U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[John]

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:

"Having made sure that Iraq gets new schools, roads, bridges and dams that we deny America, now we are making sure that France gets the jobs that Americans used to have," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. "We are sending the jobs overseas, all because John McCain demanded it."

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

Originally Posted by Kevin

From a strategic standpoint, anytime a country depends on another country for such things, it's asking for trouble.

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by John

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by jon1856

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

[jon1856]

Boeing to File Protest on Lost Tanker Deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...v=rss_business

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/b..._513928_1.html

Some interesting comments on why, perhaps, Boeing did not use the 777 rather than the 767.
Which could be the cause of the lose of contract.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Boeing issued a formal statement today to rebuff media reports that it lost "in every category," which turns out to be 100% false. In fact, Boeing won out in one or two categories and came up equal with EADS in others. It appears the issue is the model used to compare cost and "real life" operations, which was altered after the RFP was issued so that Airbus/NG could remain in the contest. The alterations made to the model favored Airbus' large aircraft, and Boeing is taking issue with the reported cost comparison of the two bids, since Boeing's bid was LOWER than the one submitted by EADS/NG and LOWER than what the Air Force was asking for.

Here's the point-by-point on how Boeing compared to Airbus:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2004273079.pdf

[jon1856]

If someone, not I for sure, wishes to do a chart on all the planes here is the info on them all:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b777/
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767/
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/a330/


767-200: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103
767-300: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=104
767-400: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=105
777-200: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=106
777-300: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=107
A330-200: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=26
A330-300: http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=25

Any one here work on Capital Hill?

[KDAngel]

Well I'm sure this will excite some people -- the GAO just told the airforce they have to consider Boeing again. So for now, EADS has lost the deal. But they won it for a reason, and deserve to get it back. Period.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

Well I'm sure this will excite some people -- the GAO just told the airforce they have to consider Boeing again. So for now, EADS has lost the deal. But they won it for a reason, and deserve to get it back. Period.

More like a question mark.

The GAO says they won it for bogus reasons. It is very rare for the GAO to honor an appeal, so that should be a huge red flag to everyone that this was a very shady review process.

Here's the full story:

Boeing wins a key round in tanker protest

Company complaint over $35 billion Air Force contract is upheld

WASHINGTON - Congressional investigators have upheld Boeing’s protest of a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. and Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., and recommended that the service hold a new competition.

The Government Accountability Office said Wednesday that it found “a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.”
...

Although the GAO denied some parts of the Boeing protest, it also offered a lengthy rationale for why the contract should be re-competed. Among its conclusions was that the Air Force awarded the Northrop team improper extra credit for offering a larger plane that could carry more fuel, cargo and troops. It also found that the Boeing tanker would be cheaper to operate over its lifespan even though the Air Force initially said the Northrop tanker offered cost advantages.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25246267/


The Seattle Times, as expected, has the story and they list SEVEN "major mistakes in the Air Force procurement process that detracted from 'full and open competition and fairness'" that were cited in the GAO's ruling. Those seven mistakes, which actually look flat-out inethical in most cases, are:

"The GAO said the Air Force
• didn't assess the relative merits of the two contending airplanes in accordance with its stated criteria.
• gave Northrop extra credit for exceeding certain performance parameters, when this was expressly not allowed.
• failed to show that the A330 could refuel all of the Air Force aircraft it needs to service.
• misled Boeing about its failure to meet certain performance parameters, while giving fuller information to Northrop.
• dismissed a Northrop failure to agree to an aircraft maintenance plan as only "an adminstrative oversight" when it was a material requirement.
• made unreasonable estimates of the cost of constructing runways, ramps and hangars needed for the larger Airbus jet, which led to the conclusion that Northrop offered lower total program costs — when in fact Boeing's overall cost was lower.
• inappropriately rejected Boeing's estimate of its non-recurring cost to develop the program, using an "unreasonable" model to increase that cost estimate.

Here's the full statement from the GAO: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2008004142.pdf