Congressman Tiahrt petition re: KC-X Tanker

Seems the Boeing people cant accept like a election result when dodne that they LOST.

Boeing has obviously the inferior product, so they have to accept that after 2 rounds of KC-Xing now ...

If everyone whineged and carried on then since 1945 ---NO--- USAF program would of seen the light of day if this group is a guide.

Canberra, Harrier, C-23, AU-23, T-6 Texans etc are all foreign stuff made of or made in US with foreign parts .. so i guess history is wrong? Cant have foreign stuff made flying with US colours?

EADS is not French controlled, so some people should do some reading its a GLOBAL company much like BOEING is. EADS is mainly France based but built from all over. 787 aint wholly USA built but everyone claims to tjhnk cause it made at Seattle is will be...

Boeing and the US can easily withold supplies to ANY country like the EADS firms could do if things got hot under collar. Hell how many embargoes has the US got in current? North Korea, Iran, recently taken off was Indoesnia etc.

Open your eyes and see around before slagging either US or NMIUS concept.

[dhfan]

I'm not joining in the argument as I feel exactly the same when we buy US or any other foreign aircraft.

However, I keep seeing Boeing releases saying thay've been building tankers for 75 years. I make that 1933. I can't find any references to Boeing building tankers that long ago...

[CAPFlyer]

CAPFlyer, I'm not arguing the "fairness" of the deal.

I'm arguing end-game capability. I don't care if they change location of the target every minute...so long as the end product shacks that target.

People are letting emotions get in the way of logically looking at the reasons the decision was made.

Randy, my point is how do we know that the USAF got the "best product"? Since they changed the rules by which the competition was judged without telling the competitors, how can you (or anyone) definitively say that had Boeing known that a 777-based tanker would be accepted that it would not be the better one to buy. That's the point I am making and that Boeing is making.

Same goes for the CSAR-X. What if Sikorsky had offered a USAF version of the new H-53 that is being built for the USMC? It may have been the victor in the CSAR-X competition, but then again, the H-53 is a heavy lift helicopter and the RFP clearly called for a medium-lift helicopter. My point is that the "best" aircraft may not have been selected since the rules by which the "best" was selected was not the same as the rules by which the companies were told to play by.

BTW, Saberdriver, if the roles were reversed and EADS/NG offered the A310MRTT and Boeing offered a KC-777, I probably would have complained that "yet again" the politicos picked the less-capable aircraft when another, better aircraft, was available. I still think the decision to buy the F-22 was stupid. The aircraft wasn't ready and its competitor was much more maneuverable and capable to be in production 10 years prior to the F-22 even back then because it was a lower-risk design that used more off-the-shelf components and didn't suffer from the weight gain that the YF-22 had. The point here is that the military isn't following its own rules and because of that, the opprotunity for the better aircraft to be acquired was lost because the field wasn't just unbalance, it was totally hidden from the competitors.

[JDK]

Soo... Boeing lost track/were lied to/misled by the air force about what was wanted, while Airbus provided what was accepted but wasn't on the original ticket?

If Boeing were genuinely surprised by a real change in parameters, then someone at Boeing wasn't playing footsie closely enough, surely? This is b i g deals, big organisations. If they aren't 'reality checking' as they go, someone's screwed up.

There's a big missing piece in that jigsaw picture to me.

Nearly as mystifying as why this is in the WIX Hangar rather than in the right forum, and why I'm posting on it. (Ah, the latter is because it's past my bed time. Idiot. Ta ta!)

[skybolt2003]

In today's NY Times (which I'm sure all of you read . . .) the lead editorial is about this subject. They contend that the EADS ofering is more capable and that it would be a big mistake to overturn the decision for political reasons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opini ... ref=slogin

[Mark Nankivil]

In the end, there will be winner and there will be a loser. Either way, Boeing or Northrop/EADS would be talking sour grapes - Boeing is the one doing it now.

Since this is the first step in a longer acquisition process, I would hope that Boeing would figure out what they did wrong and get it right next time around. By then the 787 may be a viable basis for a new tanker or the advantages shown by the A330MRRT/KC-45A and its size will show the 777 is the way to go. Add to that, I think it makes plenty of sense to not have all of your tanker assets being the same airframe. Imagine if what happened to the F-15A/B/C/D recently was instead the KC-135. All our tanking needs being covered by 50+ KC-10s? Good luck!

Time will tell....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

[CAPFlyer]

If Boeing were genuinely surprised by a real change in parameters, then someone at Boeing wasn't playing footsie closely enough, surely? This is b i g deals, big organisations. If they aren't 'reality checking' as they go, someone's screwed up.

