Posted on 06/18/2008 10:42:05 AM PDT by Rufus2007
Mobile’s hopes for an aircraft assembly plant just took a serious hit. As shown in the latest edition of Lagniappe, Boeing claimed the Air Force made math errors in their CNBC is reporting the U.S. General Accounting Office has also found that to be the case and called them “significant errors.”
Boeing (NYSE:BA) is trading sharply higher on the news, while Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) has taken a slight hit. Although the Air Force doesn’t have to abide by the GAO’s ruling, the likely outcome is for another round of bidding for the tanker contract experts say.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.lagniappemobile.com ...
Why was it odd?
They provided an exceptionally competitive product.
It’s only “odd” if the Boeing “fix” was in.
Why am I not surprised?
The U.S. stinks in MATH. It’s showing up ... in ugly ways ... .
Some people only like competition as long as their side wins; otherwise it’s unfair.
Boeing has gotten fat and lazy.
The makings of a trade war.
It seems like it would cost more for a company to come all the way from France and set up a brand new shop and still be competitive.
Yep! Thats for sure. We dont need any French junk in Our Defense System. AIRBUUST is Bankrupt almost. Why should We bail them out buying AIRBUUST TANKERS for the next 30 years. WE WANT BOEING! I dont fly on AIRBUUST stuff, Its Boeing for Me. Why should the Air Force be any different?
Well another round of bidding can only be a good thing.
The original RFQ called for a smaller aircraft. Boeing followed the specifications, then Airbus/Northrop Grumman bid a much larger Airbus craft.
John McCain has been very defensive (pardon the pun) about EADS being given this contract. I question it.
Nope.
Lockheed is gonna assemble the aircraft in the US.
Not strange at all.
Russia owns a piece of EADS. From a national security perspective, this specific project never should of been put out to be bid on by foreign companies.
I know there are plenty of military projects that are, but when it comes to something as critical as our fleet of fueling tankers, that should never be performed by some foreign company like EADS. End of story.
You mean Northrop Grumman.
EADs submitted an aircraft that met the spec, but was larger than Boeing. Boeing didn’t offer a better or larger product for the competition.
From the article: “The GAO is claiming the U.S. Air Force misled Boeing and is recommending the U.S. Air Force re-open discussions and re-evaluate bid proposals.”
Ya think?
Did I mention Boeing is the MOST CORRUPT US company ever???
See, I can fit in nicely around here...I don't know jack about military aviation, the defense industry, or how DOD procurement programs work but I know how to work a keyboard, which is good enough.
I think it’s Northrop Grumman doing the assembly, not Lockheed. Still costs money to build a brand new plant which should add to the bottom line of any competitive bid.
Oops.
Yeah, Northrop Grumman.
Yeah, that’s what I meant ;)
Supports original report that Boeing provided near historic transparency in pricing data.
"The GAO is claiming the U.S. Air Force misled Boeing..."
Supports Boeing's protest.
And, "...is recommending the U.S. Air Force re-open discussions and re-evaluate bid proposals."
Confirms that the whole affair will result in further government caused delays in replacing KC135 and KC10.
Prediction: regardless who gets the contract - it'll be a lousy relationship between bruised parties who don't trust each other.
Boeing claimed the Air Force made math errors in their CNBC is reporting the U.S. General Accounting Office has also found that to be the case and called them “significant errors.”
Then why even both having a competition....just give Boeing what they demand....and you get a new tanker. When you come down to it....other than a 3rd company option with a Russian tanker...thats virtually it. We have just about taken every single aircraft company out of action now. This is like one giant joke now.
If this is as it is, ya wonder if Gates knew or had a feeling about it before he axed Wynne and Moseley? Sure would have givien him more reason to.
LOL
You left out ‘satanic’
Yeah, but Boeing has the well known friends of the military Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell on their side.
I am a Boeing fan, but I withheld judgement as there are arguments for both cases (I find it hard to believe Boeing could be bested technically or cost wise from a competitor who does not even have a factory in place, unless the subsidies provided Airbus by Euro governments were really enticing.)
What is very clear is that the DoD procurement process is corrupt and nearly broken, in large part by our own governments fault.
Did the GAO release this to the public or just that one source? I don't believe that at all. I don't think we will hear from the GAO until their final decision. This is more likely a pipe dream by a Boeing guy.
It was being reported on Aviation Week web site.
You would think Boeing would have to set up a new facility for a contract this large as well. Do you know for a fact that the Boeing contract called for use of an existing plant?
I just searched the GAO web site and found nothing on that subject.
And you don’t mention Boeing’s corruption in the previous tanker fiasco.
Boeing shares in a lot of this blame.
The mere fact that EADS won, alone, was enough for congress and the GAO to step in.
Wether Boeing was better or not isn’t material, the fix was in.
They would be using the existing 767 assembly facilities.
I think the existing 767 plant is in low-rate/decline and could have accomodated the USAF production schedule.
A330MRTT Becoming The World's Preferred Tanker
Do you know that as a fact or are you guessing?
I garnered that from other discussions/debates.
There was also political chatter about keeping the existing 767 line open as political appeasement to certain districts.
Fair enough.
Or new employees who need to relocate and relearn different procedures etc.
You did know that the Boeing proposal was a 767-based design, right?
BTW, your comment on the end game resulting in little more than two parties with a bad relationship is absolutely spot-on. Very well reasoned and very true - and believe me, the USAF-Boeing relationship (at the top) is pretty rocky already.
Unfortunately it is the warfighter and the American taxpayer that is going to suffer from all this political maneuvering. There's enough blame for both sides involved in this sorry mess.
They’re having to start from scratch in Mobile. There is some infrastructure in Seattle, no?
You would have to ask the author of the story. I didn't write it, I only posted a line from it. The headline indicates that the GAO found errors in the Air Force math. That certainly doesn't surprise anyone. And if you think I am a Boeing guy, I will gain business either way. I just think fair is fair, and American Armed Forces deserve to be serviced by American aircraft, not European.
Bottom line is that if we want the BEST tanker, we go with Northrop Grumman.
Boeing has grown to think they are entitled and didn’t put out a good product. End of story.
As much as some folks try to avoid it, the fuzzy math is the issue here. Personally I don’t like to see my government (me) get ripped off by anyone.
If all parties are honest, none should have a problem with reopening bidding. Most of all the American people stand to gain the most.
Don't kid yourself, both Boeing and Northrop and international entities.
From what I understand, yes they would be starting from scratch down there. I’m not sure if that’s a bad thing or a good thing.
We seem to be doing okay with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
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.