Amazon has whacked our affiliate account. Hosting Donations/Commitments $2063 of $1920 (Sept 13/18). In Hand $1466 (Lump sum payments minus paypal graft). Paypal Donation Link Here

Tanker Contract Manuevering

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
Boudreaux
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:18 am
Location: St. Louis

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Boudreaux » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:42 pm

The Druyun scandal was bad, but come on. That involved maybe, what? Five people, at most? The people involved are no longer with the company, and it's not fair to penalize Boeing now for something that happened 7-8 years ago. That's like still being pissed at Germany for WW2.

As for the political maneuvering, I agree it's unfortunate that this is how things work, but reality is this is how things work. You are naive if you don't think Northrop Grumman is doing the exact same thing.

I guarantee you that everyone at Boeing, Northrop, Lockheed Martin, Bell Helicopter, or any defense company wants to make the absolute best product for their customers, but before they can make those products they have to sell those products. To complicate matters, the Department of Defense, military services, and Congress never agree on what the best products are. Major defense corporations that rely on relatively few multi-billion-dollar contracts would be insane not to use every possible avenue of influence to get their products sold, including convincing whoever will listen that they can provide the best products and services. Sometimes that means using contacts within OSD or the military branches, sometimes that means using political channels.

Do you honestly think that anyone at Boeing is going to look at the Northrop/EADS tanker (or vice versa) and say "Yep, you know what, they can build a better tanker than us. You should go with that one." Of course not. Each side thinks they have the best product and they're going to use whatever means necessary to convince the decision makers. In this case, hopefully that mostly comes down to submitting a good proposal and abiding by a fair decision process.

Also - believe it or not, when politicians come out and support a company or business in their state or locality, sometimes that company didn't do or say anything to that politician. Senators and representatives aren't stupid. They know that promoting the interests of a 100,000+ employee corporation that happens to do billions of dollars of business in their state is good for their career.
Last edited by Boudreaux on Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:55 pm

Boudreaux wrote:As for the political maneuvering, I agree it's unfortunate that this is how things work, but reality is this is how things work. You are naive if you don't think Northrop Grumman is doing the exact same thing.
They're apparently more subtle about it. I agree, I would much rather believe and live in an environment where things are decided fairly and independently on their merits. But people suck, so we are where we are.

I'm not naive enough to think any of these companies is wholly above board in the whole process. Even with the people that got caught and left Boeing, I'm sure there are others that were involved that knew where the right bodies were buried and managed to skate cleanly. There's things in the corporate culture that led to it that I'm sure are still present.

But as for the current contract, I see less of Boeing doing a good faith job in trying to convince others that their stuff is legitimately better and more of them trying every underhanded trick to get the RFP written to favor their craft and use global politics to try and screw their competitor. Hell, EADS may be doing the same across the pond, but I haven't heard it.

In the grand scheme, my opinion means sqaut all and if Boeing came calling to offer me a job tomorrow, I'd probably jump on it, so che sera sera.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 23189
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by noxiousdog » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:09 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:
Boudreaux wrote:As for the political maneuvering, I agree it's unfortunate that this is how things work, but reality is this is how things work. You are naive if you don't think Northrop Grumman is doing the exact same thing.
They're apparently more subtle about it. I agree, I would much rather believe and live in an environment where things are decided fairly and independently on their merits. But people suck, so we are where we are.
I think the decisions are too subjective and close to have a clear scorecard.
My continuing adventures of learning to play piano. - Now Playing Moonlight Sonata

Amazon Kindle Book Loaning Thread

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog

User avatar
Boudreaux
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:18 am
Location: St. Louis

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Boudreaux » Thu Feb 25, 2010 3:09 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:I'm not naive enough to think any of these companies is wholly above board in the whole process. Even with the people that got caught and left Boeing, I'm sure there are others that were involved that knew where the right bodies were buried and managed to skate cleanly. There's things in the corporate culture that led to it that I'm sure are still present.
Actually, Boeing's ethical reputation within the U.S. government and defense branches has been almost completely repaired, at least with respect to the past tanker scandal. They are extremely sensitive about it and have done a lot to promote good business practices.

