Boeing tanker fight isn't over, political leaders say

HeraldNet.com (Everett, Washington) ^ | Saturday, March 1, 2008 | Jim Haley, Herald Writer

[Paleo Conservative]

What could have been a done deal for the Boeing Co. five years ago came down to a two-horse race and finally a multibillion dollar loss for Everett on Friday in the sweepstakes to supply the Air Force with new jet refueling tankers.

The Air Force's announcement that the $35 billion deal goes to Northrop-Grumman and Europe's Airbus parent, EADS, angered members of Washington's congressional delegation and raised the prospect of congressional hearings on the decision.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," six members of the congressional delegation said in a joint statement. "This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America's men and women in uniform."

"I was shocked by the announcement today that the Air Force intends to award the contract for the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers to the Airbus-Northrop Grumman team, and I believe there will be real skepticism among the defense-related committees in Congress," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Dicks is a powerful member of a Defense Appropriation Committee, and funding of the tankers will have to go through his panel.

"While we will await the debriefing of the Boeing team to learn how and why the decision was made, I remain convinced that the Boeing 767 tanker version would have been an extremely capable aircraft that would have created 40,000 U.S. jobs, including 9,000 in Washington state," Dicks said.

...............

Congressional members say they hope the decision wasn't influenced by a Boeing procurement scandal five years ago. And they expect Boeing to protest the decision.

...............

The GAO has 100 days to deny or uphold a protest.

[wolf78]

On a similar line of thought, just how much of Boeing's supply is outsourced to overseas?

As with Airbus, it depends on the specific airframe. The 787, Boeing's latest model, is as much an international aircraft as it is American. 35% of the 787 is made in Japan (15% for the 767, 20% for the 777) according to this article:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/47636

Ironically, the only two countries to order a 767 tanker version are also large contributors to the 787 program, namely Japan and Italy:



Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/boeing/787/787primer.asp

[wolf78]

If I’m not mistaken the French are the largest shareholder of Airbus. The French and German governments negotiate who the CEO will be.

Not exactly. Airbus is a 100% subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (formerly 80% EADS and 20% BAE. For the EADS ownership structure I'd have to quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS:

As of 3 July 2007 41.63% of EADS stock is publicly traded on six European stock exchanges, while the remaining 58.37% is owned by a "Contractural Partnership".[19] The latter is owned by SOGEADE (27.38%), Daimler AG (22.41%), SEPI (5.46%) and Dubai Holding (3.12%).[20] SOGEADE is owned by the French State and Lagardère, while SEPI is a Spanish state holding company. France also owns 0.06% of publicly traded stock.

Also a small part of the publicly traded stock has been bought by a Russian bank / state holding. That's why German "Tagesschau" (think PBS news) once came up with these numbers:



So you could say that through state holdings, Lagardere and Daimler AG the French and German side side still somewhat "control" EADS/Airbus, however the largest part of EADS is publicly traded.

[YOUGOTIT]

So!

I do not see any that are manufactured in these United States! So, if one of the EU left wingers want to cut us off from our military then any one can stop or slow down the building of the tankers.

Maybe we should let them build our tanks and jeeps and weapons also since they are influenced by left-wing socialist every day.

[SW6906]

Well put. Let me know when you want to make that trip to the nearest embassy.

[fleagle]

Did you read this link before your head exploded?

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html

[Polybius]

So you cannot tell what percentage was off shored of the following projects: The Northrop-Grumman history includes such backbones of America's defense as the Hellcat, the Intruder, the Hawkeye, the F-14 Tomcat and the B-2 bomber

Not being a Northrop-Grumman executive or company historian with access to prior contracts, the answer is, "No I cannot tell you what precentage of each of those projects was off-shored."

However, if you believe or are implying that the "obvious" answer is "zero", you would be wrong.

For example, what was the quintessential "American" land-based fighter aircraft in World War II?

The good, ole, "American as Motherhood and Apple Pie" P-51 Mustang, right?

