Congressman Tiahrt petition re: KC-X Tanker

[CAPFlyer]

MacDac and now Boeing have been offering the C-17 for civilian purchase since the get-go. No one's bit yet. Why? Because you can get an IL-76 on wet lease from an Eastern European country of your choice for 1/3 the cost of a C-17. Until the market becomes unsaturated of former Soviet airlifters, the sales of US-built (and even Western European built) outsized transporters in the civilian market will be very slim.[/code]

[Randy Haskin]

That's the problem. They had a signature on the bottom line. Not once, but twice. They twice started ramping up with a contract in hand only to have the contract in hand get yanked out from that hand and told "we don't like the contract so we're going to redo it". It's government strong-arm tactics out of control.

Brother, don't forget it was the GAO that threw up the bullsh*t flag.

The USAF didn't reneg on the deal simply because its whims changed.

[bdk]

Speaking of the C-17, why doesn't Boeing staff up for civillian C-17 production in Long Beach? This way, they could keep that line open too.

The same staff that builds the C-17 now will build BC-17 and Foreign Military Sales aircraft.

[262crew]

Its funny to me when I read posts and replies about how old and archaic the 767 is yes it was designed in the early 80's and yes the A330 is "new" in design what makes the "new" A330's design such a selling point to all of you?
Lets do a check list this is A330 vs B767
1) Wings.... made of metal...check
2) Fuselage..... made of metal...check
3) Horizontal..... made of metal...check
4) Vertical....made of composite and metal...check
5) Flight controls...made of composites and metal...check
6) Cockpit in the front...check
7) Pilot can fly from left or right seat...check
Power plants under wings...check
9) Fuel boom located in the aft...check
10) Tires made of rubber...check
So the "new design" of the A330 is not so new after all. If you want to trace the design all the way back to the start I would start by looking at the Heinkel He-280, power plant under wing tricycle gear configuration.

[bdk]

ST. LOUIS, March 10, 2008 -- As the deadline nears for a decision on whether to protest a U.S. Air Force contract award for the next refueling tanker aircraft, officials at Boeing [NYSE: BA] spent the weekend evaluating with growing concern the information provided by the Air Force during a Friday debriefing.

"As we have gone through this process it has become clearer that this competition was much closer than has been reported, and that raises the stakes if the process was flawed and unfair in any way," said Mark McGraw, Boeing vice president and program manager for tanker programs. "We have serious concerns over inconsistency in requirements, cost factors and treatment of our commercial data."

As Boeing enters the final phase of its evaluation, the company is taking exception to reports that the Air Force had not received adequate commercial pricing data from the company. "It was clear from the Request for Proposals that the Air Force was seeking a commercial derivative tanker. However, by treating the Boeing offering as a military aircraft, the process by which the commercial cost/price data provided by Boeing Commercial Airplanes was evaluated has raised significant concerns," McGraw said. "We provided unprecedented insight into Boeing commercial cost/price data that had been developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft. We believe this data was treated differently than our competitor's information.

"It is also important to note that the task of assembling and presenting this commercial data to the Air Force demonstrates the value of cooperation on this program within one company," McGraw added. "This is in sharp contrast to the higher risk involved in two companies from different countries and business cultures who have never worked together on a program of this size before."

Boeing is also responding to assertions that the company somehow misread Air Force requirements for the new tanker. "Our proposal was based on the stated criteria in the Air Force's Request for Proposal, with a specific focus on providing operational tanker capability at low risk and the lowest total life cycle cost," McGraw said. "We stand by our offering and believe that it did, and continues to, best meet the requirements.

"We take a protest very seriously," McGraw said. "For decades, Boeing has been recognized as a defense company that never takes lightly protests of our customers' decisions. We are following a very rigorous and deliberative process to ensure that we are comfortable that the evaluation was fair, and that ultimately it resulted in the tanker that is best suited to meet the needs of the warfighter."

[bdk]

March 10, 2008
Boeing To File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award
Boeing announced Monday March 10 that the company will file a formal protest on Tuesday asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the U.S. Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial refueling tankers.

“Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal,” said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer. “This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously.”

Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7, Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its tanker award. A rigorous analysis of the Air Force evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led Boeing to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.

“Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force’s Request for Proposal,” McNerney said. “We look forward to the GAO’s review of the decision.”

Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday, March 11.

[bdk]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/03/when_frogs_fly.asp

When Frogs Fly
Amy Butler has a fantastic post up over at Ares on the competition for the Air Force's next tanker. The competition pits the all-American Boeing against rival Northrop Grumman, which has teamed with EADS North America to propose a design based on the Airbus A330.

The Air Force's urgent need for a new fleet of tankers has been causing embarrassment in all quarters since 2001, when Senator McCain first complained that a quietly arranged deal to lease 100 aircraft from Boeing--rather than go through the messy oversight process of a purchase--didn't pass "the sniff test." McCain's one man crusade against the deal finally forced the Air Force to scuttle it, and led to the resignation of Boeing CEO Phil Condit in 2003 and sent the company's CFO to jail.

The whole thing stunk, but six years later, Boeing remains the odds-on favorite to win the contract, which may end up totaling $100 billion. Why? The A330 would carry more fuel, more passengers, and more cargo than the Boeing KC-767. But the Lexington Institute's Loren Thompson still expects "Boeing to win the competition" because their plane is "a better match for the mission the way the Air Force describes it." Said Thompson, the Air Force is "primarily looking at refueling," which "tends to undercut" the bid by Airbus.

Thompson says "the Air Force separates [the refueling mission] fairly severly from the cargo mission . . . so they don't trip over each other in wartime."

But Northrop's A330 is also much more expensive--each modified A330 would cost roughly $160 million, as opposed to the $120 million price tag on the KC-767. Of course, Northrop might be willing to negotiate on the price. It's partner, EADS, can always fall back on massive subsidies from European governments. Thompson says that, at the end of the day, he "suspect[s] they will underbid" Boeing because they "don't operate under the same business practices." Meaning they don't have to worry so much about turning a profit--Airbus "almost always underbids Boeing in commercial competition."

But the reason Boeing is likely to win the contract has more to do with politics than anything else. Airbus is a European company, and worse, it's closely connected to the French government. Would the Air Force be flying French planes if Northrop wins the contract? Well, not really. They'll actually be built in Alabama, but just because your Toyota was made in the States doesn't mean you're driving an American car.

Which brings us back to Ms. Butler's terrific post. It seems that the folks from Northrop have been sending out promotional items to hype their bid. Writes Butler,

If Northrop and EADS win the tanker, clearly the eleventh-hour decision [to bid on the contract] was worth it. If only it were the same for their swag.
It is, after all, a french.
Yes...a small, plush, green, T-shirt-wearing amphibian--the very same creature as the cultural insult hurled at Frenchmen for decades (and allegedly based on the story of French eating french legs in the field during World War II, though it later morphed into a spiteful slur). . . .
But wait, there's more. The Northrop-EADS team denies it is a french. That just wouldn't be collegial to their teammates! Instead, Northrop Grumman officials say, it's a "tanker toad"--as in the warty sort, not to be confused with their smooth-skinned cousins.
Perhaps Northrop has a slightly better aircraft, and perhaps the higher cost can be negotiated down a bit, and perhaps Boeing ought to be penalized for prior unethical conduct that was only exposed by the persistence of Senator McCain--but can the Pentagon really hand one of the largest contracts in history to EADS? To the French? Thompson says that the "French connection . . . won't have much bearing on the Air Force's decision." But on Capitol Hill, that's a different story. Thompson says that on the Hill, the French connection is likely to be a big problem.

Despite all Boeing's prior bad acts, the company has been, according to one Senate aide, "cleaner than Jesus" in this latest competition. Which means the folks in Congress can find a way to award the contract to Boeing without the appearance of any impropriety. But how could they explain sending our tax dollars to France?



Northrop's "tanker toad" and Boeing's "tanker tiger"

[Broken-Wrench]

Boeing Says It Will File Protest On KC-X Decision
Tue, 11 Mar '08

Says 'Serious Flaws' In Process Warrant GAO Intervention
ANN REALTIME REPORTING 03.11.08 0105 EDT: For better or for worse, they're gonna do it. Boeing announced early Tuesday it will file a formal protest later today, asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the decision by the US Air Force to award a contract to a team of Northrop Grumman and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) to replace aerial refueling tankers.