Also, while you might think that the "process" involves a lot of back-door deals over scotch and cigars, it's really not like that. Mostly it's talking to influential people who you think are receptive to your messages, and making a case for your product or service (and, at times, against your competitor's). Sometimes they listen, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it prompts them to take action. Sometimes they listen and agree, but can't do anything for political reasons. Lockheed can't go stand in front of Congress and ask them to buy 2,000 F-35s, they have to get the USAF and USN to ask Congress for them.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:24 pm

Northrup Grumman takes its tanker and goes home:
Northrop Grumman has decided not to bid on a contract to build the next generation of refueling tankers for the Air Force, a move that leaves Boeing as the sole competitor for the roughly $40 billion Pentagon deal, according to sources familiar with the company's plans.

The Los Angeles-based contracting giant is expected to announce its decision later Monday after the close of financial markets, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
...
Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) confirmed that Northrop has said it will pull out of the tanker competition.

Dicks said he was briefed this afternoon by a Northrop official. He would not say who.

"They said they're not going to bid," Dicks said in a telephone interview. He said the company probably thought that the Air Force's requirements were in favor of a smaller plane, such as Boeing's 767 instead of the Airbus 330.

"I think they evaluated it and realized that it was not in their interest to go forward," Dicks said. "I feel like we can go forward now with greater transparency."
How in the world does not having to compete make this a situation that's going to foster transparency? Oh, wait, you've got Boeing's hand so far up your campaign assets, I'm sure you'd say whatever they want you to. WHARRGARBL!
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Boudreaux
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:18 am
Location: St. Louis

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Boudreaux » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:19 am

Wow.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:34 pm

EADS wants an extension to submit its own bid
The Pentagon said on Tuesday it remains in active talks with Europe's EADS (EAD.PA) on extending the May 10 deadline for aerial tanker bids, while Boeing Co (BA.N) supporters in Congress seized on a WTO ruling to reject any deal with the parent of Airbus as reckless.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said EADS had expressed some interest in bidding as a prime contractor against Boeing to build 179 refueling planes for the Air Force after its partner Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) bowed out.

"We are right now engaged in active discussions with the company to better understand the reasons why they would need an extension," Morrell told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.
Of course, all the Boeing backers are griping about the WTO ruling against them, despite the counter claims under WTO investigation that Boeing has benefited from sweetheart contracts with the U.S. government.
"We finally have a concrete ruling to justify what we have been saying for years," Representative Todd Tiahrt, a Republican from Kansas, where Boeing has a large plant, said in a statement.

"In the midst of an economic recession, we should be doing everything possible to keep these high-quality jobs here on American soil," he said. "Giving a vital national security component like the aerial refueling tanker to a foreign entity is reckless and extremely dangerous."

Airbus on Tuesday confirmed that a WTO panel had condemned European subsidies in a confidential ruling, but said the panel dismissed 70 percent of U.S. claims. It also said the dispute would likely drag on for years.

Guy Hicks, spokesman for EADS North America, said the U.S. government had decided to exempt the rival WTO cases brought by the United States and Europe from the tanker competition.

"The U.S. government has determined that ongoing WTO cases are irrelevant to U.S. defense acquisition and will not penalize U.S. warfighters by holding their needs hostage to an ongoing commercial trade dispute," Hicks said.
...
Even if it got the additional time it requested, EADS would face an uphill battle with any solo bid.

The company would also likely need to find another U.S. defense company to take on some of the classified work involved in the program, given that tanker operations are closely linked to the U.S. military's strategic planning for future wars.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:46 am

Cue the Russians
United Aircraft, a holding company for several Russian aerospace firms, is expected to announce Monday a joint venture with an American defense contractor, according to John Kirkland, a Los Angeles-based lawyer representing the group. Kirkland would not name the U.S. contractor, saying only that it is "not one of the three or four major defense companies." United Aircraft's biggest shareholder is the Russian government, Kirkland said.
...
The Russians' joint venture, which is to be called UAC America, will offer the Ilyushin Il-96 wide-body jetliner, Kirkland said, adding that most of the planes would be fabricated in Russia and assembled in the United States.
...
An offer from a Russian firm is likely to face more criticism from congressional leaders, defense industry officials said, much as the joint bid by EADS -- a European company -- did.

"Nobody in the Western Hemisphere uses their equipment," said Loren Thompson, a defense industry consultant, referring to United Aircraft. He said it would be "very difficult" for the Pentagon to buy the Russians' tanker because "there's no training manuals, no spare parts supplies and no maintenance personnel or pilot experience."

