The lost Boeing contract
 

I am all for doing whatever we can to keep jobs in the US but not at the expense of quality. From what I have heard Boeing failed to meet any of the 5 benchmarks laid out in the bidding process. The AF is required by law not to consider anything but quality and mission, not the economics. The military has been required to abide by these standards for years. And now they want to change the rules and drop the contract from AirBus in favor of Boeing. I am not fond of anything made in France but if it is a better plane then we need to go with it. And it is not like we have not had or used quality product from Northrop Grumman.

Anyway, here is a NYT article that discusses some of the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/bu...boeing.html?hp

It should be interesting to watch this play out. Boeing was awarded the contract and Northrop Grumman/EADS protested.
Now they awarded the contract to Northrop, and Boeing is calling foul.
And so it goes.

Using patriotism as a cover for shoddy quality is just plain shameful.

Moving goalposts
 

Boeings argument on a pbs program the other night was that in initial stages they offered a larger plane, but were discouraged and encouraged to offer something smaller, lower load capacity, range etc. so they tendered this and were told they lost out to Airbus becuase their range, load capacity etc wasn't as high. :yelsick:

The people who decide on the finished project aren't always the same as those who provided feedback along the way. Sometimes they are the same people who have just changed their minds.

The contract should go to the firm that produced the best product at the best value. ( not necessarily lowest price)

Who said anything about shoddy quality?

Yes, but any contract put up for bid, by the government or a private party, must be spelled out as to the goals/requirements for all bidders in advance.

Nobody. I was just spouting off poorly-formed opinions based on partial information and wild conjecture.

I was responding more, I think, to the "Buy American" sentiment that runs through the auto industry. I have no idea if that's what's going on here or not.

That notion went out many years ago to the informed consumer. They make F-150's in Canada and Toyota's in Tenn. So many parts come from all over the world. No American cars are truely American any more.

True, and many Hondas are made right here in Ohio.

Your point was accurate. Boeing's 767 production line is diminishing due to superior competition. Boeing wanted corporate welfare to prop up the 767 by assuming Boeing will always get tanker contracts.

Boeing was using corruption at the highest levels of management and in the Air Force to win the contract previously. Corruption so flagrant that top Boeing management was removed. Still, if Boeing was making their best offer, then Boeing would have proposed a 777 tanker. But that product line has plenty of customers - does not need corporate welfare. Boeing did not want to convert a 767 production line to make superior 777s. Boeing hoped to automatically win the tanker contract to maintain a diminishing 767 production line - to avoid retooling by using corporate welfare. Boeing was not offering the better product. Boeing wanted government to protect a slowly dying product line.

Does not matter where the product is built or assembled. Those who believe in free markets buy the best. Those who promote 'buy American' only promote the destruction of American jobs.

More complete and utter bullshit. They lost the contract. The AF top management did their job and did it well. The chose the best airframe regardless of who built it or where it was built.

So why did so many top Boeing management and top Air Force officials who made the selection forced to resign and suffer possible prosecution? TheMercenary is again denying while forgetting to first obtain knowledge. He apparently did not bother to read what was posted and learn of the history of that tanker contract. Knowing without first learning.