"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Jim McNerney, Boeing chairman, president and chief executive officer. "This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously."

Following a debriefing on the decision by the Air Force on March 7, Boeing officials spent three days reviewing the Air Force case for its tanker award. Boeing states a "rigorous" analysis of the Air Force evaluation that resulted in the Northrop/EADS contract led the American planemaker to the conclusion that a protest was necessary.

"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal," McNerney said. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."

Boeing said it would provide additional details of its case in conjunction with the protest filing on Tuesday. Stay tuned.

[bdk]

The plot thickens...

By JIM KUHNHENN and MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writers
1 hour, 26 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain said Tuesday his inquiries into a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract were designed to assure evenhanded bidding and denied they were motivated by lobbyists who are close advisers to his presidential campaign.

"I had nothing to do with the contract, except to insist in writing, on several occasions, as this process went forward, that it be fair and open and transparent," he said at a meeting with voters in St. Louis. "That was my involvement in it."

His remarks came after The Associated Press reported that some of his current advisers lobbied last year for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the parent company of plane maker Airbus. EADS and its U.S. partner Northrop Grumman Corp. beat Boeing Co. for the lucrative aerial refueling contract.

Boeing on Tuesday filed a formal protest of the tanker award with the Government Accountability Office, citing "irregularities" in the contract competition.

Two of the lobbyists working on the EADS account gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign last year. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbies for EADS and serves as McCain's national finance chairman.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, has been instrumental in the Pentagon's long attempt to complete a deal on the tanker. McCain helped block an earlier, scandal-marred tanker contract with Boeing in 2004 and prodded the Pentagon in 2006 to change proposed bidding procedures opposed by Airbus.

EADS retained The Loeffler Group to lobby for the tanker deal last year, months after McCain sent two letters urging the Defense Department to make sure the bidding proposals guaranteed competition between Boeing and Airbus.

"They never lobbied him related to the issues, and the letters went out before they were contracted" by EADS, McCain campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said.

According to lobbying records filed with the Senate, Loeffler Group lobbyists on the project included Loeffler; Susan Nelson, who left the firm and is now the campaign's finance director, and former Secretary of the Navy William Ball III, who has campaigned for McCain. EADS also had a long-term relationship with Ogilvy Government Relations, formerly known as the Federalist Group. Ogilvy lobbyist John Green, who records show worked on the EADS account, recently took a leave of absence to volunteer for McCain as the campaign's congressional liaison.

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group that has cooperated with McCain in the past on the tanker issue, said she had seen no evidence that lobbyists influenced McCain's stands on the bidding process. But she said he is judged differently because of his reputation as a self-described "straight-talking" reformer.

"McCain ends up having to live by a higher standard than everyone else because he's the one that's been pointing out how corrupt the whole Washington system is," she said. "And when he doesn't, he does hand his critics ammunition."

McCain on Tuesday said his work on the tanker was designed to keep the bidding competitive.

"I think my record is very clear on this issue, including a paper trail of letters that we wrote to the Department of Defense during this process and saying clearly and unequivocally we just want a fair process, and we don't want a repeat of the previous process," he told reporters in St. Louis. "I think my record on this issue is very clear and authenticated by both written and verbal statements on the issue."

McCain is a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics. But he has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago.

A Boeing spokesman declined to comment on the links between McCain and lobbying efforts on behalf of EADS. Loeffler did not respond to phone and e-mail messages.

But Boeing supporters, particularly in Washington state where Boeing would have performed much of the tanker work, already have begun to accuse McCain of damaging Boeing's chances by inserting himself into the tanker deal.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said the field was "tilted to Airbus" because the Pentagon did not weigh European subsidies for Airbus in its deliberations — a decision he blamed on McCain.

In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was "troubled" by the Air Force's draft request for bids.

The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.

Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. Airbus objected to the provision and asked the Pentagon to drop it in June 2006.

McCain, in his letter to Gates on Dec. 1, 2006, said the proposed bid request "may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted." The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.

Dicks, a senior member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said the removal of the subsidy language was a "game-changer" that favored EADS over Boeing.

EADS also wanted the Pentagon to factor into the bidding process the ability of the new tanker to carry cargo and passengers. The Airbus proposal called for a much bigger plane than the familiar Boeing 767 tankers currently used by the Air Force.

