U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[KDAngel]

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...

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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. Kind of 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 500 of.

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

[PeppyGPhiB]

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

[KDAngel]

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...

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by jon1856

Any one here work on Capital Hill?

I don't work ON the Hill, but I'm on the Hill working all day everyday. And all my friends work there.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KDAngel

I don't work ON the Hill, but I'm on the Hill working all day everyday. And all my friends work there.

So, have you had any conversations with them on just what is going on?
And how this seems to have been rather twisted around?