Boeing not chosen for tanker contract with US Air Force

[bdk]

Hmmmm... This isn't exactly the direction I expected this thread to go. So where did I expect it to go? I'm not quite sure, but it wasn't here. My apologies!

[APG85]

An interesting/historical decision. Will the USAF be able to buy the engineering for this plane (doubt it)? I can't imagine the pain down the road (10 - 20 years) when major structural upgrades or other modifications have to be done to these aircraft. It's hard enough (at times) working with our own companies (look at Lockheed and the J-model C-130 - changed every part number from the C-130H and retained the engineering)... The Air Force has decades of experience with Boeing (B-52, KC-135, 747, etc.). Seems like a lost opportunity that the wrench turners will pay for in the end. We'll see...

Last edited by APG85 on Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JBoyle]

You poor dumb bastard, go cry in your beer elsewhere....

Whoever you are...you're a classy guy.
Clean up your language...

[Iclo]

Only to say, that it's very disapointing to see a discussion turn to this way on this forum.
It's clear that everybody can have its own opinion on the subject.
But it's really a shame to read racist words against European people, in some replies. It's probably the result of a lack of real arguments...

[bdk]

It's clear that everybody can have its own opinion on the subject. But it's really a shame to read racist words against European people, in some replies. It's probably the result of a lack of real arguments...

I think this is a matter of national pride, not racism.

I sincerely hope that this decision was made in a fair and unbiased manner.

[Owen Miller]

I was going to let this one go, but after watching all the angry Boeing
workers "venting" on the news last night I just can't.

I was as amazed as anyone when EADS won the competition. I've
always believed we were the best in the aerospace business. Then
I reard and read the angry name calling - the "French Fries" ,implying
folks from AL and MS are somehow inferior workers, and so on.
It reminded me of something.

This stuff didn't start Fri when the Air Force made their announcement.
It started thirty years ago when people started buying Toyotas and
Hondas instead of Chevies and Fords. It started when people began
to prefer Sony over Magnavox, GE, and Curtis-Mathes. We used to
have a steel industry in this country, an optics industry, clothing and
furniture manufacturing plants. The list is endless. Remember when
Kodak was the worlds largest producer of cameras and film?

I wonder how many of those angry Boeing folks went home in their
Toyotas after their protests and turned on their Sony TVs to watch
themselves. Maybe they even took their Cannon or Minolta camera
to snap a few pix of their "Buy American" demonstration. They got
angry when it was THEIR JOB on the line. I was in the car business
for 35 years and I watched what has happened there. It was not hard
to see it elsewhere from that perspective.


At this point I don't know if the process is reversable. I sure hope
it is. But I do know one thing - we are the ones who are going to
have to stop it. We are the ones who have to build better products
and then we need to buy them. And not just airplanes folks......

If EADS has a better airplane then that's what I want Randy and our
other folks tanking from. I have reservations about the whole thing
but I believe there is a bigger lesson to learn here. We should all
heed it.

Yea, I know it's off topic but it needed to be said.

[Iclo]

It's clear that everybody can have its own opinion on the subject. But it's really a shame to read racist words against European people, in some replies. It's probably the result of a lack of real arguments...

I think this is a matter of national pride, not racism.

I sincerely hope that this decision was made in a fair and unbiased manner.

I understand the reaction of the us workers, and I don't see any problem with the majority of the posts here , except from a minority of peoples. Starting to speak about WWII, etc, is clearly an attack against European peoples. (And a completly false analyse of WW2 by the way...)
It's not possible to explain his point of view, without to be so agressive ?

When an European company decides to buy Boeing airplanes, in place of Airbus there is never so much patriotic reaction. The peoples said : "This time, Boeing was better than us, we must improve our product, etc".
One company can't achieve to win all the bids, on all the market.

Best regards...

[CAPFlyer]

When an European company decides to buy Boeing airplanes, in place of Airbus there is never so much patriotic reaction. The peoples said : "This time, Boeing was better than us, we must improve our product, etc".
One company can't achieve to win all the bids, on all the market.

Sir, I honestly hope you don't believe that.

What about the airlines both within and outside of Europe that were forced to purchase Airbus products in order to gain landing slots within Europe?

I'm sorry, but no airline has been forced to buy Boeing to operate into, from, or within the United States. Nor has any airline been penalized for operating Airbus within the United States. However, in Europe, both have happened for Boeing and McDonnell Douglas operators. Then again, no US airline is owned by the government and thus have a conflict of interest in purchase of aircraft because its government not only has a financial interest in an airline but also in a company that manufactures aircraft for those airlines...

