The lost Boeing contract

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw's been reading to many scandal sheets.

On Boeing's end, it was two employees, and on the governments end one woman in the pentagon, that were colluding to find employment at Boeing for the woman after she left the government. Also, the Boeing people gave jobs to the womans two children. Both Boeing people and the pentagon woman, lost their jobs and went to jail. Now the other 99.99999%, of the something like 150,000 Boeing employees, have to sit through days of ethics lectures, on not abusing opportunities that they never get anyway.

Boeing tried to convince the Air Force they should change the specs to a larger capacity tanker, for which Boeing would use a larger airframe. The Air Force flatly refused, so Boeing went with the 767 airframe to keep the cost down. Boeing won the competition, but Northrop/EADs protested and the contract was rebid. During the rebid, Northrop/EADs changed their design to a larger airframe with more capacity. The Air Force saw more bling and chose it, saying it would give them more capacity without regard to the increased price or unproven track record. This is the basis for Boeing's current protest to the GAO, who unlike the Air Force, look at bang for the buck.

[glatt]

The other day, there was a full page ad in the Washington Post promoting Northrop's bid. It's always interesting to me to see those ads since they cost a hell of a lot of money and are only intended to be seen by a handful of important eyes. I always wonder if those eyes are reading the paper that morning.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

The other day, there was a full page ad in the Washington Post promoting Northrop's bid. It's always interesting to me to see those ads since they cost a hell of a lot of money and are only intended to be seen by a handful of important eyes.

Important eyes view the technology; choose Northrop. Boeing is appealing to the naive using half truth and hyping the 'Buy American' lies in public statements and advertisements. Northrop must do same because technology no longer matters - and because all these costs end up on government.

So how much of a Boeing airliner is manufactured overseas? Boeing was hyping that 'overseas manufactured' when selling aircraft oversea. Now they hype 'Buy American'? Suddenly the plane only has American parts? Which is it? They are appealing to the same people who know only because Rush Limbaugh, et al tell them how to think - only know what they are first told.

Most important is to frame it early. The less intelligent only believe the first thing heard; then deny any facts that arrive later. Important is to manipulate the naive so that Congress will cancel the contract. Boeing tells us the US Air Force is an evil institution that wants to destroy American jobs. Boeing spins it differently. But those who believe what they are told cannot see it this way.

How stupid. Air Force told Boeing to not propose a larger aircraft? Boeing could have submitted three different bids if the objective was to provide the Air Force with a best product. Boeing hoped that contract would protect a slowly dying 767 product line. And since Boeing supplied tankers for the past 50 years, Boeing viewed this contact as a done deal. Surprise. The Air Force wanted better aircraft - not corporate welfare for a company that had also bribed Air Force many officials (only some got punished) to win a previous contract.

Of course these other facts somehow get lost when preaching to the naive by waving flags and accusing the Air Force of being unfair. Better is to spend $40,000 every day on each newspaper preaching spin to the naive. Northrop must do same to protect their contract.

[lookout123]

The less intelligent only believe the first thing heard; then deny any facts that arrive later.

Is that why you post the exact same screed in every thread that is tangentially related to your diatribe of the day?

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

On Boeing's end, it was two employees . . .

Wait... the contract is lost?

Did they look in Bruce's desk for it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

The Air Force wanted better aircraft - not corporate welfare for a company that had also bribed Air Force many officials (only some got punished) to win a previous contract.

Cite.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Cite.

From The Economist of 30 Nov 2004 entitled "Et voila":

Adding to its woes, the cancellation this week of a US Air Force order for refuelling tankers means Boeing will soon have to shut the production line making its 767 ageing widebody jet.

From The Economist of 4 Dec 2003 entitled "Tanked up":

All summer a row has brewed over one Boeing contract after another. First came the revelation that Boeing had held on to 25,000 documents belonging to a rival, Lockheed Martin, for several years after it dismissed two former Lockheed employees for stealing them. The two employees have been charged, but the Department of Justice is still conducting a wider inquiry and the Pentagon cancelled Boeing contracts worth over $1 billion.