"If you buy a Boeing plane, there are people all over the world who have spare parts and know how to fix it," Thompson said.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Boudreaux
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:18 am
Location: St. Louis

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Boudreaux » Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:17 pm

I would think the introduction of Russian-built planes into the USAF tanker competition would set off all sorts of U.S. ITAR violations. Seriously, the USAF flying Russian tankers? I mean, what's next? The U.S. Army buys Chinese SAM systems?

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:21 pm

It's not going to happen. This is just a move to keep the screws to Boeing. Standard business.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:25 pm

They would need to joint venture it with a domestic contractor same as EADS for the classified materials. I imagine airframes and powerplants don't fall uner those restrictions. We get them with the initial software with their export software, then have the domestic contractor overwrite that with the mil-spec product.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:19 pm

EADS is keeping at it:

(Reuters) - Airbus parent EADS told the Pentagon on Tuesday that it will compete directly against Boeing Co for a military refueling plane deal worth up to $50 billion, according to sources informed about the matter.

EADS' decision comes against the backdrop of ongoing problems with its A400M military transport plane in Europe and mounting opposition from Boeing supporters in Congress.

Analysts said the European aerospace giant faces an uphill battle given that its A330-based tanker is larger and more expensive to operate than Boeing's 767-based tanker.

But U.S. defense officials privately say they are pleased the Air Force's third attempt to replace its aging KC-135 tankers will be a real competition, rather than a sole-source deal with Boeing. An earlier lease-buy tanker deal with Boeing collapsed in 2005 amid a huge procurement scandal.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:22 pm

I'm very glad to hear it.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Thu May 06, 2010 10:20 am

I wanted a quick Boeing chart so i went to finance.google.com. On the BA page there was a banner ad (the square ad on he side) that said "Support an American Company: BOEING. Act now." What caught my eye was the small print "Paid for by Boeing." So I clicked on it and got:

Real American Tankers.


I'll admit that I'm kind of a Boeing fanboy but this is just too funny.
RAT Splashpage wrote:The choice in the on-going tanker competition is between an American-made Boeing tanker and a tanker predominantly made in Europe.

You're here because your vote matters! That's why we need your help. By signing up you are becoming an active voice in the tanker discussion and you can use this site to contact your Elected Officials, sign our petition, or get the latest on the tanker competition. We need your help. Enroll today. It matters!
I was thinking about some Jan '11 calls but, hmmmm.

EDIT: It looks like there's a whole rotation of ads on the Google Finance page.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu May 13, 2010 2:28 pm

More Congressional Shenanigans
Identical bills that could help Boeing Co (BA.N) best Europe's EADS (EAD.PA) for a potential $50 billion U.S. Air Force contract were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate Thursday. The legislation would force the U.S. Defense Department to adjust bids on its major purchases by the amount of any illegal subsidy under a final World Trade Organization ruling.
...
The measure would apply to all companies -- including to Boeing, if it were found by the WTO to have received illegal subsidies, said Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who introduced it in the Senate with four co-sponsors.
...
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, who put in the bill in the House with more than 20 co-sponsors, estimated the Defense Department would have to add about $5 million per plane to an EADS bid under the legislation if it became law in time.
Because, of course, the contract will be awarded long before the WTO investigation into Boeing is finalized... :roll:
A WTO panel is expected to make an interim ruling by the end of next month on European Union counter-complaints that Boeing has unfairly benefited from U.S. federal, state and local subsidies. That would not constitute a final WTO determination under the measure.
...
EADS' North American arm said: "The Boeing bill is one more attempt to avoid competing on the merits of the tanker."

"Unlike EADS North America, Boeing doesn't have a tanker that meets requirements, it faces tremendous technical risk in producing one and is therefore determined to take away the warfighter's right to choose," Guy Hicks, a company spokesman, said in an email.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 13, 2010 2:37 pm

At this point why even pretend it's a competition? Just give Boeing the contract and be done with it.

If you can't do that due to various trade agreements and such, then take it like men and do better next time. I can't see how this fosters more competition and more efficient use of resources if you're going to stack the deck so heavily against other companies.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Thu May 13, 2010 5:13 pm

GreenGoo wrote:At this point why even pretend it's a competition? Just give Boeing the contract and be done with it.
Because then it couldn't be called a competitive bid contract.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 13, 2010 6:15 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:At this point why even pretend it's a competition? Just give Boeing the contract and be done with it.
Because then it couldn't be called a competitive bid contract.
That's my point. It isn't. So why pretend?

