The lost Boeing contract

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

tw, king of the ego post, says no other country wants to buy the 767 tankers.

I never said that Bruce. Why are you being insulting? Why do you completely misrepresent what I posted? That is what I expect from UG or TheMercenary.

I said I don't know of any 767 tanker sales. I did not say those other sales did not exist. Both Saudi's and Australians rejected the Boeing 767 for technical reasons. Most surprising for the Saudi's who almost automatically buy American.

Before this decision was announced, from The Economist on 31 Jan 2008 entitled "This time it's war: The aviation giants battle to supply America's air force with a new tanker":

Northrop has won backing from three air commanders who respectively ran operations in the first Gulf war in 1991, Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999. In a recent Air Force Times article they said that larger tankers offer greater flexibility, can deliver more fuel per sortie and do not need to be kept closer to the battlefield than is “militarily prudent”. They conclude: “You can never have enough gas forward in the air.”

Amid the fog of claim and counter-claim, there is little doubt that the KC-30 is the more capable aircraft. But whatever the air force decides, Congress will have the last word—and there its prospects look fairly bleak. More than 60% of the value of the KC-30 would be sourced in America, and EADS would also build commercial freighters on the KC-30 assembly line in Mobile, Alabama. But Boeing's proposal would provide more jobs for Americans.

Do we 'buy the best' or provide Boeing with corporate welfare?

I don't understand why anyone should waffle on this. Facts are obvious - quite clear. The Boeing air tanker is inferior. If Boeing was bidding a competitive product, their proposal would have been a 777. Why would Boeing offer the inferior 767 platform? Boeing was protecting a dying product line rather than offering the Air Force their best. Boeing never thought the Air Force would always "Buy America" rather than 'buy the best'. The Air Force decided to advance America rather than advance Boeing.

Now let's see how many Congressmen are as patriotic.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In a recent Air Force Times article they said that larger tankers offer greater flexibility, can deliver more fuel per sortie and do not need to be kept closer to the battlefield than is “militarily prudent”. They conclude: “You can never have enough gas forward in the air.”

From the people that brought you supersonic fighters, instead of Warthogs... bling over actual need.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
tw, king of the ego post, says no other country wants to buy the 767 tankers.

Originally Posted by tw
I never said that Bruce. Why are you being insulting? Why do you completely misrepresent what I posted? That is what I expect from UG or TheMercenary.

I said I don't know of any 767 tanker sales. I did not say those other sales did not exist.

You're right, you were wrong... but that's not unusual or ever let it stop you from spouting off before.

[tw]

This post started with a fact - a Northrop tanker was a superior (higher “quality”) product. But as the week progressed, Boeing propaganda began to appear in following posts. How many knew that a proposed Boeing 767 tanker was clearly an inferior choice? How many waffled rather than see obvious facts? This post is not about the tanker contract. This is about the many here who did not learn from seven years ago. 70% of Americans then also believed a mental midget’s propaganda rather than the facts. Facts then indicated that Saddam's WMDs did not exist. And facts say the Northrop tanker is superior to Boeing’s 767 proposal.

So again, I ask, how many saw up front reality - that the Air Force choose the best product. How many instead were manipulated by propaganda from Boeing that was crying, "Unfair"? No decent American believed that Boeing nonsense. The facts say otherwise. Even crying about ‘job losses’ plays to anti-America propaganda called “Buy American”.

Do you want the Air Force to provide corporate welfare to Boeing or do you want the Air Force to 'buy the best'? "Buy the best" means Boeing's next proposals will be for superior technical products - not to protect their obsolete product lines - which means more American jobs.

This next month, watch many Americans advocating corporate welfare to Boeing. Corporate welfare (just like tariffs) always means less American jobs. Informed spectators will have an opportunity to watch propaganda and 'flag waving' promote an economic pervert's solution: corporate welfare to Boeing. The informed can judge, from a logical perspective, which Congressmen advance America and which Congressmen will instead be so anti-American as to hide behind waving flags.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's amazing how many of tw's facts come from....

Originally Posted by tw

Why do we know Bruce? I said so. That reasoning works for you. But I have better credibility. Therefore it must be true.

[Radar]

Price is ALWAYS an object. We should not get "the best plane". We should get "the best plane for the price that meets our requirements".

The only 2 questions that are really important are:

1) Does the plane carry the required amount of people and cargo safely and have the required number of safety and performance features?

2) How much does it cost.