The latest running sore has been Boeing's deal to supply America's air force with air-to-air refuelling tankers. Although Boeing says the departure of Mr Condit has nothing to do with tankers, this is the deal that put Boeing in such bad odour. One of Mr Condit's last acts was to fire his chief financial officer for unethical conduct relating to this deal. The board then accepted Mr Condit's resignation in an attempt to draw a line under the scandals. ...

The contract was bound to cause a row. The price was some $5 billion more than the cost of buying the planes outright. There was no competition, because Airbus (the only possible alternative) did not have a plane ready, and Congress was cut out of the normal scrutiny process because the lease counted as an operating expense not an investment. Some of the financial engineering involved smacked more of Enron than of usually conservative Boeing, as the air force sought to keep the aircraft, in effect, off its balance sheet. ...

Some 31 Boeing executives personally contributed to the campaign funds of Senator Ted Stevens, the man who squeezed the tanker deal into an appropriations bill. Other congressmen only backed the deal after receiving promises of sub-contracts for firms on their home patch. Even for seasoned Beltway observers, the tanker lease is seen as pure pork barrel. ...

The deal has already claimed the heads of Boeing's top two executives. What fate now awaits its champions on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon, such as Air Force secretary James Roche, who were so keen to push it through?

If Boeing wanted to provide their best solution, then a 777 based tanker would have been proposed. But Boeing needs the 'corporate welfare' to keep a now old and uncompetitive 767 line operating.

Since that 2003 contract that was canceled - dripping in scandel - Airbus developed an air refueling tanker that is beating Boeing's 767 base tanker constantly - because it is technically superior. 767 is now obsolete technology. Why would the Air Force want inferior technology? If Boeing wanted to be competitive, Boeing would have proposed a 777 based tanker. But tanker contracts reeked of corporate welfare. Shame on the naive who did not know of this scandelous history.

I was rather surprised that Northrop got the contract since these tanker contracts routinely reeked of bribery, scandel, and a most destructive concept : "Buy American".

[xoxoxoBruce]

Your Brit friends are mixing apples and oranges.... and grapes.
The first paragraph refers to the rocket deal where two former Rockwell employees brought documents with them they shouldn't have. When Boeing found out they blew the whistle, but the damage had been done by the two perps and their cow orkers, so Boeing lost a billion dollars worth of rocket contracts.
No mention of;

not corporate welfare for a company that had also bribed Air Force many officials (only some got punished) to win a previous contract,

I asked you to cite.


Second & third paragraph, The tanker lease deal to avoid putting a lot of money out to buy them. The typical Air Force personnel that rotate through the pentagon procurement office every 14 months or so, know jack shit. They leave that to civilian personnel, that stay longer and follow the entire process. As long as things go smoothly, the Air Force personnel just want to put in their time, collect their atta boy and move up the ladder. This is why the pentagon woman, and two Boeing employees, went to jail when they were discovered.
No mention of;

not corporate welfare for a company that had also bribed Air Force many officials (only some got punished) to win a previous contract,

I asked you to cite.


Forth paragraph, Says congressmen/women won't vote for appropriations unless a company in their "home patch" gets a piece of the subcontracting.... surprise, surprise. This is reality in the World. In order to sell aircraft, military or commercial, to any country in the world, you have to subcontract to companies in that country. Then you get into Canada arguing about how many dollars of that work, go to companies in french Canada vs English Canada.
No mention of;

not corporate welfare for a company that had also bribed Air Force many officials (only some got punished) to win a previous contract,

I asked you to cite.


Then after not citing as I requested, tw speculates in garbage about corporate welfare keeping the 767 line open. In truth, Boeing has been expecting to phase out the 767 line since the introduction of the 777 in 1998.
The only reason that didn't happen is because the Air Force insisted the 777 was too big and expensive for their needs. The 767 has been used to build some tankers for foreign countries, but mostly just hanging fire waiting for the Air Force. Boeing requested the 777 be used for tankers, from the gitgo, and changing the 767 line to a 777 line is a piece of cake.

