did both companies get the same set of specs??? since one is obviously so much bigger than the other, did they both just tankerize what they wanted to offer???
Posted on 03/07/2008 4:00:03 PM PST by Yo-Yo
ST. LOUIS, March 07, 2008 -- The U.S. Air Force has completed a debriefing for The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] during which acquisition officials sought to explain why they selected a team of Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) for a contract to replace aerial refueling tankers.
The debriefing on Friday came one week after the Air Force's surprising announcement that it had chosen the Northrop-EADS team over the Boeing KC-767 tanker offering.
"We spent several hours with Air Force leaders, listening and probing, all in an effort to better understand the reasoning behind their decisions," said Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president and program manager of the KC-767 tanker. "While we are grateful for the timely debriefing, we left the room with significant concerns about the process in several areas, including program requirements related to capabilities, cost and risk; evaluation of the bids and the ultimate decision.
"What is clear now is that reports claiming that the Airbus offering won by a wide margin could not be more inaccurate," said McGraw.
Boeing officials said that they will take the next few days to evaluate the data presented and will give serious consideration to filing a protest.
"Our plan now is to work through the weekend to come to a decision on our course of action early next week," said McGraw. "It will be a very rigorous and deliberative process to ensure we're balancing the needs of the warfighter with our desire to be treated fairly. For decades Boeing has been recognized as a defense company that never takes lightly protests of our customers' decisions."
That’s the disadvantage of being sole airliner manufacturer in America. Why they even put for bidding in the first place?
Boeing should have this contract and not the Euroweenies who hate us and who are colluding with the Chinese to undermine our economy.
You need to review how big of stake Northrop/Grumman has in the defense of our nation.
Boeing needs to come up to speed on a number of things to remain competitive in this market.
If Boeing execs are too dimwitted to understand the debriefing, how can we expect them to be smart enough to build a plane. Boeing figured they were a shoe in and submitted a crappy bid. Oh well, maybe next time. Now the babies are going to file a protest.
I agree. This should have been a ‘sole source’ contract (It’s not like we don’t do it with other national security contracts). Rewarding Europe and France (who wouldn’t even let us use their airspace for our military operation against Quaddafi) is outrageous.
Had Boeing taken their collective heads out of their pompus and monopoly-spoiled tails, they might have been able to compete.
But by the info released so far - Northrop offered more plane, more reliable schedule, and value for the dollars.
And when you consider that a large % of Boeing’s products are also outsourced all over the world, I am sick of the “Buy American” junk.
Northrop-Grumman is an American company...with European partners.
Am I concerned about national security? Certainly. Do I wish that Boeing (or an even more “American” company) could have won the contract - yes. But take a look at our aircraft industry - pretty limited now.
Boeing: Uncertainty About Process Remains After Air Force Tanker Debrief ~ boeing is like the lib/dems....they want a re-vote!!!
did both companies get the same set of specs??? since one is obviously so much bigger than the other, did they both just tankerize what they wanted to offer???
The requirements were for a minimum cargo capacity able to land on runway of a certain length.
Both met the specs, the Airbus bid was bigger and more expensive—but evidently cheaper on a $/cargo capacity basis.
“acquisition officials sought to explain why “
How hard is “they won, you lost” to understand.
Boeing has made a horrible hash of many recent Fedgov contracts (virtual fence $30Bn down the tube — TSA bomb detectors, fraud & overpayment — and the infamous Army Future Combat Systems, $125 Bn up in smoke, I could go on, but you get the idea) .
I *am* having trouble getting my head around the ‘risk’ part...
They have already delivered tankers to Japan - so it seem that it is a production item - COTS, if you will
[ST. LOUIS, March 05, 2008 — The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] Monday delivered the second Japan KC-767 Tanker to the Itochu Corp. for Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF), two weeks after delivering the first refueling aircraft to the Japanese military.
“We are thrilled to have followed our first delivery on Feb. 19 with this second KC-767 Tanker delivery on schedule,” said George Hildebrand, Boeing KC-767 Japan program manager. “This second tanker will add significantly to Japan’s military refueling capabilities.”
The KC-767 made the 13-hour non-stop flight to Gifu, Japan, near Nagoya, from Wichita, Kan., near Boeing’s tanker modification center. Itochu will deliver the KC-767 Tanker to the Japan Ministry of Defense following in-country acceptance processes.
Japan has ordered four convertible freighter 767s, providing flexibility in carrying cargo or passengers while maintaining its primary role as an aerial refueling tanker. It features Boeing’s advanced aerial refueling boom and Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO II) system. Boeing is scheduled to deliver the remaining two refueling aircraft in 2009 and 2010. ]
But this deal should be more appropriately referred to as an EADS company deal with an American partner. EADS is making the big parts, you know with wings and fuselage. The American part, Northrop, is a face to make it more palatable to some Americans.
What part of “Northrup/EADS proposed the better solution” is Boeing having problems understanding?
“If Boeing execs are too dimwitted to understand the debriefing, how can we expect them to be smart enough to build a plane”
_____________________________________________________
Although it quotes them as saying “we left the room with significant concerns about the process in several areas” that does mean that they did not understand the debriefing.
The thousands of planes in the air and #1 market position would suggest that they certainly are “smart enough to know” how to build planes.
And on what basis do you conclude that Boeing “submitted a crappy bid”?
It appears you like to express your opinions without bothering to know the facts.
thx...
You don’t know what your talking about. Northrop is responsible for all final assembly, system integration, The airframe is not going to be the most expensive part of this program. Northrop Grumman employees are just as american as boeings, and they will do the job without greedy union employees. NG sells E2-C hawkeyes to france FYI and they are not cheap. Do you hear the them screaming about it? Or the hundreds of fighters, freighters and helicopters that boeing and lockheed sell to the europeans.
Boeings 767 tanker was delivered 2yrs behind schedule. They are pretty arogant for a company that holds a monoply for commercial aircraft in the usa.
Anybody know why Boeing ddin’t use the 777 platform?
I’d say that the fact that they got their a$$ handed to them supports the fact that it was a crappy bid.
Huh?
Contract debriefings are designed to justify the decision - as far as you can get from explaining it.
Ability to "Build a plane" is easily confirmed with way over 50% of the airline tickets you've purchased lately.
"Shoe in" might have benefited from spell check - oops - spell check only tells you that 'shoe' is spelled correctly.
Did you read the 'crappy bid'?. I didn't but I'd suggest that the bid had little to do with the decision...Boeing lost the contest when AF/DOD axed their lease offer.
"Babies / whine.." - that would only be the second delay in re procurement of aerial tankers, Boeing may have been the victim in both cases.
Because they were not satisfied with trying to bilk the American taxpayer with their first try at this contract, they wanted to stick the taxpayer with the total cost of the maintenance facility on a dead line of aircraft. They probably would have won if they had used the 777 but the fact that they could not have delivered it in time due to backlogs kind of forced their hand.
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.