Posted on 06/19/2008 12:37:30 PM PDT by SW6906
The month of June has been one that EADS will be hoping ends quickly.
Starting with the arrest of Noel Forgeard, former co-CEO, the stock being branded a liability; by Joe Campbell and then just this week the arrest of another executive, the news that the US GAO had sided with Boeing in its protest of the KC-X tanker award will have left the European aerospace company reeling.
You can read the GAO press release by clicking right here.
From the very outset of the annoucement back in February 2008, Boeing’s view and position surrounding the protest had such conviction that today’s ruling will only come as a shock to EADS and its partner on the KC-45A tanker (based on the Airbus A330), Northrop Grumman.
The belief that the US Air Force selection would be overruled was evident in the way Boeing methodically laid out its protest in regular updates in its dedicated blog, Tanker Facts, found here.
“Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. We therefore sustained Boeing’s protest,” said the GAO’s Michael R. Golden.
Senator Patty Murray was equally forceful in her support of both the GAO ruling and that of Boeing: (Courtesy of Seattle-PI)
“The GAO did not, and could not, consider the key policy issues this contract raises – such as illegal subsidies, real-world operating costs, economic impacts, and the importance of maintaining our most critical advantage: innovation through American defense-oriented research and development.
“It is Congress’ job to determine whether major defense purchases meet the needs of our warfighter and deserve taxpayer funding. The Pentagon must both justify its decision and address the flawed process that led to today’s ruling.
“We need answers before handing billions of American defense dollars to a subsidized, foreign company focused on dismantling the American aerospace industry.“
One thing is certain, the decision to overturn the initial award has likely destroyed whatever chances EADS had of using the pretentious cover of the KC-45A to shift production of its popular Airbus A330 jet to the USA and avoid the pitfalls of the currency woes that have wreaked havoc with its pricing and profitability.
In doing so, Airbus will not be able to shift any European work outside of the EU without infuriating staff, voters and a variety of EU governments that had recently been asked to stump up yet more subsidies for the A350XWB. With the WTO also due to rule on the transatlantic row over subsidies, the GAO’s decision is one in a long line of injuries that EADS will have to suffer.
While it derives almost 80% of its business via its Airbus unit, any tanker loss is not as bad as it may seem and EADS will manage to cope without penetrating the US military market for now.
The reality is that EADS has very little, if any credibility left to contest the award again - and even if it does, there is a slim-to-none chance that it would even win second time around. And while all this happens, the US Air Force is the one party that suffers most.
In searching for a tanker and choosing so poorly, it has only itself to blame while it waits for an outcome.
Is the recent shake up of top Air Force brass by Sec. Gates in any way related to the tanker fiasco?
WA Ping
Some are speculating that, but I haven’t seen any concrete evidence.
Ping!
I’m fairly sure it was related specifically to the USAF handling of nukes, of late.
Ping!
I'll check back later.
Is the recent shake up of top Air Force brass by Sec. Gates in any way related to the tanker fiasco?
It would also be interesting to know whether any of the upper echelon Pentagon guys who had input on that tanker contract have Swiss bank accounts...
Exactly, our hope in that case is that their accounts were with Bear Stearns.
Can somebody explain to me why the mucks in the AF wanted this to happen so badly that they, well, what the hell would you call it? Uhm, were deceptive I guess? What is the motive here, I just don’t get it.
I’m more interested in the congresscritters with Boeing stock and freebies.
There are some of those, no doubt. However, the good of having Boeing build the tankers outweighs that consideration, IMO.
Don't forget that Little Tommy Daschle's wife was lobbyist for Boeing the first time the AF solicited proposals and bids for tankers.
And that some Boeing people got caught greasing some palms, iirc.
Just like Boeing’s attempted lease scam would have worked.
Nobody ever points out the Boeing execs fired or put in jail over that one ;)
Yeah, but it’s American greed! See? (laugh)
LOL
Our greedy politicians are better than your greedy politicians!
EADS? Boeing are the side that lost the tender, and have been whining to their paid-up minions in Congress every since. Boeing tried to insert their spare 767 capacity into the tender and ended up offering a smaller plane than EADS.
What a biased article. I bet the article-writer owns Boeing stock.
I concur.
[The keyword "aerospace" has been added to this article. If anyone happens to come across an article that would interest the aerspace community, please tag it! If you want to read articles relating to aerospace then search for the keyword aerospace. You can then bookmark the page for easy future reference.
Now you can even add "aerospace" to your sidebar! Click on the keyword search link above, then click on the pulldown menu for"Sidebar Placement:" and choose "Right." Thanks!]
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.