We don't have to buy a Rolls Royce when a Honda will do the job just as well.

[HungLikeJesus]

Radar, what about reliability, operation and maintenance costs, availability of components, fuel efficiency, noise level, and how cool it looks? Are none of these important?

[xoxoxoBruce]

All except, how cool it looks, are extremely important.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Radar, what about reliability, operation and maintenance costs, availability of components, fuel efficiency, noise level, and how cool it looks? Are none of these important?

Reliability and maintenance costs, and fuel efficiency, fall under total cost of ownership which is what we're really talking about here. The total cost of ownership on a BMW is still higher than a Honda even though BMW gives free oil changes and all parts during the first few years.

Depending on the needs, one might sacrifice engine size for fuel efficiency, etc. I'm a bit of a utilitarian so looks are less important than performance to me. I put function leaps and bounds over form.

Availability of parts should be something negotiated in the contract. For every so many number of planes purchased, a minimum of a certain number of parts should be made available, or available for special order at a fixed price regardless of which vendor you're using. My guess is you can't go to the Pep Boys to pick up spare parts for either of them.

[tw]

Those promoting propaganda have been muddying the waters. But consistently from sources that promote innovation and technology (not a poltical agenda) are facts about the inferior Boeing 767 tanker. These facts are so one sided that if you had any doubts, time to assess the credibility of your news sources. tw posted in a tone intentionally set to make you either dislike the author or be patriotic enough to instead see the facts. Which did you do? Entertain your emotions or instead see the facts.

Another technically honest observation is from 14 Mar 2008 EE Times

Opinion: Boeing and the tanker mess
Boeing Co., which has supplied the Air Force with refueling tankers since Gen. Curtis LeMay hung up his goggles, is protesting the Air Force's Feb. 29 award of a $35 billion contract for a new fleet of tankers to hated rival Airbus. Boeing and its pals on Capitol Hill see Airbus hiding behind the skirts of domestic rival Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. ...

Unable the win on merit, the sore loser immediately moved to paint Airbus and EADS as America's public enemy No. 1.

With U.S. manufacturing jobs going the way of cheap gas, Boeing has mounted a politically potent counteroffensive, even though it has since emerged that its proposal for modifying its 767 jetliner - as a way to keep its 767 assembly line humming - failed to meet nearly all major Air Force requirements.

The arguments of howling lawmakers from Washington state, where the Boeing tanker would have been built, are severely undercut by the fact that this has been one of the most corrupt military procurements in decades. As one who patrolled the inner rings of the Pentagon for years as a military reporter, believe me, this is no small feat.

The face of this sad spectacle is the former No. 2 acquisition executive in the Air Force, a woman named Darleen Druyun. She went to the slammer earlier in the decade for steering Air Force contracts to Boeing, including an unsuccessful attempt to deliver the tanker deal, in exchange for future employment for herself, her daughter and her son-in-law.

Not just more confirmation of what tw was posting. Worse, this was so obvious that if every poster here did not know this, then why are your information sources so corrupt? There was no doubt which contract was better for America and the Air Force. It was not even close - so one sided - which is why that should have been obvious even to everyone here.

Or maybe I am just so politically incorrect that I cannot see spin doctor propaganda? By separating my religion from other parts of my life, then I am immune to witch doctor magic spells - I can only see facts?

This post is about how one sided obvious; Northrop had the superior proposal. How Boeing was using the tanker contract for corporate welfare. How people have lost their executive jobs and even gone to jail promoting the inferior Boeing tanker.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The link to the opinion doesn't work.
tw spins so much, it's a wonder he doesn't screw himself into the ground.
I already addressed the people that went to jail, because of improper behavior, during the Air Force's attempt to lease tankers, to keep from siphoning money from their other wish list items. The attempt by the Air Force to hoodwink the congressional appropriations committee was unsuccessful, and has nothing to do with the bidding on the purchased tankers.

Boeing won the tanker contract because EADs had no suitable airframe for the project. Northrop cried foul because nobody else could supply a suitable airframe for the contract specifications. It the meantime, EADS developed the A330 airframe, but it was way to big and expensive for the specs the Air Force proposed. As the contract was rebid, in order to allow Northrop to compete, the Air Force repeatedly changed the rules, without telling Boeing.
Now Northrop/EADS has been awarded the contract and it's Boeing's turn to protest what they feel was an unfair competition.

