Boeing loses a big one
- Thread starter MarkC
- Start date
- Status
Bummer for Boeing.
I don't understand why we ever give contracts for military weapons/technology to companies that are based overseas. Airbus?
It's worth paying more to keep the the technology in the U.S! Giving it to Airbus is the same as emailing to Putin himself.
It's worth paying more to keep the the technology in the U.S! Giving it to Airbus is the same as emailing to Putin himself.
Being an avid reader of Aviation Week and Space Technology, the announcement was somewhat of a surprise.
I believe it came down to "bang for the buck." The Airbus A330 airframe promises a greater refueling capability in terms of pounds of fuel available with which to refuel aircraft, as well as cargo/people carrying capacity. The downside is the "footprint" of that aircraft on the tarmac is noticeably larger than that of the proposed Boeing 767 derivative. Hence, you're not going to be able to base as many tankers at the same given location as the proposed Boeing 767 tanker.
I didn't click on your link, having read a synopsis of the decision on the AW&ST website, but one can expect a protest by Boeing over the decision (just as Airbus would have protested had they lost the bid) and no Airbus tanker available for testing before 2010. The USAF should hold Airbus' feet to the fire by requiring in writing their building of the promised assembly plant in Alabama. That way they can compete with Hyundai for workers.
I believe it came down to "bang for the buck." The Airbus A330 airframe promises a greater refueling capability in terms of pounds of fuel available with which to refuel aircraft, as well as cargo/people carrying capacity. The downside is the "footprint" of that aircraft on the tarmac is noticeably larger than that of the proposed Boeing 767 derivative. Hence, you're not going to be able to base as many tankers at the same given location as the proposed Boeing 767 tanker.
I didn't click on your link, having read a synopsis of the decision on the AW&ST website, but one can expect a protest by Boeing over the decision (just as Airbus would have protested had they lost the bid) and no Airbus tanker available for testing before 2010. The USAF should hold Airbus' feet to the fire by requiring in writing their building of the promised assembly plant in Alabama. That way they can compete with Hyundai for workers.
MolaKule
Staff member
Thank you John McCain! and Southern politics.
I hope Boeing protests the heck out of this decision. Boeing already has an airframe ready to go, with the same (proven)tanker fielded for Italy and Japan.
WHile I no longer work for them, this is a slap-in-the-face to domestic defense contracting.
I hope Boeing protests the heck out of this decision. Boeing already has an airframe ready to go, with the same (proven)tanker fielded for Italy and Japan.
WHile I no longer work for them, this is a slap-in-the-face to domestic defense contracting.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Thank you John McCain! and Southern politics.
I hope Boeing protests the heck out of this decision. Boeing already has an airframe ready to go, with the same (proven)tanker fielded for Italy and Japan.
WHile I no longer work for them, this is a slap-in-the-face to domestic defense contracting.
Mola it is Juan McCain. The people running this country have really messed it up and gave it away. But then how much of the plane or parts would be made in China?
Thank you John McCain! and Southern politics.
I hope Boeing protests the heck out of this decision. Boeing already has an airframe ready to go, with the same (proven)tanker fielded for Italy and Japan.
WHile I no longer work for them, this is a slap-in-the-face to domestic defense contracting.
Mola it is Juan McCain. The people running this country have really messed it up and gave it away. But then how much of the plane or parts would be made in China?
Molakule,
I'm still running your synthetic ATF in my 2001 I30! Good stuff!
That said, while I'm not trying to drag politics into this, I can't blame John McCain for holding Boeing accountable (and the Air Force, for that matter) for the typical underhanded, low-life dealing one would expect from politicians on Capitol Hill.
The former administration official who orchestrated the first debacle (Darlene Drumond?) and deservedly served time in the Big House for her actions clearly undermined Boeing's chances on this bid. So did Boeing, after they hired her into a job immediately after her resignation from that appointed position.
All articles I had read, through this morning no less, pointed toward a Boeing win on this bid. Personally, neither airframe suits me. Use the 787 or Airbus 350 airframe as the next generation tanker airframe. Then restrict it to "in service" as of 2010. The A350 won't be close at that point.
I'm still running your synthetic ATF in my 2001 I30! Good stuff!
