Boeing Tanker Protest Sustained!!!!!

Iclo · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:20 am

Ok, start by list the requirements not provided by the EADS product...

mrcrazy · **Joined:** Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:39 am **Posts:** 7

skymstr02 wrote:

Iclo wrote:

The reality is really simple: you don't want the good product, you want an US product.
Point at the line...

Be honest and assume this fact...

The whole issue boils down to the fact that the A330 (KC-45) fails to meet all of the requirements of the proposal, and that you feel that the Americans should relax those requirements to give the A330 (KC-45) an unfair edge. Did I get that right?

That's because the requirement was changed on so many occasions to ensure that the Boeing bid won. That's OK, by the way. I’m sure that the next time someone does something like that and the American bid fails, you’ll be quite happy with that decision. Kind of like when that cheating b*stard punched the ball during the England international football game and scored by cheating. I think his first name is Ginger Paul.

the330thbg · **Joined:** Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:06 pm **Posts:** 2713

The Inspector wrote:

:lol:

So, his keyboard DOES work.., he just chose to 'sit this one out'!

I did not realize that this forum is so chock full of nationalistic 'rednecks'.

Embarrassed to be associated with it sometimes., and remember Europe.., America is made up of the worlds rejects and cast aways. So cut us some slack. I know when we lost the first tanker battle to EADS.., Boeing was so upset that they called for a 'do-over'. :lol:

.., and now when EADS team cries 'foul'., the US is laughing., such a double standard.

We use that a lot over here throughout our history.., over and over and over.., as long as it suits us and lines our pockets.., oops! :rolleyes:

Not that Boeing does not have a very solid product.., but the means that these type of contracts are awarded.., throughout the defense industry is nothing but shameless.

mrcrazy · **Joined:** Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:39 am **Posts:** 7

the330thbg wrote:

The Inspector wrote:

:lol:

So, his keyboard DOES work.., he just chose to 'sit this one out'!

I did not realize that this forum is so chock full of nationalistic 'rednecks'.

Embarrassed to be associated with it sometimes., and remember Europe.., America is made up of the worlds rejects and cast aways. So cut us some slack. I know when we lost the first tanker battle to EADS.., Boeing was so upset that they called for a 'do-over'. :lol:

.., and now when EADS team cries 'foul'., the US is laughing., such a double standard.

We use that a lot over here throughout our history.., over and over and over.., as long as it suits us and lines our pockets.., oops! :rolleyes:

Not that Boeing does not have a very solid product.., but the means that these type of contracts are awarded.., throughout the defense industry is nothing but shameless.

Rather a good statement.

aeroeng · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:48 pm

Here's a pretty decent article from a fairly reliable source on why Boeing won the contract.

aeroeng

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/ta ... ?ShowAll=1

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

Sorry, but we must discount this report because you are in St. Louis, which not only is in the USA, but is a location in which Boeing operates a facility and could potentially profit.

davidbray · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:01 pm

Alrighty then... I tried to stay away and stay calm. But I have a visitation to go to tonight followed tomorrow morning by a funeral for a 17 year old, so I'm in a bit of a pissy mood.

Iclo and everyone else who doesn't know why the Air Force decided on the smaller 767... I have one quote from the above article.

Quote:

Price was defined to include not only the cost of production, but also the cost of operating the tankers over a 40-year service life. Once the competitive landscape was arranged in that manner, the excessive fuel burn of the bigger A330 became a definite drag on EADS' proposal. The company could tap European subsidies to defray the costs of production, but the Air Force would still be stuck with billions of dollars in unnecessary fuel expenditures to operate such a sizable airframe.

There were other costs, too, in operating the bigger plane, such as the need to rebuild hangers and runways to accommodate larger dimensions, but fuel burn probably was the dominant concern.

So let me get this straight... in order to buy the EADS offer... we had to rebuild hangars, extend runways AND buy more fuel per flight?? Earlier it said that -135's are coming back with fuel left to give, so why on earth do we need something that much bigger??

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:21 pm

David - this may explain it better -

http://www.defensein...nker-rfp-03009/

Quote:

Feb 24/11: Boeing wins Round 2. The “KC-46A” win surprises many aerospace analysts, who expected an EADS win based on leaks that EADS had scored beter in the USAF’s models, and expectations they could price their planes lower. The Pentagons says that both candidate aircraft met all required criteria, but Boeing’s adjusted price was over 1% less than Airbus’. That meant the USAF did not consider various “non-mandatory” bonus criteria, which could only have made a difference of up to 1%.

(Emphasis added)

If you read up in the article about "Round 2", it explains the "Total Adjusted Price" and why it's important to the competition in detail, but yes, basically because the cost of the KC-45A was going to be more than 1% higher than the KC-767 over it's life, Boeing won.

aeroeng · **Posted:** Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:20 am

bdk wrote:

Sorry, but we must discount this report because you are in St. Louis, which not only is in the USA, but is a location in which Boeing operates a facility and could potentially profit.

agent86 · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 3:57 am **Posts:** 926

isnt EADS bankrolled by their respective governments, which lets them sell for a lower price?

262crew · **Joined:** Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:24 pm **Posts:** 877

EADS won’t protest U.S. tanker contract
Air Force award goes to Boeing, putting dispute to rest

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eads-w ... _news_stmp

airnutz · **Posted:** Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:57 pm

Finally!!! What a long strange trip it's been...Yippee!!!

Hemiman · **Posted:** Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:47 pm

As in the other posting, I'm glad to see Boeing got the nod! As to the comment that Airbus might have offered a version of the A-300-600R, all the AF would of had to do, was come to Tulsa and ask the guys (I'm one of them) who worked on that plane for their opinions. I don't think the AB people would have liked the responses.

Bill

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11324

You just don't like Airbus because you are a racist! :lol:

Hemiman · **Posted:** Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:40 am

Well.... it did make me some good overtime paychecks!!!

Warbird Information Exchange

Boeing Tanker Protest Sustained!!!!!

Who is online