A number of congressmen/women are upset and speaking out about the estimated 43,000, good paying jobs, lost in their districts. But, when Boeing files their reasons for feeling the competition was unfair, lost jobs and foreign dependency for war materials, are not legitimate objections, as far as the GAO is concerned. The protest must be based of substantial facts, not flag waving. The political posturing and mud slinging, don't effect the facts used for the determination, to be made by the GAO.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The link to the opinion doesn't work.
tw spins so much, it's a wonder he doesn't screw himself into the ground.

Classic line... TW the square dancer.

[Flint]

Screw your partner to the ground, promenade left and don't fall down!

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I already addressed the people that went to jail, because of improper behavior, during the Air Force's attempt to lease tankers, to keep from siphoning money from their other wish list items. ... Boeing won the tanker contract because EADs had no suitable airframe for the project.

Airbus once had no airframe for a tanker. If nobody had an alternative to the Boeing 767 tanker, then why were Boeing and Air Force officials so corrupt in 2003 to promote a 'sure thing'?

Which is it Bruce? 1) Boeing had the only tanker to sell. 2) Or Boeing's proposal was so bad in 2003 as to not even compete against a new design from Airbus. Which is it Bruce? Airbus did not have a tanker (yet). But the Boeing 767 tanker was still so inferior as to need massive corruption to get promoted even in 2003.

Same crappy tanker in 2003 should have won in 2008? This is not square dancing. It's a duck moonwalking.

Responsible sources repeatedly say the Boeing 767 tanker was hands down crappy. The Electrical Engineering Times joins a long list of honest and technical sources that all say same. So Bruce must also attack honest sources? Facts cannot be denied. Bruce, you finally admit to 2003 corruption because it is even in the EE Times editorial. So crappy was that Boeing 767 tanker that new levels of corruption were implemented to win a 767 contract. Responsible sources also said both in 2003 and 2008 that Boeing's proposed crappy tanker was for 'corporate welfare'. An honest person cannot deny that reality.

Bruce, do you work for Boeing? I don't know and normally would not care. But your biases are absurdly obvious. Bruce, do you work for or in Boeing? Certainly sounds like it. Since Bruce will not answer, does anyone know if Bruce works for Boeing? Question asked only because Bruce's replies and accusations sound like a TheMercenary post and because Bruce will not answer that question.

Boeing's 767 tanker was hands down the crappier proposal - for America today as it also was in 2003. So crappy back then that widespread corruption both in the Air Force and in top Boeing management was necessary. So shitty today that only a completely dishonest person could deny it.

Well, Bruce implied the US Air Force is so anti-American as to deny Boeing its just reward. Nonsense. Boeing proposes the same inferior 2003 tanker in 2007 - and lost again. The US Air Force did what is best for America. Numerous honest sources state that and state why. The only thing anti-American was that Boeing 767 tanker proposal. A patriotic Boeing that was really interested in American jobs would have proposed a superior and less expensive 777 tanker. But that would not create corporate welfare.

Again, if that is not obvious, one needs to question the integrity his information sources. Was Fox News honest enough to admit this? From Brit Hume on 13 Mar 2008:

It was originally awarded to Boeing under a deal so corrupt, as John McCain described it, that people went to jail and a COE of Boeing lost his job.

Then a new process was begun, and Boeing appeared to be the only qualified bidder. That was when McCain weighed in and said, wait a minute, you have to at least have a competitive bid here.

They did. The Air Force then awarded the contract to a consortium, partly Grumman, an American company, and the parent company of Airbus. It is a European company.

Now the Democrats, on Capitol Hill in particular, are screaming that this was unfair, improper, a national security issue, and so forth. You heard what McCain had to say about it. Who is right here?

How curious that the right wing news service associates Bruce's accusations with anti-American Democrats. Even Fox News could not be more critical of what Bruce posts.

If it squawks like a moonwalking duck, it is Boeing propaganda. Even Fox News sees through those lies.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why haven't you fixed the bogus honest source link.

You, and everyone else, knows I work for Boeing Helicopter, so what? This shit has nothing to do with my division. We have over 500 helicopters on order, and at 6 a month, plenty of work.
Some Arabs showed up in January with cash for 3 ships, but were turned away because we can't accommodate them for many years. So professionally, this contract means jack shit to me, but as a taxpaying American, I'm concerned with how the government spends my money.

Here's the first part of Boeing's protest to the GAO. If anyone wants the entire PDF (2.5mb), PM me your email and I'll send it to you. This is the public redacted version, so there's no confidentially problem.