BTW, on the subject of how much of an Airbus is built in the US, consider the fact that the vast majority of the suppliers that Airbus uses in the US also supply parts for Boeing. The majority of the major structures (wings, fuselage, landing gear, horizonta/vertical stabilizers, etc.) are manufactured and assembled in Europe. The only major structure of the A330 not built in Europe are some of the fuselage sections which are built in Korea. On the Boeing 767, the wings, fuselage, landing gear, horizontal, and vertical stabilizers are built in the US. The only parts built in Japan are the fuselage panels, aerodynamic fairings, landing-gear doors and inspar ribs (about 15% of the total structure of the aircraft).

Whatever happened to the law that said that aircraft purchased by the military had to be 75% manufactured and assembled in the US? Because as of right now, the last 2 contracts awarded by the US Military were to products built 75% outside of the US.

[Iclo]

CAPFlyer: I will be very interrested to read any real information in this way.

Each country tries to protect its industry, it's a fact but sincerly, you can say that there is more lobbying in Europe than in USA when we see the current reaction ?

If you want that American companies can sell their product to Europe, you must authorized foreign companies to sell to USA...

[CAPFlyer]

Yes, each country tries to protect it's industry, but using bully tactics like that in a blatant conflict of interest goes against every basic principle of the various "fair trade" agreements in force through the UN and economic trade groups, and it's sad to see it used with such impunity. If you have any question as to whether it's true, look at the UPS fleet. The A300's they purchased have nearly identical performance and cargo capacity as their 767-300s. Then look at the fact that they suddenly got landing slots in France and Germany that they'd been trying to get for years just after they announced the purchase of the A300s. Then look at the fact that they purchased those A300s AFTER the A300 line had been closed down for over a year. That's because the French and Germans told UPS that they would not get the landing slots they wanted unless they purchased Airbuses. UPS did so and got their slots.

And personally, your other argument doesn't fly. The restriction we're talking about here is on government acquisitions and is for the exact reason that has been stated before - to prevent a situation where the US ends up being unable to operate the purchased equipment due to a change in political relations with the country of origin of the equipment. European governments don't have to purchase US products if they don't want to, and in fact, most countries in Europe have laws similar to the US's, however those have changed in recent years due to the failure of their own governments to prevent the loss of their once strong domestic defense industries due to years of political malaise towards those industries, but it's not because of anything the US did that those industries fallowed.

[Iclo]

Tanks for you response CAPFlyer,
But do you have links to information about the Ups's A300 and landing slots ? Sincerly I found nothing about that on the web. But I agree with you, that's not impossible, and yes, it's unfair. But it's not the first time, that this technic is used by the two "opponents": example: the Concorde, and the flight restrictions in the US, (after that the American supersonic project was abandonned. )

In conclusion, all the differents countries use fair and unfair technics to protect their interests. The business world is an "jungle".

But in the currenct question, I don't see what could be the pressions coming from European countries, to "force" USAF to buy Airbus...


We have both our opinions, but I appreciated than we can discuss together about that.

Best regards.

[CAPFlyer]

I am not saying Europe forced this decision. I'm just saying that in the past Europe has used "strong arm" tactics.

As for Concorde, the restrictions were 100% due to citizen complaints as much as anything. During that time, public opinion was souring towards overland supersonic flight by the military and were definitely against civilian supersonic flight. As such, Concorde was not US bullying, it was due to civilians. The US program was canceled partially for this reason as well.

Anyway, for the A300 issue, look at the timeline of the A300 production. I don't know if Airbus puts it on their website, but if you search for "A300 production restarted" or something similar, you should find information.

[bdk]

From AvFlash:

Air Force To Fly Airbus

Anyone who thought the drawn-out battle to choose the new generation Air Force tanker aircraft ended with the Pentagon’s decision Friday to go with the Northrop-Grumman/EADS consortium likely has another think coming. "This won't be pretty," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., told The Seattle Times Saturday. "There will be a firestorm of criticism on Capitol Hill,” Dicks, whose Seattle-area district depends heavily on Boeing for its economic well-being, warned. Although the loss of the $40 billion deal is not expected to result in any job losses at Boeing, the contract would have created up to 8,000 additional jobs and kept the 767 assembly line going well beyond 2012 when the last commercial 767 is finished. It’s an election year in which the economy is in trouble and protectionist sentiments have been expressed by both Democratic presidential nomination contenders. Not only that, the leading Republican contender is remembered as the politician that killed the original contract awarded to Boeing in 2003, so it would seem the tanker issue will have pretty long legs.

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose district includes Boeing’s Wichita plant. Leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have both been trumpeting protectionist policies of late but it’s Republican front-runner John McCain who might face the most scrutiny. It was pressure from McCain that scotched a 2003 award to Boeing for a total of 100 767-based tankers. McCain alleged favoritism in the bidding process and the Pentagon rescinded the contract in 2004. Now there are allegations the most recent bidding process was changed to favor the Airbus/Northrop Grumman bid. In the end, it may well be the U.S.-first sentiment that dominates the chorus of discontent. "Obviously, Congress is going to react to the American public," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "You can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that doesn't make it American-made." Which aircraft will do the best job for the best price does not seem to figure into the current debate.

