Posted on 05/30/2008 9:48:40 AM PDT by MHalblaub
A labor union of technical engineers issued an 11-page “white paper” today ripping the USAF tanker contract award to Northrop Grumman and the KC-30 over the Boeing KC-767. The two page press release summarizes the white paper findings.
The press release focuses entirely on EADS, parent of Airbus and maker of the A330-200 on which Northrop’s offering of the KC-30 is based. Northrop’s identified as a “minority” partner.
(During a conference several months ago, Northrop acknowledged that about 50% of the contract revenues flow to EADs/Airbus. Engines, in this case provided by GE (an American company), typically represent about 20% of the cost of a commercial airliner. This clearly makes Northrop a “minority partner.” But it’s important that although 50% of the revenues may flow to EADS/Airbus, payments to suppliers to EADS/Airbus also flow back to suppliers, with more than 200 based in the US. Northrop says that about 60% of the KC-30 by value is US-sourced.)
The White Paper is replete with errors and misrepresentations and cites “facts” without sourcing them.
* It claims the KC-30 isn’t as structurally as sound as the KC-767 without backing this claim up.
* It states (accurately) that currently only 1% of all cargo carried by the Air Mobility Command is carried by tankers but ignores statements and conclusions by the Air Force that a new way of carrying troops and cargo is required for the future, requiring a multi-role tanker-transport.
* It claims EADS and Northrop “have conceded” the KC-30 is “much more costly” to operate than the KC-767; they’ve done nothing of the kind. They have conceded the KC-30 burns 6% more fuel than the KC-767, a far cry from the 24% cited by a Boeing-paid consultancy.
* It claims Boeing has delivered 2,000 tankers in 75 years–but ignores the fact that the last Boeing-manufactured tanker, the KC-135, was delivered 42 years ago, and that the last tanker delivered by McDonnell Douglas, now a part of Boeing, was delivered 20 years ago.
* It correctly notes that the KC-30 is in testing but ignores the fact that the KC-767AT proposed by Boeing for the Air Force is only a “paper” airplane; and the the KC-767 tanker delivered to Japan in February and March was years late and still hasn’t entered service; or that none of the KC-767 tankers ordered by Italy have been delivered and are years late.
* It correctly notes that Boeing has designed an delivered five generations of aerial refueling booms but the sixth generation proposed to the Air Force is only a paper design. It correctly notes that the EADS boom is in testing.
* It fairly questions past performance issues with Northrop and EADS but ignores the past performance issues of Boeing, particularly with the Italian and Japanese tanker programs.
* It charges that 44,000 US jobs will be “exported.” This is the flimsiest claim of all. Boeing has never validated how it asserted the KC-767 will support 44,000 US jobs. Northrop initially claimed 25,000 US jobs will be supported, for a net difference of 19,000 jobs that would be subject to “export.” But Northrop later revised its figure that the KC-30 will support 48,000 jobs and “showed its math.” We’re still skeptical of this figure (how can a plane with less US content than claimed by Boeing for its KC-767 (at 85%) support more jobs?), but Northrop at least has been public about how it claims its number while Boeing refuses to do so.
* It visits the claim of “illegal” subsidies to Airbus. Until the World Trade Organization rules in this case, perhaps as soon as next month, these are still allegations–as are the claims by the European Union that Boeing also received “illegal” subsidies. This issue is a red herring all around.
The problems with the White Paper go on and on.
Duncan Hunter and Maria Cantwell will get to the bottom of this!!!!
If Boeing really cared about the United States instead of its own pocketbook, they would have lowered the price and won the contract.
Seems patriotism is fine with them as long as it makes their wallet fatter.
Given all that the United States has done for them, in terms of wealth building, giving them loads of tax dollars and protecting their freedoms, I'd say that, if Boeing REALLY believed in being patriotic, they'd be giving tankers away to the US military for free.
I use white paper every day when I am sitting on my throne.
Just what our troops need-—a French war plane. I wonder does it come with a free surrender flag?
THERE IS NO WAY MY TAX MONEY SHOULD BE USED TO BUY FRENCH ANYTHING MUCH LESS AN AIRFORCE TANKER!
They are pissed off that Northrop employees refuse to be unionized period!
Does anyone remember the Airforce asking for fly over permission from France and being made to extend the mission by hours and hours because we were told to stay out of French airspace?
And now they want us to buy war planes for them, no thanks.
Boeing has behaved badly, but I still find this decision hard to defend. As you point out, France has several times forbidden us to fly missions through their airspace. What happens down the line when they refuse to provide us with planes because they don't approve of some other mission?
Our government used to understand that you are at risk if you rely on other countries for critical war materials. So we built stockpiles. Now we've not only run down the stockpiles, but we rely on other countries for damned near everything--even many of our computers, made in Malaysia.
I question your lack of a sarcasm tag.
(Norton 9668P)
I don’t care who builds these planes as long as it is an American company. Of all the countries in the world France is the LAST country that I would by military goods from!
Yeah, well it wasn't sarcasm.
If an American corporation can't compete with a European corporation, then the problem is with the American corporation.
I don't believe in welfare for slackers. The problem is with Boeing.
Yeah, well it wasn't sarcasm.
If an American corporation can't compete with a European corporation, then the problem is with the American corporation.
I don't believe in welfare for slackers. The problem is with Boeing.
I hope Maxine Waters socializes them ./sarc sarc sarc sarc
Did you know engines used on current KC-135 fleet are build with almost 50 % French content?
Ouch. Boeing’s profit margin is already only 6.5% as it is.
When they go bankrupt, the whole company’s jobs will be lost.
So what's the problem with them, then? They over-charge on tankers and still are only making 6.5%?
Someone is taking home more tax money than they deserve.
Let me guess: I bet it's Boeing labor that expects the rest of the country to do it's patriotic duty to make their wallets fatter.
For the good of the country, of course.
Plus boeing lost 4 out of 5 performance factors to the winner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.