That said, while I'm not trying to drag politics into this, I can't blame John McCain for holding Boeing accountable (and the Air Force, for that matter) for the typical underhanded, low-life dealing one would expect from politicians on Capitol Hill.
The former administration official who orchestrated the first debacle (Darlene Drumond?) and deservedly served time in the Big House for her actions clearly undermined Boeing's chances on this bid. So did Boeing, after they hired her into a job immediately after her resignation from that appointed position.
All articles I had read, through this morning no less, pointed toward a Boeing win on this bid. Personally, neither airframe suits me. Use the 787 or Airbus 350 airframe as the next generation tanker airframe. Then restrict it to "in service" as of 2010. The A350 won't be close at that point.
MolaKule
Staff member
I am not sure the 787 airframe would be suitable, due to its composite structure. In tankers, you always have fuel leaks no matter how good the seals or bladders.
Jet fuel would wreck havoc on the composites, IMHO.
Yes, the US is up for grabs by the group with the most mideast oil money.
Politicians will sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
Jet fuel would wreck havoc on the composites, IMHO.
Yes, the US is up for grabs by the group with the most mideast oil money.
Politicians will sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
Quote:
Politicians will sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
Yeah, like Randy "Duke" Cunningham
Politicians will sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
Yeah, like Randy "Duke" Cunningham
This decision is as crazy as the greedy bureaucrats that made it.
I can't understand the money logic, in purchases like this.
Penny wise and pound foolish, is the only thing I can say, at least in mixed company.
I can't understand the money logic, in purchases like this.
Penny wise and pound foolish, is the only thing I can say, at least in mixed company.
They followed Ausralia's lead (A330 MRT). We did all the ground work, saved USAF a lot of time and money. Bigger fuel off load capacity was one big advantage. Personally I think A380 would be a good tanker, refuel the lot in one go!
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
I don't understand why we ever give contracts for military weapons/technology to companies that are based overseas. Airbus?
I agree. I think there needs to be a law passed that all US military/government contracts need to be given to US based businesses unless for some reason that is impossible. Even if the US contracts cost more.
Several months ago the US army sent me a free hat trying to get me to join. A copy of what US forces are wearing in Iraq...made in China.
I don't understand why we ever give contracts for military weapons/technology to companies that are based overseas. Airbus?
I agree. I think there needs to be a law passed that all US military/government contracts need to be given to US based businesses unless for some reason that is impossible. Even if the US contracts cost more.
Several months ago the US army sent me a free hat trying to get me to join. A copy of what US forces are wearing in Iraq...made in China.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: SecondMonkey
Several months ago the US army sent me a free hat trying to get me to join. A copy of what US forces are wearing in Iraq...made in China.
Is "Made in Mexico" becoming unaffordable?
Several months ago the US army sent me a free hat trying to get me to join. A copy of what US forces are wearing in Iraq...made in China.
Is "Made in Mexico" becoming unaffordable?
The A330 will cost $37 million or so more than the proposed Boeing 767 tanker. Per tanker. With 179 tankers ordered in the first of three orders, you do the math.
The upside is that Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor and they'll use G.E. engines. That, coupled with the promised 2,000+ jobs in Mobile for a new final assembly plant (let's see if THAT happens).
The downside is that EADS is the major subcontractor and everyone outside of Europe is familiar with the major government subsidies that have propped up EADS for years.
This isn't a "politicians did this to us" issue, regardless of which side of the aisle you choose to sit on. Boeing stepped on it in a huge way in 2003-2004 with their attempts at a quick and dirty leasing arrangement for the 767 tanker. The overall net cost to the U.S. taxpayer would have been staggering. Then the USAF acquisition chief (civilian) overseeing all Boeing contracts with the USAF enters into job negotiations at about the same time, ultimately accepting and working in a lucrative position at Boeing. Jail time for her and her Boeing counterpart.
Then Boeing stepped on it again when it was found that certain Boeing employees had gained possession of key Lockheed Martin documents pertaining to their rocket program. Boeing settled that "issue" by paying a $615 million fine in May 2006.
I'm just as disappointed as everyone else about the Boeing loss on this bid. There is a chance political pressure down the road will result in a "split award" for the second and third orders, i.e., Boeing will get a cut of the enormous pie.