Well, as originally designed, the P-51 Mustang was a dud at high altitude because the American built Allison V-1710 engine did not perform well at high altitudes.

So, what to do?

The Brits already had a very good engine in the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine and the use of that engine in the P-51 is what made the Mustang the premier American fighter of World War II.

To increase production of the British engine, a partnership was established between the British Rolls-Royce company and the American Packard Motor Car Company. The resulting "Packard Merlin" engines were therefore a partnership between an American company and the "Euroweenies" and the Packard Merlin engines swept aside the use of the "all-American" Allison engine in the Mustang and were even used in British aircraft as well.

By the logic used by some on this thread, the U.S. Army Air Corps should have stuck to the "All-American" Allison engine instead of choosing the engine built by the partnership of American Packard and "Euroweenie" Rolls-Royce.

In regards to Boeing, just like I cannot tell you what exact percentage of work Northrop-Grumman off-shores, I cannot tell you what percentage of work Boeing off-shores.

However, I can tell you that Boeing DOES off-shore.

New Cargo Plane Symbolizes Boeing Outsourcing ..... A huge, new plane has appeared in the skies above Seattle. It's a specially modified 747 cargo jet called the Dreamlifter that's big enough to haul large sections of Boeing's new 787 airliner .... But some Seattle residents are not happy to see the Dreamlifter cargo plane take flight. .... The giant cargo plane will fly whole segments of the new Dreamliners to Washington state for assembly: Fuselages from South Carolina and Italy; rudders from China; and entire wings from Japan. Then workers at Boeing will connect the pieces to assemble the new planes.

[Politicalities]

You think the “fix was in?” Can you be more specific please? How many people were involved in making this decision, and how many of them sold out their country in exchange for... what? How deep does this alleged conspiracy go?

[Yo-Yo]

The A330 is smaller than the 777 in length, and wingspan and about two-thirds of the empty weight, two-thirds of the fuel, and two-thirds of the payload.

The Air Force cheaped out compared to what really is needed. But maybe they are saving for Boeing the really big tanker -- based on the 747.

There will be a round two in a few years: The KC-Y. This will be to replace the KC-10. By that time, the 777 will be near the end of it's commercial production life, much as the 767 is now, and perhaps either it or the 747-8 will be offered as the large tanker replacement. The only alternative by EADS will be the A350, and judging by the number of orders, Airbus won't want to crank out too many "KC-350s" in that time frame, when they're cranking out all they can to meet commercial orders.

Also, don't completely count out a "KC-380" that would also double as a large freighter.

[nyconse]

I have no idea...it is supposition on my part. It is hard to believe a decision as stupid as this one could have been made on the up and up. How could they negotiate a deal where one small assembly plant is all we get. This contract is worth billions. They have admitted that Boeing had a lower bid...The reasons given are vague to say the least. You don’t send an American military plane to Europe/airbus in my opinion. This is very bad policy and poses a security risk.

[nyconse]

Did you look at the dates on that link? This was conjecture by this company. It’s on their website. The one I provided says straight out that the plane parts will be built in Europe and assembled in Alabama. My article is recent and its not written by Boeing or by Airbus. It’s in the newspaper. Plus that is what Jeff Session said on the Lou Dobbs show on Friday.

[PAR35]

Either the 767 or the 777 could have been used as the basis of Boeing’s proposal.

Boeing didn't offer the 777. They can sell enough of them commercially. It's too late for Boeing to try to start pushing a different model.

[PAR35]

The P-51 is a good example, but if you go back to World War I, Americans were dependent upon both French planes and French designed artillery. (The French 75 was a true breakthrough in field artillery. http://www.hsgng.org/pages/french75.htm )

[wolf78]

I have no idea...it is supposition on my part. It is hard to believe a decision as stupid as this one could have been made on the up and up. How could they negotiate a deal where one small assembly plant is all we get. This contract is worth billions. They have admitted that Boeing had a lower bid...The reasons given are vague to say the least. You don’t send an American military plane to Europe/airbus in my opinion. This is very bad policy and poses a security risk.