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Thu May 13, 2010 6:46 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:At this point why even pretend it's a competition? Just give Boeing the contract and be done with it.
Because then it couldn't be called a competitive bid contract.
That's my point. It isn't. So why pretend?
Because no one remembers the details. On paper, in 5 years, it will look normal.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 40570
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by GreenGoo » Thu May 13, 2010 9:00 pm

Seems....corrupt.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu May 27, 2010 2:05 pm

Boeing: EADS getting the contract would be a national security risk.
Boeing is going with its own "shock and awe" campaign, stating that giving the contract to EADS (Northrop has since dropped out of the race entirely) would be a national security risk. Although EADS would be directing a potential KC-45 tanker program courtesy of its 1,700-employee strong EADS North America subsidiary, Boeing contends that a bulk of development of the aircraft will take place in Europe.

Boeing notes that some of its own weapons systems have been hampered because "foreign-owned companies have withheld material goods and support.” Tim Keating, Boeing's Senior VP for government operations, goes on to say, "What would happen if this were a tanker? Could they and would they withhold spare parts and aircraft to impose state policy against the U.S., and what recourse do we have?"

It should come as no surprise that EADS was quick to refute Boeing's claims. "Boeing's ongoing misinformation campaign is an attempt to make this competition about anything other than getting the best tanker for the Air Force," said EADS spokesperson James Darcy. "We're proud that the Department of Defense has previously selected us as a trusted U.S. prime contractor, and we're proud of the 48,000 Americans on our tanker team who will build the KC-45."
:roll: :grund:
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Fri May 28, 2010 4:12 pm

Our wonderful House of Representatives approved the WTO amendment ... 410-8.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
stessier
Posts: 24282
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by stessier » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:22 pm

I found some old Business Weeks from August/September 2008 and was amused when I found an article about Boeing claiming the process was rigged and asking for the requirements to be changed so they could compete. I can't believe this has been going on for 2 years. Maybe we'll have Star Trek Transporters by the time they get this figured out.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:52 pm

Boeing keeps at it (from the Seattle PI):
As for Iran, a Boeing executive told reporters Tuesday that EADS has courted U.S. adversaries such as Iran, and that should figure into the tanker competition. Responding on its tanker website Wednesday, EADS North America said:
...
Let us be clear. EADS North America and its subsidiaries are not involved in any trade with Iran. The allegations against the company by Boeing are false. EADS scrupulously abides by the laws and regulations that govern the sale of our products – which include U.S. export control laws and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Boeing is spreading what it knows is misinformation, to distract attention from their lack of a tanker.

It is this that prompted a Pentagon rebuke, via the principal spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "We would not have welcomed EADS North America's participation in this important competition unless they were a company in good standing with the Department of Defense."
Oh, and as for the pending WTO investigation against Boeing, here's some numbers from an Airbus report:
The Airbus report "restores balance (and hard facts) to this debate," and "shows that Boeing has also received government support – certainly no less than Airbus," McArtor said.

Specifically, the report says, the European Union documented approximately $16.6 billion in government research and development subsidies to Boeing between the late 1980s and 2006, compared with just $3.7 in alleged R&D funding to Airbus. The report says th EU found approximately $4.9 billion in state and local tax breaks to Boeing (not counting newer South Carolina tax breaks for Boeing's second 787 assembly line), compared with just $1.6 billion claimed to have gone to Airbus.

And Boeing got about $1.5 billion from the Japanese government and nearly $600 million from Italy toward its 787 Dreamliner, helping move jobs overseas, the report says.
Timeline is for the bids to be in by early July and a contract awarded by October. I can't find a specific timeline for a final ruling on Boeing by the WTO.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:01 pm

Misinformation? Yes.

"False?" Not really.

Reuters wrote:He cited an EADS effort to market one of its helicopters at an Iranian air show. The event in question took place in 2005, Boeing officials later said, supplying the transcript and a link to video of an NBC television report at the time.