In his letter to Gates, McCain urged the Pentagon to write bid requests that would take into account the various capabilities of the tanker plane.

Nearly two months later, Gates replied that the Air Force had made changes "responsive to the concerns identified in your letter."

Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the EADS-Northrop Grumman plane was "clearly a better performer" than the one proposed by Boeing.

But Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that the Air Force altered its requirements at the last minute. Smith said he didn't know whether McCain had influenced the Air Force decision. "What is clear is there was a change," he said.

EADS' interest in the tanker deal is evident in the political contributions of its employees. From 2004 to 2006, donations by its employees jumped from $42,500 to $141,931, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. So far this election cycle, company employees have donated $120,350. Of that, McCain's presidential campaign has received $14,000, more than any other member of Congress this election cycle.

McCain's oversight of the tanker contract goes back to 2003 when, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and of an Armed Services subcommittee, he led an investigation that uncovered a procurement scandal that killed an earlier tanker contract with Boeing. A former Air Force official and a top Boeing executive both served time in prison, and the scandal led to the departure of Boeing's chief executive and several top Air Force officials.

While McCain has praised Boeing for fixing its practices, his campaign said the experience prompted him to demand "a full, fair and open competition." His letters — one to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England in September 2006 and the other to Gates — were sent with that spirit in mind, Hazelbaker said.

Once the rules were in place, Hazelbaker said, bidders submitted proposals, the Air Force reviewed them and the contract was awarded.

"That is a process that McCain, appropriately, had absolutely no role in," she said.

[The Inspector]

James;
Back on page 4 of this little tome, you make a very snide remark about not being able to find the industrial intellegence any more.

I teach Boeing new hires on the 787 for a local community college here in Everett. I've been in aviation since I was in A&P school in my Sophomore year in high school, that makes it just over 44 years.

Between me at age 60 teaching how to build and care about building aircraft to kids in their early 20's who have no work ethic, no work experience, and absolutely no mechanical skills, and just see Boeing as a new car, a better ipod, and most of all, just a J-O-B man(as a teen, I worked on all my cars, today you can barely find a kid whos ever opened the hood on his car) there is a Grand Canyon of lost knowledge.

During the turmoil in the industry in the 80's and early 90's as airlines went under, merged and surplussed, and folks who just got a belly full of third shift for 23 years in Detroit and left the industry to drive busses or deliver bread, as well as those who took the 'golden handshake' from Boeing and others when the manufacturers were buying out experience over everything else to lighten their bottom lines, around about 60 thousand years of skill and knowledge in building airplanes is now driving busses and delivering that bread.

Aviation is coming to a very serious crossroads and soon the ability to build any airplane will transfer to China or India where tasks are broken down so far that 9 year olds can do most jobs after 20 minutes of instruction.

So, yes, it is getting hard to find that industrial intellegence, looking for some place to place the blame? look in the mirror and be sure and see if your next Quarterly dividend is bigger than the last one---

[n5151ts]

When the last Airbus is parked in the desert, the crew will ride home in a 737.

[Robbie Roberts]

Why have I seen no mention of my KC-10A tankers? It already hauls a lot more than the KC-135... We only have about 60, but they could certainly refit and refurb the decommissioned DC-10's from the civilian side for a lot less...

Robbie

[Mike Bates]

KC-10 will be getting replaced with the KC-Z program. The KC-Y program will replace the KC-135R's. The KC-X program is only for the KC-135E's.

There is still a lot of tankers to replace so Boeing still has a chance to get a big chuck of tanker business.

The sad part is this whole mess has been going on for years now and will be dragged out longer with our crew's having to make do with old tired aircraft even longer.

Mike

[JDK]

James;
Back on page 4 of this little tome, you make a very snide remark about not being able to find the industrial intellegence any more.

I did, and maybe it was 'snide'. If a multi national like Boeing are genuinely 'surprised' by a major client, then they haven't been keeping their eye on the ball. It's as simple as that. If they were playing by the rules, and the others weren't, well, it's still tough - since when has business not been like that?

The rest of your impassioned essay seems to be devoted to intelligence as intellectual capital, rather than what I was referring to which is knowledge of the market, competitors and customer requirement by a particular business.