This should interest you: Boeing lost air tanker deal decisively-analyst

[Solitar]

Thank you for that additional info and insight on future tankers. The A-380 is an awesome aircraft! Its 1.3 million pound maximum takeoff weight allows it to lift an awesome amount of fuel and cargo. Its wings were designed to lift a future stretched model -- in other words -- the wings are overdesigned for the present model. Now if we could only get some of its assembly in the US. Or if some US military aircraft manufacturer could produce a super air tanker to refuel super airlifts of troops and equipment.

[phantomworker]

Great comparison. Thanks.

[Politicalities]

I have no idea...it is supposition on my part.

Rather a large "supposition", wouldn't you say? You are accusing career Air Force men -- men who have dedicated their lives to serving their country -- of selling us out to a foreign power for their personal enrichment. And not just one or two of them, either... for the "fix", as you so colorfully put it, to be "in", dozens of people would have to be personally involved in either doing the deed or covering it up. And not one of these men has the balls to come forward and blow this massive conspiracy. The bastards! What a bunch of scum we've got in that Air Force, huh?

It is hard to believe a decision as stupid as this one could have been made on the up and up.

Oh. Well, if you say so. Never mind the undoubtedly dozens or even hundreds of minds that had a say in this decision... what the hell would they know about airplanes, next to you? Clearly, if you say it was a stupid decision, it was a stupid decision, and all those Air Force officers who disagreed with you must be either imbeciles or bought.

How could they negotiate a deal where one small assembly plant is all we get.

Uh, no, that's not "all we get". What we get is the best airplane for the best price. And that's all the Air Force should care about. The Air Force's job is not to line the pockets of Boeing's executives, shareholders, and employees. Its job is to defend our nation's skies and provide air supremacy over any battlefield (a job it does superlatively well), and to do it while making the most efficient use of our limited resources.

This contract is worth billions.

All the more reason to exercise care in awarding it, and to award it on the basis of merit, rather than which big American companies in which states will benefit.

They have admitted that Boeing had a lower bid... The reasons given are vague to say the least.

What's your source on the "Boeing bid lower" thing? And as for vague reasons... well, I'll admit to a lack of expertise, but I'm willing to bet that there are reams of documentation on the process. And if there aren't, if anything isn't totally transparent, undoubtedly it'll come out in Congressional hearings, where whiny grandstanding politicians will probably try to smear some good and dedicated servicemen.

You don’t send an American military plane to Europe/airbus in my opinion. This is very bad policy and poses a security risk.

A security risk?? Oh, do please elaborate. What, do you think the French might install hidden self-destruct devices in these planes, able to be triggered by remote from Paris?

[fleagle]

Okay, so you're assuming Northrop Grumman is lying. I'm not sure that's a fair assumption.

Northrop Grumman is based in Los Angeles, last time I checked. And no, the planes will not be 100% made in the U.S.A. Neither were the Boeing planes. The Boeing planes would be approx. 85% made here and the Northrop planes will be approx. 50% made here.

Evidently this deal was Boeing's to lose and they lost it.

[2CAVTrooper]

“For the A330, France is primarily the location of final assembly - the role that Mobile, Alabama will take on for KC-45.”

They’re going to build more than the KC-45 in Mobile.

The entire A330F line is moving to Mobile.

[Radio Free Tuscaloosa]

Beautifully stated, my friend. Give that man a Cohiba!

[e_castillo]

Lots of assumptions being made with our money doing the talking. I think the Air Forcee blew this.

Here’s an article with some information on logistics worth looking at:
http://leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn062907.pdf

“Tanker Win Moves Airbus Freighter To U.S.” This should read “Tanker win should move unproven airframe to US(Where Taxpayers have plenty of money to toss down ratholes)”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/TANK03038.xml