backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 154 comment(s) - last by sv17ein.. on Mar 28 at 12:45 PM

Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45A tanker  (Source: Northrop Grumman)

  (Source: Northrop Grumman)
Boeing calls out to the General Accounting Office for help

It seems almost inevitable that things would come to this, but Boeing will officially file a protest today citing its concerns over the U.S. Air Force's decision to go with Northrop Grumman/EADS's KC-45A tanker design. Even though the KC-45A, built on a highly modified Airbus A330 airframe, appeared to win the contract based on its superior performance on nearly every front, Boeing wants the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to further investigate the decision.

The call for the GAO to review the Air Force's decision came after Boeing was debriefed on the reasons why Northrop Grumman/EADA won the $35 billion contract two weeks ago.

"Our team has taken a very close look at the tanker decision and found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal," said Boeing Chief Jim McNerney yesterday in a press release. "This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company, and one we take very seriously."

"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal," McNerney continued. "We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision."

Boeing was greatly displeased by the U.S. Air Force's decision and goes on to state on many occasions its "75 years of unmatched experience building tankers" and how it "offered the Air Force the best value and lowest risk tanker for its mission".

Boeing was so enraged, in fact, that it issued a total of five press releases relating to the tanker contract after the final decision was handed down.

For its part, the Air Force is sticking by its decision to go with the KC-45A design. The KC-45A simply offered "more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," according to Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte.

It appears that Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADA may be in for a lengthy deliberation process as the GAO combs over the tanker program details and the decision to select the KC-45A. It remains to be seen if the GAO will buy Boeing's argument that the Air Force required the "bare minimum" and nothing more which the U.S. aircraft giant did indeed provide compared to the KC-45A.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 12:04:25 PM , Rating: 5
"Based upon what we have seen, we continue to believe we submitted the most capable, lowest risk, lowest Most Probable Life Cycle Cost airplane as measured against the Air Force's Request for Proposal,"

Most capable? The A330 is bigger, carries more fuel, can do it for longer, can carry more passengers and cargo, and can do it on the same footprint as the KC-135 which it replaces (which was the USAF spec)

Lowest risk? The A330MRTT tanker is flying RIGHT now, the KC-45 is a derivative of this. Whereas the Boeing frankentanker is a mixing of various 767 (-200, -300,-400 and freighter)parts is still just drawings. That is an outright lie on Boeing's part.

Lowest life cycle? Are Boeing on drugs? The 767 line is due to close within the next few years. That means when the KC-Y contract offer comes up, the USAF will be forced to operate a mixed fleet which ALWAYS equates to higher than ideal costs. Meanwhile, the A330 line will be going strong, and parts support will continue to be much stronger as the fleet is comparatively younger.

I'm sorry, but from the perspective of someone in the industry, Boeing's argument is very short on facts and playing on (ill-informed) people's emotions.




RE: I'll just blow some of that pish out of the water
By erwos on 3/11/2008 12:13:50 PM , Rating: 1
You seem to have no idea why Boeing is appealing. Let me help you out, and short-circuit any more of the "my plane is better than your plane!" idiocy.

Boeing isn't debating any of those points you listed. What they _are_ saying is that the military substantially changed the requirements for the contracts without giving the bidders enough notice. The changes to the requirements for cost and size were not properly relayed to Boeing, and thus EADS was able to use the information to put together a bid that Boeing could not have matched. If Boeing had been given proper access to that information, they may have put in a much more competitive bid. This is supposed to be a competitive process, and what the military did (allegedly) harmed that competition in a substantial way.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 12:36:56 PM , Rating: 4
You have absolutely no idea of the facts do you?

You know Boeing effectively wrote the original USAF spec, and tailored it to the 767?

Of course you don't. You don't have a notion what has been going on here. Boeing had 5 months to write the original ORD in 2002, then gave EADS 12 days with it.

John McCain (yes, the same one running for Pres) uncovered the dirty dealings within all this - hence why several people enjoyed time in federal prisons.

The airforce asked for proposals for the revised KC-Y comp in Jan of 2007.