======================

French Jobs Lost By Winning Tanker Contract

Not everyone associated with the EADS/Northrop-Grumman victory in the Air Force tanker contract is celebrating. The union representing workers at EADS Toulouse factories claims the deal will cost French jobs because of the consortium’s commitment to build an assembly plant for the tankers in Mobile, Ala. In 2006, EADS agreed to build a plant in China to win contracts there and the CFDT union claims that’s chipping away at the French workforce. British unions are hailing the contract saying it will secure thousands of jobs in plants that build major structures like wings. And, of course, Mobile couldn’t be happier about the decision. Civic and state officials are portraying the contract award as turning point for the social and economic structure of the area. "The opportunities for decades to come are just so real and so big. It's really kinda hard to put it all in perspective," Congressman Jo Bonne told WKRG. The first priority is upgrading Brookley Field to accommodate the factory and the traffic it will generate.

[bdk]

Boeing Requests Immediate KC-X Tanker Briefing

ST. LOUIS, March 4, 2008 – The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today made public a request for an immediate debriefing from U.S. Air Force officials on the KC-X tanker competition.

As of today, the company has yet to receive a briefing on why it was not selected for the KC-X program, a decision the Air Force announced February 29. The Air Force has indicated that the briefing would occur on or after March 12, a delay the company says is inconsistent with well-established procurement practices.

“A delay of this length in the formal debriefing is unusual,” said Mark McGraw, vice president - 767 tanker programs. “Consistent with past practice and recent experience, we would expect this briefing to occur within days, not weeks, of the selection announcement. Given that we are already seeing press reports containing detailed competitive information, we feel that our request is more than fair and reasonable.”

Boeing viewed the tanker competition as a priority and an opportunity to give the Air Force the best tanker to meet its requirements. The company based its proposal on the stated criteria in the Air Force’s Request For Proposal (RFP), the formal document that defined the requirements for the air tanker system.

“We bid aggressively with specific focus on providing operational tanker capability at low risk and the lowest total life cycle cost,” said McGraw. “For instance, based on values disclosed in the Air Force press conference and press release, the Boeing bid, comprising development and all production airplane costs, would appear to be less than the competitor. In addition, because of the lower fuel burn of the 767, we can only assume our offering was more cost effective from a life cycle standpoint.

“Initial reports have also indicated that we were judged the higher risk offering. Boeing is a single, integrated company with its assets, people and technology under its own management control – with 75 years of unmatched experience building tankers. Northrop and EADS are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they’ve never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides. We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher risk offering.

“Initial reports also indicate there may well have been factors beyond those stated in the RFP, or weighted differently than we understood they would be, used to make the decision. It’s important for us to understand how the Air Force reached their conclusion. The questions we are asking, as well as others being raised about this decision, can best be answered with a timely debrief indicating how our proposal was graded against the stated requirements of the RFP,” said McGraw.

[JDK]

As for Concorde, the restrictions were 100% due to citizen complaints as much as anything. During that time, public opinion was souring towards overland supersonic flight by the military and were definitely against civilian supersonic flight. As such, Concorde was not US bullying, it was due to civilians. The US program was canceled partially for this reason as well.

Sorry, I don't buy that, the timeline doesn't work. Certainly there was a backlash against supersonic airliners and noisy aircraft, but Boeing's effort was dead in the water, and there was a clear 'we aren't having a foreign SST' approach taken by many of the US lobby groups. The only overland SST flights in continental USA were a few by Braniff, and I'm not buying they caused a backlash. If the Boeing SST had survived to service, then, while it might have been (probably) crippled by the limitations of the changed market demand, anti-noise protest, and fuel costs, I'd bet that US airlines would have flown a US SST, at the least across the Atlantic and Pacific. The investment, plus the 'invented here' scenario meant it would've happened, IMHO. American's aren't quitters.

I'm afraid that while I often try and see the other guys point of view, squeals of unfair competition and other people using strong arm tactics from my US friends gets scant interest. I've seen US business doing that in Europe, the UK, Australasia and Canada. (Have a look at US beef and lumber lobying with Canada, the dubious flooding of the Canadian market with US content mags and media.) I'm not saying that makes America or Americans 'bad', or everyone else 'good', but there's been a half century of economic and military leverage the US has taken advantage of. Ask anyone outside the US what they think, and it'll be 'so what, about time'. No one likes the imperial power.

While I like bdk's restraint and comments about how he hopes it's a decision made on the right criteria, that's kind of amusing too. It's a defens/ce contract. The right gear for the guys in the front line is the bottom criteria. It has been throughout the history of civilisation. Had a look at the postwar history of bribery and corruption at Lockheed for instance? (A fine example of US advantage overseas. Thank heavens we didn't but the F-104) The still secret BAe Saudi investigation? If it were a 'good' decision, it'd be a first.

Just my opinion.