James,

Re-read the public statement by Boeing's CEO yesterday on page 2. If they can substantiate the claim that the USAF told them not to offer the 777, then they have a case for overturning the decision and either re-bidding it or splitting the contract because I just think it's totally unacceptable for the Air Force to claim to be holding a "fair" competition and then unfairly stack the deck like that. It's the same with the Boeing HH-47 contract. I still think it was unfairly awarded and that the Air Force either needs to fess up and pay up to Lockheed and Sikorsky for awarding the contract in violation of their own parameters or they re-bid the contract and stick to their own RFP instead of arbitrarily changing the requirements that they're judging the competition by without informing the participants of the change. It's called accountability. As of right now, the USAF is not being held accountable for their failure to either a) create an RFP with goals that are accurate to their need or b) to follow the rules set forth for DoD acquisitions that requires them to fully disclose the evaluation metrics and requirements to the bidders and notify them fully of any changes to those metrics and requirements with sufficient time to adjust their proposals for those changes.

[RickH]

I know of a signed agreement between a private party and the USAF that is not being honored by the USAF. Their position ? The office that executed the agreement wasn't authorized to sign the contract. Real honorable folks, they seem to think that contractual obligations can either be followed or ignored as it suits them because they have the big stick. Using that type of criteria, no contract signed by the USAF is worth the paper it's written on.

[bdk]

Using that type of criteria, no contract signed by the USAF is worth the paper it's written on.

The can be demonstrated by the fact that this contract was already won twice by Boeing, once for a lease and once for a purchase.

Airbus protested that they were being unfairly treated because of the aircraft size put forth in the specification, so then the USAF changed the specification to include the proposed Airbus aircraft. Now Airbus won, is anyone surprised?

[Randy Haskin]

I still think the decision to buy the F-22 was stupid. The aircraft wasn't ready and its competitor was much more maneuverable and capable to be in production 10 years prior to the F-22 even back then because it was a lower-risk design that used more off-the-shelf components and didn't suffer from the weight gain that the YF-22 had.

Not arguing your point made here, because there is certainly a case that this has happened, but the use of the ATF competition as an example is WAY off base.

The YF-22 and YF-23 is a topic I just happen to know a bit about, and it is NOT true that the F-23 was more maneuverable. The YF-22 was considerably MORE maneuverable. It was in the "stealth" factor that the YF-23 had an advantage.

[RickH]

But Randy, you gat to admit the YF-23 ranked way up their in the cool factor ! Not sure how that would help you in a firefight but it probably counts for sumthin !

[Randy Haskin]

But Randy, you gat to admit the YF-23 ranked way up their in the cool factor ! Not sure how that would help you in a firefight but it probably counts for sumthin !

Yeah, I agree that the '23 was pretty badassed looking. I especially liked the "black widow" paintscheme.

[skymstr02]

The can be demonstrated by the fact that this contract was already won twice by Boeing, once for a lease and once for a purchase.

Airbus protested that they were being unfairly treated because of the aircraft size put forth in the specification, so then the USAF changed the specification to include the proposed Airbus aircraft. Now Airbus won, is anyone surprised?

I deal with Government contracts on a daily basis is my job. Ammending the RFP is not new. Boeing had expended a lot of time and energy on the 767, and was not going to develop another aircraft that fit the new specs. They were betting on the 767 already fitted with a boom would be a shoe in. The Northrop Grumman proposal excelled in all parameters. Basically the Air Force awarded the bid to the best candidate.

The Government also uses past performance in selecting a contractor, and with two of Boeings exec's in jail for the leasing fiasco is not a good thing.

[bdk]

March 07, 2008
Boeing: Uncertainty About Process Remains After Air Force Tanker Debrief
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.”

[bdk]

The Government also uses past performance in selecting a contractor, and with two of Boeings exec's in jail for the leasing fiasco is not a good thing.

Nobody went to jail with respect to the lease agreement. John McCain was instrumental in undoing this AGREEMENT because he felt Boeing was making too much money on it. Apparently USAF procurement officials are a bunch of rubes that don't know how to negotiate in their own best interest and can easily be sold a bad bill of goods. Perhaps the same ones who just made this new decision?

If past performance precluded a win by Boeing, why would they bother to even respond to the proposal? Boeing has already paid millions in fines and lost work over this. When is Boeing going to be forgiven? Ever? How does Boeing redeem itself? Boeing has spent millions of thier own profits on training programs on ethics, far above and beyond what anyone else in the defense industry has done, to prove over and over that ethical lapses will not be tolerated by anyone from the highest executive to the lowliest engineer.