As for the idea that Boeing would have bid the 777 - absolute lunacy and further evidence of ill-informed people speaking when they should be keeping quiet. Boeing were prepared to put forward a 777 proposal in Sept of 2006 if the USAF's revised ORD (released Jan 2007) required it. But the 777 was uncompetitive as well (it would not meet the KC-135 footprint, whereas the 330 could - not to mention development costs), hence why the 767 was still put forward... and lost.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 12:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry -

Correction:

KC-Y should have been KC-X

Addition:

On the dirty dealings - even back in 2002, the EADS proposal was better and substantially cheaper (10 billion cheaper), but due to certain people in charge of appropriations getting backhanders, Boeing still got the offer.


By othercents on 3/11/2008 2:16:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
85% of Boeing products will be made here. 15% outsourced.

60% NGEADS products made here. 40% outsourced.

I love this argument. Your saying that if a 100% US made product came along the US Government should ALWAYS purchase it instead of the competition? Even if the product was less effective than any other competitor? I'm all for giving contracts to US companies, but only as a last resort given that both products come up as a dead heat.

Other


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
Balls.

The $10 billion is the other way around.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 2:37:43 PM , Rating: 1
Not possible. 35 + 10 is well over the limit that the Air Force set for the project of 40 Billion.

Go read up some more, the original contract from Boeing was going to cost 23.5 Billion.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 2:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
The 767 deal was costing $31 billion or thereabouts.

I don't know where you get your figures, but they are out.

In the 2002 deal, the EADS offer came in at around $10 billion under the $33 billion or so Boeing proposed. But the "USAF" chose Boeing - this was later proven to be highly illegal with large conflicts of interest for some resulting in jail terms.


By SandmanWN on 3/11/2008 3:32:03 PM , Rating: 1
Your numbers are completely wrong and you know. You've already pointed out your own mistake in your other posts. The original Boeing contract was 17.2 Billion which the GAO said might cost up to 23.5 Billion. Not this 31 crap you keep spewing out.

The Airbus contract is 35 Billion. Wonder what the GAO cost estimates will inflate this number to? Yeah it will probably end up costing 40+ Billion.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 3:54:45 PM , Rating: 3
See my other post.

I guess both the Congressional budget office and one of you Presidential nominees know less about the figures than you.

Boeings original plan:

CBO estimates the cost of leasing 100 of these aircraft would total about $31 billion over the 2003-2020 period.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3413&type=0

I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.


By Amiga500 on 3/11/2008 5:31:22 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, but you aren't even beginning to understand the ins and outs of it.

First off, Boeing are not offering what EADS are offering, the 767 is far inferior in all measurable performance aspects.

2nd off, I've already stated the 767 line will be shut by the time the KC-Y contract comes up, which means non fleet commonality (I don't think many members on here truly grasp just how big an issue this is - in itself it should be enough to win the contract). The A330 line, in contrast is fully booked for a number of years yet.

3rd, the strong sales of the A330 means parts will be around much longer than for the 767, which will shortly become exclusive to the US, Japan and Italian airforces.


By mmatis on 3/11/2008 5:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
What did the RFP call for? It doesn't matter whether the Airbus is more capable than the 767 if the RFP didn't ask for that. USAF had an opportunity to ask for what they wanted. The offerors were supposed to bid to that, and USAF was supposed to evaluate the bids against the RFP. If they did, then this will be a fairly quick turnover. On the other hand...


By ikkeman on 3/11/2008 5:54:32 PM , Rating: 2
if boeing gets this contract, the (kc)767 line will be open for the KC-y competition. There just won't be any commercial clients, forcing the airforce to pay all the costs for keeping the line open (hence the requirement of the airforce to consider the boeing offer as military instead of commercia derivative!)


By lexluthermiester on 3/11/2008 5:56:27 PM , Rating: 3
Amiga500, where are you getting your information?

The 767 and A330 by specs are nearly identical in capabilities[per Boeing and Airbus web site information] save for the fact that the 767 can carry almost twice the cargo.

Furthermore, the 767 is not scheduled for "end of life" until 2016[again per Boeing's web site] and will be supported for the operational life of the fleet. If Boeing is putting in a bid using the 767 then it would mean that they are willing to cost effectively support the fleet for the life of the contract, which they have with the 707[KC-135].

The A330 has had strong sales, no doubt there, but in the passenger market only. The tanker market is quite another story. Half of Europe, most of Africa, most of South America and most of Asia use the 767 tankers. Heck, even the Russians have purchased 767 tankers.

Really, you need to quit spouting misinformation! You're making yourself look like a complete dolt!