"We have not seen any indication that EADS no longer has an interest in marketing their military products to countries like Iran," Daniel Beck, a Boeing spokesman, said in a followup telephone interview.
Still, I don't like how dirty Boeing is getting in this fight.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:08 pm

From your article:
In the NBC television report that aired on Feb. 23, 2005, an EADS representative, identified as Michel Tripier, said his company was emphasizing its civil helicopters at the air show on the Iranian island of Kish.
Next week: Boeing accuses EADS leadership of being closet Nazis, sleeping around on Sandra Bullock, and providing cigarettes to two-year-olds.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:27 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:From your article:
In the NBC television report that aired on Feb. 23, 2005, an EADS representative, identified as Michel Tripier, said his company was emphasizing its civil helicopters at the air show on the Iranian island of Kish.
Next week: Boeing accuses EADS leadership of being closet Nazis, sleeping around on Sandra Bullock, and providing cigarettes to two-year-olds.
Corporate PR and spin. Shocking.

[emphasizing its civil helicopters at the air show on the Iranian island of Kish] = [market(ing) one of its helicopters at an Iranian air show] = [pimping choppers in Iran]

It may be completely misleading, and dishonest (Kish is a free trade zone) but it's factually true, as far as I can tell.



Or did EADS attend that air show, incognito, merely to give orphaned children free helitours?
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:09 am

About those evil foreign contractors...

al.com
Chicago-based Boeing announced today it was joining the helicopter contest [to replace Marine One helicopters] as the lead contractor on an industrial team that includes AgustaWestland, a subsidiary of the Italian defense firm Finmeccanica.

The announcement prompted EADS to applaud Boeing for embracing an international partner.

"We're pleased that Boeing has openly acknowledged the contribution that international teams, products and platforms make" to the U.S. defense industry, said Guy Hicks, a spokesman for EADS North America.
...
Hicks said Boeing made a "courageous choice" by joining with Finmeccanica, whose majority owner is the Italian government.

"For several years, Boeing and its allies have been harshly critical of the participation of EADS North America in the tanker competition," Hicks said. With this announcement, we now expect Boeing to cease its shrill rhetoric and finally allow the competition to focus on the merits of the tanker offerings."
...
"Our goal is to do as much of the plane in the U.S. as possible," Phil Dunford, Boeing's vice president for Rotorcraft Systems, told reporters on a conference call.

Components for the AW101 "are still built in Europe, so dependent on the timeline, I'd imagine there will be existing supply chains that we'll use," Dunford said.
Gee, I hope those pesky Italians don't become a national security threat by withholding critical parts... :roll:
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Wed Jun 09, 2010 11:31 am

Isgrimnur wrote: Gee, I hope those pesky Italians don't become a national security threat by withholding critical parts... :roll:
That's why Boeing's proposal licenses the AW101 to be built here, I guess as the Boeing 101. Presumably they will be able to use their own parts suppliers. Not that Marine One is a mass production job.

FWIW, a joint Lockheed/AW bid won the Marine One bid in 2004 (but never produced a chopper). I think they were using an AW101 variant. The basic design is kind of old.

Anyway, I'm hoping Sikorsky/Lockheed wins this VXX.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Sun Jul 04, 2010 1:44 pm

ABC News
EADS Chief Executive Louis Gallois on Saturday slammed arch-rival Boeing's "propaganda campaign" over a World Trade Organization panel ruling and said it was a sign of fear ahead of a decision on a hotly contested U.S. aerial tanker contract.

Gallois also said it was "likely" that the European Union would appeal against Wednesday's WTO panel ruling, which was critical of EU export subsidies to EADS-owned Airbus.
...
He also noted there was a second WTO panel ruling due on July 16 on a countersuit by the EU over U.S. support for Boeing.
It looks like things will get very interesting in two weeks.

Oh, and the House amendment about the WTO rulings apparently goes under the name Inslee-Tiahrt amendment.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Jul 08, 2010 12:29 pm

And in the third corner, wearing the Blue and Yellow trunks:

Antonov!!
Ukrainian plane maker Antonov has signed a deal to partner with American aerospace and defense contractor U.S. Aerospace, Inc. on a bid for the Air Force's KC-X aerial refueling tanker contract, U.S. Aerospace announced Tuesday.
...
Antonov and U.S. Aerospace will propose three tanker models: The AN-124-KC, AN-122-KC and AN-112-KC, according to a news release. Antonov would build the airframes in Ukraine and send them to an American U.S. Aerospace facility for final assembly.