So, yes, it is getting hard to find that industrial intellegence, looking for some place to place the blame? look in the mirror and be sure and see if your next Quarterly dividend is bigger than the last one---

I'm self employed. The entire responsibility for JDK Corp rests with me.

As to the place of blame, part of teaching is to take raw student and inspire them. Anyone can take dedicated impassioned students and teach them 'stuff'.

For instance, I can 'just' write; if I get people to buy my stuff, then I have to write better so people pay for it. Different fields, different demands and controls, but mediocrity and disengagement have always been the easy option.

Like for farmers, it's always been tough for engineers, and we know because we are always being told by them how tough it is. I rest with bdk's signoff on that one. Sorry if that sounds blunt (it is) or unsympathetic (it isn't) but lets not pretend, that's what cause this discussion in the first place, people listening to the noise rather than looking at the facts.

Not intended to be personal, just a response to what I take as a misunderstanding.

Regards,

[The Inspector]

I agree with you that instructors need to inspire people. I like to think (coupled with what my contemporaries tell me) that I' m really interesting and knowlegable instructor who gets the information dispersed in an acceptable and useable form(I'd hope so after 44 years in the trenches).
Contrary to popular belief (plus something all the 'motivational speakers' donot want you to hear) it is impossible to motivate another human being!
You can inspire them to motivate themselves, but you cannot do it for them.

What I was getting at (and you seem to either be purposely avioding addressing the issue or should run for public office) is young people today could give a #*(@ about things mechanical. They have no motor skills, no muscle memory to operate an air powered drill, about put their eye out with a rivet die, do really dangerous and stupid things in front of bandsaw blades AFTER repeatedly being told the safety issues and being shown, including literally holding hands on a drill motor.
They are so used to sitting in front of a computer screen and virtually playing games they are pretty much incapable of functioning on a real life level, and that my friend is criminal!!!

I had one student, fresh out of High School. who's father is a senior Inspector with Boeing, so it's not like the kid don't know-this kid sat like a lump in my classes, did the bare minimum needed to pass, was always the last one to a demo and stood in the very back. This kid is now on the floor (but the first thinning of the herd is coming) but can never be found near the airplane because he is too busy 'texting' his buddies, but little can be done because right now he is in the collective bargaining unit and is protected by the Union. But it's OK, because to him, Boeing is just a J-O-B man, no McDonalds is a J-O-B. They could give a rip when you try to instill good work habits and correctness in every task, they donot care that they are screwing with a million lives every time they touch that airframe, and they wish you'd' quit harping on that man, it's gettin' old-'

Young people today are the ones that labels are put on packages of raw meat at the grocery for 'refrigerate after purchase' 'cook before eating', they are so used to having EVERYTHING handed to them by distracted adults who should be parents not just proof that their schools biology teacher was right. Turn 7, 'heres a computer' turn 9 'heres a phone', turn 16 'heres a car' they can't do anything because they don't know anything and sure don't want to hear it from you!

They find zero appeal in manual skills jobs, they all want to be 'zecutives' In the first five minutes of a new class I know who those are who are interested and want to learn and those who have things ricochet off their foreheads. I teach for and to all in the class, but if you're not paying attention, I have 40 hours of instruction materials, classroom and shop/practical to get done IN those 40 hours and, unlike public schools, have no alloted spare time to do remedial things. I eat my lunch with the class and field questions and clarify things, but those do nothings are never there, they are out in the halls calling or texting their friends about how hard this all is.

I do have my sucesses, people who a year ago couldn't tell an airplane from a glass of goats milk who WERE interested and DID learn seek me out and thank me for the instruction and information they got from my classes and how they've just made Assistant Lead or become a Team Focal, or are training to become an SME (subject matter expert)in some crucial part of the program.

My original thrust WAS, if the basic educational systems aren't overhauled soon and converted back into institutions of learning, not just push them along assembly lines, the Western world is in serious trouble! And the runaway freight train is on this track headed for you. We are in serious danger of becoming slaves to the petro states and the Asian states who can do and want to do, not ask' you wanna supersize that dude?'

ANA just signed up for an indeginous design commuter jet to be built by Mitsubishi, I wonder where on earth they got the wing design technology?