The bottom line is, like the rotating pentagon officers, tw knows jack shit.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw, considering how often and how wildly you are off base, where do you get off slagging anyone? You were off base on the C-130J -- any reason to believe you're right on this one? You hardly ever know shit, fella, the minute you step outside of systems analysis.

[skysidhe]

I've been waffling on what I think the truth is regarding this. The news will come on and all I can think is 'well that makes sense' to whatever anyone says in their defense. What's the right thing? the truth?

[elSicomoro]

This has been big news in St. Louis, as Boeing's defense ops are based here (at the old McDonnell Douglas).

I'm not sure what to believe...so many things have been said. Sen. Kit Bond is threatening to get Congress to yank the funding for it. If the EADS/Northrup plan is a better deal as a whole, then go for it. I don't have a problem with EADS having some control over a defense project...after all, isn't the EU supposed to be our friend? We sell American jets and what not to foreign countries all the time? And whoever got the contract is supposed to create a lot of jobs here in the States. I'd like to see those jobs here in St. Louis, but at least those jobs are Americans being employed.

[tw]

Bruce, I cannot even quote a single useful sentence from your post. What do you do - work for Boeing? It certainly sounds like it.

The first paragraph about that famous rocket deal was the context - how both deals were being made in Boeing. The tanker deal was same. It was criminal at the highest levels of the Air Force and Boeing. Both contracts resulted in job removals. Some were investigated for ciminal wrongdoing. So Bruce, where are your citations that said the Economist got it wrong?

Meanwhile, Airbus built a new tanker that is beating Boeing's 767 version all over the world. Its not just the US Air Force that sees a superior product. Saudis even do. Saudis who religiously buy American, instead, refused to buy the 767 based tanker. Airbus based tanker is has numerous customers. I don't know of anyone buying Boeing's 767 tanker.

The 767 is a dying product. 767 is not even competitive as a tanker. The citations from 2003 and 2004 demonstrate what Boeing did even back then to sell an inferior product. Since then, the Northrop proposal and resulting contract - using newer technology, a more recent design, less costs, and an airframe that can carry more for longer times - is the superior product.

It's not even debateable by viewing reasons why Boeing wants the Northrop contract voided. To be competitive, Boeing had to provide a tanker using the 777. Boeing did not for the same reasons why Boeing proposed the 767 in 2003 - to protect a dying and inferior product line. Bruce who knew facts would know of Boeing's problems maintaining 767 sales.

Those Economist citations - as reqested - describe why top Boeing executives lost their jobs in 2004 due to that 2003 fradulently obtained contract that took pork to new levels. What Boeing did to win a contract for a lesser product set new standards for pork that eventually costs jobs both in Boeing and in the Air Force. Boeing wants an inferior technology sold to the Air Force only because Boeing has been the only supplier of tankers to the Air Force. Today's Boeing that was competing fair would have proposed a 777 tanker. The 777 is a superior airframe - would have made a superior tanker.

Why do we know Bruce? I said so. That reasoning works for you. But I have better credibility. Therefore it must be true. Meantime, the Economist also agrees with me. I also have better friends.

[xoxoxoBruce]

There you have it, the bottom line, in the last sentence. Because he said so.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

There you have it, the bottom line, in the last sentence. Because he said so.

And again Bruce wastes bandwidth. Nothing factual about Boeing's 767 tanker failure. Ego post?

Meanwhile, another nation also found the Boeing 767 tanker lacking - Australia.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw, king of the ego post, says no other country wants to buy the 767 tankers. Then my his own admission says Australia has, conveniently forgetting Italy and Japan. Personally, I think those countries bought them because, the US Air Force was saying they didn't want to step up to the 777, and was expected to choose the 767.

tw says the 777 would be a better tanker, which is what Boeing said 5 years ago. But neither tw, or Boeing, are BUYING tankers, and don't have a say in what the customer specifies.

So now tw is just repeating his mish-mosh of unfounded bullshit, and trying to bait me, rather than presenting the truth.