Trent Lott a few years ago; he had a ship built for the Navy just to get jobs for his area. The Navy did not ask for the ship nor did the bill provide for a crew.

OK, so I have some bias here (even though I don't understand it enough to have it) as my lobbying firm represents EADS... I've heard it described to me this way from my co-workers and my friends who lobby for various airlines -- it was picking between Merit or American. And merit won out. No one expected it to, but airbus had a better product here. They outscored Boeing in every area...

Well, I also have information from insiders that tell me Boeing initially presented the 777 to the Air Force for this project, but that the Air Force shot it down (no pun intended) and instead specifically requested the 767 in part due to the 767's superior fuel savings. The 767 uses 24% less fuel than the Airbus plane selected. Kindof ironic for a fuel tanker. If the Air Force requested the 767, I don't see how they can really criticize Boeing's "choice" to use that plane over another.

Also, the Air Force made last minute changes to the list of "must haves" that were, according to reports, much more favorable to Airbus.

And another also, according to a few articles I've read, and a statement by Hillary Clinton, our government is actually suing EADS in the WTO right now for illegal subsidies. So we're suing them, but we just awarded them this contract.

Anyway, with a few days passed now, and with some details coming out about the selection, I've managed to chill out a little :) Some people at Boeing actually think this is a good thing because it will allow the company to focus on fulfilling all of its 787 orders, which it has more than 800 of.

Boeing is also being sued in the WTO for the same reason(s).

More details about the requirements and changes to the RFP, and the official memos between Boeing and the Air Force regarding those changes:

Boeing's tanker bid damaged when Air Force changed criteria, Dicks says
By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — During a contentious hearing Wednesday over the Air Force tanker deal awarded to Airbus parent EADS and Northrop Grumman, Rep. Norm Dicks said the Pentagon changed contract specifications to favor that team's bid over Boeing's so they wouldn't drop out of the contest.

Waving documents, the Bremerton Democrat asked Air Force acquisitions director Sue Payton whether she had made changes "at the last minute" to the air-lift standards in the Request for Proposal (RFP) after the bidding process started Jan. 30, 2007 for the $40 billion contract.

"I urge you not to say 'No,' " Dicks said, adding, "I have the letter. You did it."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...hearing06.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2004263239.pdf

For Congress to reverse the decision on “Buy America” grounds would be bad for taxpayers: requiring them to pay for aircraft that provide less value for the money. It would also be bad diplomacy and bad business. Hardly good for the country...

Heh... I read Boeing's analysis too ;)

I also read the tech specs of the A330s and KC-767s actually deployed operationally and something interesting popped up - Boeing calculated the fuel consumption rates for the A330 based on it's 20 year-old commercial aircraft engines, not the Rolls Royce high performance engines that the tanker uses; additionally it seems they calculated the fuel rates based on the commercial airframe not on the military airframe... seems like they are cooking the numbers to try and look better.

Anyways Janes has the KC-767 as slightly better in fuel consumption savings (6-8% at cruising speed), but the Rolls engines on the A330 have significantly higher tolerances as well as lower failure and replacement rates. In the end the USAF looks like it actually went with the better choice economically and operationally.

It seems that many Boeing people are quite upset with John McCain about this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/..._force_tankers

From the article:
Considering the fragile state of the U.S. economy, I'm very surprised at things like this.

Considering the size of the contract, I wonder if it would be feasible for the U.S. to require EADS/Northrop to open facilities within the U.S. and manufacture those planes here using U.S. workers. That would solve a few of the issues such as keeping the money within the U.S. economy as well as negating any dependence on a foreign country for these things.

Some of the EADS parts are to be producted in US John.

These are Airbus planes. Airbus builds its planes in France. However, since NG has some components they need to put in these planes, Airbus will build out its plane sections in France, then fly the pieces to Alabama to have them put together. But make no mistake the majority of the work will be done in France, which is the reason why only reportedly 1,500 direct jobs will be created in Alabama.

I still fail to see how this is a good deal for the U.S. taxpayers. These are American tax dollars that could have been spent here in the U.S., not only in the way of jobs, but by the indirect spending/contributions to the economy as a result of those jobs...service industry, housing, AND the government would get some of that tax money back! At least that money would have stayed in this country. If this deal had gone to Boeing, the company would have created 9,000 direct jobs in this country (in Wash., Kansas, Texas, and Conn.) because all of the work would have been done here. Instead, France will get more than 6,000 new jobs and Alabama will get a paltry 1,500.

It still irks me that the Air Force requested a plane the size of the 767 (and didn't want the bigger 777) in the formal RFP, then rejected it because they changed their mind and decided it was too small. Now it sounds like the military will have to change out some of its equipment (at high cost) and policies in order to accommodate the plane that was so heavy and wide that it didn't even meet the requirements of the formal RFP.

Peppy, As you can see from my sig, I lived in Washington.
I have several friends who work for Boeing.
I understand and agree with all you just posted. I was just pointing out that "some" jobs were here in USA.

And yes, the whole deal "stinks". It could be looked at a 180 degree swing from the prior deal with Boeing. Just hope it, in the end, gets a less than purely political review.