Northrop Grumman won't bid against Boeing for tanker contract

Seattle Times ^ | March 8, 2010 | Dominic Gates

[jazusamo]

Northrop Grumman has decided not to bid in the Air Force refueling tanker contract, leaving Boeing's Everett-built 767 as the sole airplane competing for the $40 billion program.

A person familiar with the details said Northrop will announce its decision after the market closes today...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I read that the Airbus based tanker would have required expansion of facilities and heavier-built runways. Is this true ?

[tgusa]

This won’t end well and unfortunately our warfighters will come out with the short end of the stick. JMO

[Old Retired Army Guy]

They do have a non-union plant is South Carolina. Wouldn’t it piss off all their WA and Union supporters if they decided to assemble it there?

[pappyone]

Agree. Non-union Alabama would have been a great place to build. (Oh, and by the way ORAG, so am I)

[norton]

Good comments so far.

I'd change the article to read:
"Northrop executives concluded the risk attached to a fixed price contract precluded a low bid, without which they felt they could not win against Boeing which, however, Boeing is desperate enough to propose."

Union pressure?
Their unions have not been known for doing Boeing any favors and were probably even worse under MDC.

Another RFP because of a single bid?
It's called "attempted competition" and can go ahead with heavy handed price & cost analysis (throat cutting) because there is no competition available.
[Although I can imagine His Greatness announcing a do over just to prove that he is saving taxpayer's money - and driving costs into the next guy's administration]

Besides, the USG has already screwed this procurement up at least twice [recognizing some bone headed stupidity on the part of Boeing and one government employee] so that we are already way late to the game and those fifties era KC's aren't getting any younger.

[pfflier]

You mean like the old SAC B-52 bases?

[Redleg Duke]

The reason why a new tanker isn't already flying is due to a corrupt female government manager, pushed too far and too fast by affirmative action and an equally corrupt airframe builder who should still be debarred.

Once upon a time, Boeing was a fine and reputable company, but it is nothing but an adjunct of the Chicago Machine, now, aided and abetted by the equally corrupt unions.

[jazusamo]

Absolutely! They need to get on with it and start delivering new tankers to the AF. Though I live in WA I haven’t taken sides in this ongoing fiasco but haven’t liked the idea of EADS supplying us.

Boeing stuck it to the unions on the plant in SC for the second 787 line and the unions got just what they deserved. The Dem controlled state of WA was more or less in cahoots with the unions and Boeing stung them both.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Beats me. I don’t know where refueling calls home except I saw KC 135s and KC 10s at the airport in Honolulu.

[Retired COB]

I wonder how much union pressure there was to go Boeing instead of Northrop Grumman. I despise unions and everything they do.

It could be simpler than that. I seem to recall that John Murtha's replacement as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is the Congressman from Seattle.

[az.b1bbomberfxr]

Bad news for the Free market and especially for those of us who wanted to see it built in Union Free Alabama

It's not carved in granite that Boeing has to remain in WA State to build aircraft. A major portion of the new 787 Dreamliner is being built in Charleston, SC(non-union) and they will eventually make that a location for the final assy. of the 787. Let's hope that the Company makes the right moves and begins to pull away from the socialist IAM and other unions and move to states like Alabama to manufacture all their aicraft.

[Cheap_Hessian]

Northrop had the better bid. Boeing had the better lobbyists. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised on who won, but it does make the whole proposal process seem unnecessary.

[pfflier]

In the 60’s the heyday of SAC all KC-97s and KC-135s were assigned to SAC and co-located with B-52s at SAC bases.

[El Gato]

The govt will probably have to rewrite the RFP as they cannot have a sole source for a $40 billion contract.

It's not sole source just because only one outfit bids on it. It's sole source if you don't let anyone else bid.

[El Gato]

Though everything isn’t built here from my understanding, there’s a great deal more of the plane built here

IIRC, "here" would be Wichita Kansas.

[TommyDale]

Exactly. Americans would assemble it, and the economic benefit would remain in the U.S. and profits would go to the Boeing stockholders, rather than Airbus in Europe.

[TommyDale]

Speaking of non-union Boeing, the 787 Dreamliner is going to be built in Charleston, SC.

[driftdiver]

” It’s not sole source just because only one outfit bids on it. It’s sole source if you don’t let anyone else bid. “

True but there are regulatons that require a minimum number of bids.

The Air Force could go thru all the work to award this to Boeing and then Northrop could protest forcing yet another do over.

[Cheap_Hessian]

Liberty gives us prosperity not this kabuki dance.

[gogeo]

It could be simpler than that. I seem to recall that John Murtha's replacement as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is the Congressman from Seattle...

He's known as the Congressman from Boeing...Norm Dicks, who's from a district outside Seattle.

The GAO overturned the prior award because they found the AF hadn't followed their own criteria in the award. Those criteria, BTW, had been amended after NG threatened to pull out of the process.

So, this is nothing new.