But hanging out your dirty laundry and having the toilets back up at the same time as you're showing your house to a potential buyer isn't the best way to sell to anyone.
The upside is that Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor and they'll use G.E. engines. That, coupled with the promised 2,000+ jobs in Mobile for a new final assembly plant (let's see if THAT happens).
The downside is that EADS is the major subcontractor and everyone outside of Europe is familiar with the major government subsidies that have propped up EADS for years.
This isn't a "politicians did this to us" issue, regardless of which side of the aisle you choose to sit on. Boeing stepped on it in a huge way in 2003-2004 with their attempts at a quick and dirty leasing arrangement for the 767 tanker. The overall net cost to the U.S. taxpayer would have been staggering. Then the USAF acquisition chief (civilian) overseeing all Boeing contracts with the USAF enters into job negotiations at about the same time, ultimately accepting and working in a lucrative position at Boeing. Jail time for her and her Boeing counterpart.
Then Boeing stepped on it again when it was found that certain Boeing employees had gained possession of key Lockheed Martin documents pertaining to their rocket program. Boeing settled that "issue" by paying a $615 million fine in May 2006.
I'm just as disappointed as everyone else about the Boeing loss on this bid. There is a chance political pressure down the road will result in a "split award" for the second and third orders, i.e., Boeing will get a cut of the enormous pie.
But hanging out your dirty laundry and having the toilets back up at the same time as you're showing your house to a potential buyer isn't the best way to sell to anyone.
Don't know if this is good or bad for the USA. On the surface it does not sound so hot. Not many details out so far.
I do know Northrop Grumman has also had its share of scandals during its history. Northrop Grumman was sued in 1999 for knowingly giving the Navy defective aircraft. Northrop Grumman company was sued in 2003 for allegedly overcharging the U.S. government for space projects in the 1990s.
I do know Northrop Grumman has also had its share of scandals during its history. Northrop Grumman was sued in 1999 for knowingly giving the Navy defective aircraft. Northrop Grumman company was sued in 2003 for allegedly overcharging the U.S. government for space projects in the 1990s.
Hirev,
There ain't too many involved in this bidding that can raise a "clean hand."
The extra $37 million per tanker gets you an additional 7,000 gallons of fuel or 30 extra passengers over what the 767 could offer. That works out to about $5,285 per gallon! And we're b*tching about $3 per gallon for gasoline!
There ain't too many involved in this bidding that can raise a "clean hand."
The extra $37 million per tanker gets you an additional 7,000 gallons of fuel or 30 extra passengers over what the 767 could offer. That works out to about $5,285 per gallon! And we're b*tching about $3 per gallon for gasoline!
USAF looked at the same data RAAF did and came to the same deision. In commercial airspace A330 sat on the 767 just like Boeing 777 sat on the A34-600. In the end it wasn't close with Gruuman EADS winning in every category. USAF getfar moe capability than they thought and commonality with many coalition partners.
LA Times: ........A source who was briefed on the selection said Northrop won in every major selection criteria category, which probably would make it difficult for Boeing to win an appeal.
And it appears that size did matter.
"I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in explaining why the Air Force choose the Northrop-Airbus entry. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties] it can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."
LA Times: ........A source who was briefed on the selection said Northrop won in every major selection criteria category, which probably would make it difficult for Boeing to win an appeal.
And it appears that size did matter.
"I can sum it up in one word: more," said Gen. Arthur J. Lichte in explaining why the Air Force choose the Northrop-Airbus entry. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more [battle casualties] it can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability."
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Politicians will sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
They have none to sell.
It does seem that it is a bad thing to award this contract outside of the U.S. but I sure don't have all of the facts. It seems though from some information on this thread that there are strong reasons for going with AirBus.
And there will be some jobs gained here in the U.S.
Politicians will sell their soul for a few extra bucks.
They have none to sell.
It does seem that it is a bad thing to award this contract outside of the U.S. but I sure don't have all of the facts. It seems though from some information on this thread that there are strong reasons for going with AirBus.
And there will be some jobs gained here in the U.S.
The governor of Alabama is about to wet his pants, he's so happy.
- Status