"Antonov's participation in the U.S. Air Force tanker bid with U.S. Aerospace, Inc. is an historic opportunity for Antonov to showcase its premier design, engineering and manufacturing capabilities to the world," Antonov President and General Designer Dmytro Kiva said in the release. "We are extremely pleased to have entered into this agreement with U.S. Aerospace, Inc., and are looking forward to the long-term mutual benefits of our partnership."
...
Reuters quoted John Kirkland, a Los Angeles-based lawyer for U.S. Aerospace, saying the team would offer the Pentagon a "dramatically" lower price for a plane that, unlike its rivals, has a rear cargo door and can land on dirt runways, and has a more stable airframe.
...
U.S. Aerospace has asked the Pentagon for a 60-day extension from Friday's bid deadline to prepare its proposal, Kirkland told Reuters. ... Kirkland told Reuters the team would submit a bid even if the Pentagon rejected their request.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Fri Jul 09, 2010 1:03 pm

Boeing came in at a lower price than before.

Reuters
Boeing Co (BA.N) said it offered to build 179 U.S. Air Force tankers at a lower price than in its previous competition for the deal against EADS (EAD.PA), then partnered with Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N).

"We have been able to develop an offer that meets or beats the Air Force's 372 requirements at a price that is less than our previous offer," Jean Chamberlin, general manager of the Boeing bid, told Reuters Friday in a telephone interview.
EADS bid is already in.

NY Times
The European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company submitted an 8,800-page bid on Thursday for a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract amid tensions over whether European subsidies would give it a cost advantage over Boeing.

The EADS tanker is based on the Airbus A330-200, the model that the World Trade Organization said received illegal subsidies in the form of lower-cost loans, Christopher Drew writes for The New York Times.
And the WTO preliminary ruling about Boeing has been pushed back :?

Telegraph
The World Trade Organisation has delayed its ruling on the European Union's complaint against US state aid for Boeing. A preliminary judgment will now be issued in September, rather than on July 16 as was expected.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:17 pm

Breaking news/rumor is that Boeing got the tanker. Can't confirm yet.

Edit: NYT reports.
In a surprise twist in a long-running saga, the Air Force on Thursday awarded a $35 billion contract for aerial fueling tankers to Boeing rather than to a European company that builds Airbus planes, according to aides to lawmakers and industry executives who were briefed on the decision.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:23 pm

Thanks for the link. It is, of course, not over by a long shot. The final report will be scrutinized in detail to make sure there's not been a repeat of the last award and that all the scoring was done properly.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
AWS260
Posts: 10362
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:51 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by AWS260 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:53 pm

You gotta love this quote from the NY Times story:
“I’m disappointed but not surprised,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama. “Only Chicago politics could tip the scales in favor of Boeing’s inferior plane.”

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:11 pm

AWS260 wrote:You gotta love this quote from the NY Times story:
“I’m disappointed but not surprised,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama. “Only Chicago politics could tip the scales in favor of Boeing’s inferior plane.”
"Hey, I wanted that pork!"



Most of the manufacturing jobs created will be in Wichita and Washington state, IIRC.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

User avatar
Freezer-TPF-
Posts: 12698
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: VA

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Freezer-TPF- » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:18 pm

The radio ads both companies have been running in the DC area are hilariously bad as they sling mud back and forth.
When the sun goes out, we'll have eight minutes to live.

User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 60527
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:
Isgrimnur’s avatar
Offline

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Isgrimnur » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:49 pm

Let's start with the Germans:
The German government expressed doubts on Friday whether a U.S. decision to award a multi-billion dollar contract for refueling planes to EADS rival Boeing was fair.

"The decision leaves a bitter aftertaste because it is not entirely clear whether there was a fair procedure at the third tender," Deputy Economy Minister Peter Hintze told Reuters.
Silver - 1k

User avatar
Boudreaux
Posts: 2816
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:18 am
Location: St. Louis

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by Boudreaux » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:41 pm

This is my favorite so far:
Mobile (AL) Area Chamber of Commerce wrote:“The U.S. Department of Defense, in not awarding the aerial refueling tanker contract to EADS North America today, has made a egregious error and America’s military men and women are ultimately the biggest losers.”
Thank you, Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce, for that insightful conclusion. I'm certain it was drawn from your exhaustive review of the two competing proposals and extensive knowledge of aerial refueling, logistics, and USAF warfighting needs.

I mean, at least frame it in something relevant to your area of influence, like economic impact or jobs or something.

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 46134
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, where we only use the old smilies

Re: Tanker Contract Manuevering

Post by LawBeefaroni » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:51 pm

a egregious error
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT

Post Reply