Posted on 12/07/2010 1:45:21 PM PST by crosshairs
Following an inadvertent peek at Defense Department data, Boeing executives believe the Air Force is likely to award the long-awaited tanker contract to Airbus parent company EADS, according to a leading defense analyst with close ties to Boeing.
That view of the feeling inside Boeing is confirmed by two congressional sources familiar with the $40 billion tanker competition.
Citing conversations with several unnamed senior Boeing officials, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said the company's hopes faded when Air Force analyses of the two contending airplanes were accidentally leaked to both sides earlier this month.
Those analyses confirmed Boeing's worst fears, Thompson said. They showed the Airbus A330 tanker scoring well ahead of the Boeing 767 tanker in a mission-effectiveness rating.
"The conclusion you come to is that probably Boeing is going to lose this," said Thompson, who has written papers supporting the Boeing bid.
The effectiveness rating is one of three measures used by the Air Force to adjust the bid price for the airplanes. The two others are assumed to favor Boeing's smaller aircraft — military infrastructure construction costs and fuel burn over the entire life-cycle of the program.
But Thompson, backed again by the congressional sources, said the way the Air Force measured those criteria gave Boeing very little advantage over its rival.
"Boeing has told me many times over the last year that the way the Air Force was calculating the cost of fuel and infrastructure had the effect of minimizing the life-cycle costs of the larger plane" from EADS, Thompson said. "They are not very happy with the way in which those things have been calculated."
A congressional source said Boeing believes the Air Force has underestimated the projected cost of jet fuel in the future, thereby lowering the life-cycle fuel costs. And it has chosen 10 airfields for the military infrastructure analysis that Boeing considers unrepresentative of typical space constraints, lowering projected construction costs also.
Much therefore depends on the mission-effectiveness rating, a score derived from a computer model known as IFARA (for Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment) that simulates operational tanker missions.
IFARA rates each airplane's capabilities as a tanker: how much fuel it delivers, how far it flies, how long it can stay on station. It was always clear that the larger A330 would score better than the 767 by this measure.
Earlier this month the Air Force mixed up two computer disks and sent the two companies the IFARA outcome for the other airplane.
EADS opened the IFARA data on the Boeing tanker. While Boeing realized the mistake sooner and sent back the disk without opening the file, the Air Force afterward decided to level the playing field by providing both sides the IFARA data on the other side's plane.
"When (Boeing officials) saw the ratings for the two planes, I think they became downright alarmed," said Thompson.
A congressional source who spoke on condition of anonymity said the data reinforced a growing pessimism among Boeing executives as to the outcome.
"The confirmation of where they stood on IFARA pushes it over the top," said the congressional source.
I think history is pretty clear on this. If a Federal contractor fails in the proposal process, it is welcome to “appeal” or “file a protest.” It is also welcome to summon it’s employees and instruct them to stand in the parking lot and bray at the moon every night from now until the end of time. Each of these actions will have exactly the same effect on the Federal agency that turned them down.
I have an idea:
Divide the USAF mission between the NRO, the Navy, and the Army and let’s save some money.
If we can’t buy a plane, how can we get an ally to believe us when we tell them we can adequately defend them.
What a mess.
This time around, this is supposed to be a lowest cost/meets specifications competition, rather than a “best value” competition that the Air Force tried to run last time.
With a best value competition, the Air Force tried to give bonus points for carrying extra fuel or cargo, the number of aircraft required for different mission scenarios, what base infrastructure modificatins were required, etc.
This time the Air Force gave out a specification list with 373 requirements, and judged the aircraft as pass-fail. As long as both aircraft meet the requirements, the lowest bid wins.
Boeing can’t underbid Airbus, which is why they’re so worried. This was a $40 billion contract up until Northrop Grumman/EADS bid $35 billion last time around.
My buddy flies the KC135 and loves it. He swears by Boeing.
The old saying”if it aint Boeing,I aint going” applies to a lot of airmen.
And we down here in Mobile are praying for EADS.....oh, and by the way, Mobile is in the United States - contrary to what Boeing has been pushing........
Boeing’s “peek” wasn’t inadvertent. They feds accidentally sent the wrong packages to the two bidders. A person at EADS opened their package and looked at the 1st page, which told them they had the wrong package.
Boeing hadn’t opened their package.
To level the playing field, the feds then released to both bidders the comparative information that the one EADS employee had seen. Boeing saw that formally approved release — not an “inadvertent peek”.
Is EADS a US company? Does the company reinvest its profit back into programs for US only aircraft?
This is my money they are spending (my tax $$$). I’d prefer in this economy that it stay home w/ Boeing...
BTW I apologize to anyone who has to work for a foreign country/company who look at the USA as little more than a giant wallet.
Plus or minus, half is spent here in the US. Engineering, engines, sub contractors....
OK, let me see if I have this straight.....EADS wins the competition fairly, builds a multi-million dollar assembly plant in Mobile, AL (which BTW is one of the 50 states contrary to what the congresscritters in WA state say), employs over 2,000 Alabama citizens, and pumps millions of dollars into the Alabama economy....this is a bad thing because?
So, you are saying that a lot of airmen will leave the military, rather than risk their lives in an Airbus? Well, we certainly wouldn't want military men to risk injury.
And when they leave the military, I assume they will still only fly Boeing, leaving 'Bus airlines without enough pilots, causing grounded fleets, followed by bankruptcy, leaving only Boeing fleets flying.
Very clever marketing indeed.
60% of my family works for Boeing. They are a bunch of extremely overpaid union workers that make everything cost 5 times more then it should. Why is a person who draws lines on a computer paid 65.00 an hour with unlimited overtime and no reward for success. Or no punishment for lack of of success. I could find 4 people willing to do that same job for 17.00 an hour with great success bonuses.
These giant corporations have become worse then the fed-gov. They lobby and suck off the teet to our peril.
Tom Daschles wife was their top lobbiest. Big clue.
“...this is a bad thing because?” It’s more fun to be jobless and wave the flag :-)
“And we down here in Mobile are praying for EADS.....oh, and by the way, Mobile is in the United States - contrary to what Boeing has been pushing........”
Isn’t Mobile,Alabama located on the gulf of mexico ?
So the planes will be made in mexico by alabamian mexicans !
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.