RE: Tanker contract awarded to Boeing......

[brad kaste]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/24/ap/politics/main20036171.shtml

[Quixoticish]

Nice to see politics elbowing need and common sense out of the way as always. :isadizzy:

[Naismith]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/24/ap/politics/main20036171.shtml

Good news, especially with regard to the jobs it will create within the U.S. How they could even seriously consider the Airbus tender amazed me.

[yank51]

Good news, especially with regard to the jobs it will create within the U.S. How they could even seriously consider the Airbus tender amazed me.

Me too!!!! :applause::applause::applause:

(a former Boeing employee...)

[CWOJackson]

Glad to see the troops will soon be getting this needed asset. The 767 should make a good and reliable platform for them.

[Lionheart]

Awesome! Glad to see this.

Jobs for Americans.

[Railrunner130]

Good news for a change!

A friend of mine turns wrenches for a major airline and said that the Airbus fleet doesn't hold up as well as the Boeing fleet does.

[HvyEng]

Uggghhhh, <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As a professional tanker clown intimately familiar with the current capabilities and future needs, I was hoping the EADS/Airbus solution would prevail. But alas union jobs (which actually won't occur in the long run) taking priority over defense capabilities wins again, politics as usual.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
--Dan<o:p></o:p>

[hawkeye52]

As much as we dislike "politics", we have to become reconciled to their permeating everything. Regardless of the merits of the two proposals -- which I am sure cannot be all that different -- I for one am glad that Boeing got the win because in addition to jobs (yes, I know EADS was going to do some offset work over here) the profits (oooh, it's that dirty word again!) stay here and will be used to develop future products. :salute:

- h52

[azflyboy]

Good news, especially with regard to the jobs it will create within the U.S. How they could even seriously consider the Airbus tender amazed me.

Both companies were claiming their projects would have created about 50,000 jobs, and given the stunt Boeing pulled the first time around with the leasing scandal, I'm amazed they were even allowed to bid on the contract again.

Regardless of who won the contract, it'll likely end up over budget and behind schedule, so I'm a bit dubious about the USAF claims that cost was the deciding factor.

[Allen]

Both companies were claiming their projects would have created about 50,000 jobs, and given the stunt Boeing pulled the first time around with the leasing scandal, I'm amazed they were even allowed to bid on the contract again.

Regardless of who won the contract, it'll likely end up over budget and behind schedule, so I'm a bit dubious about the USAF claims that cost was the deciding factor.

Hey, hay, hay now. Were talking about Boeing not Lockheed. I give Boeing a 25% change of geting them done on time and budget. If it was Lockheed, I would give them a 99.9% chance of geting them done over budget and behind schedule.

[Quixoticish]

Uggghhhh, <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
As a professional tanker clown intimately familiar with the current capabilities and future needs, I was hoping the EADS/Airbus solution would prevail. But alas union jobs (which actually won't occur in the long run) taking priority over defense capabilities wins again, politics as usual.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
--Dan<o:p></o:p>

Glad to see someone agrees. The EADS/Airbus proposal was a much better solution that would have created just as many jobs as the Boeing one. Despite this institutionalised xenophobia seems to have taken hold as always.

Pork Barrel Politics through and through.

[deathfromafar]

I looked up & posted the numbers in another thread and clearly the USAF is getting a lesser plane with the KC-767. Just a 2 engine KC-135 is all it is. It's tanker combo + cargo numbers are pretty pathetic compared to the A330MRTT & the latter is good bit closer in it's numbers to the KC-10A.

The right call was made the first time but Boeing cried wolf playing politics to get the losing plane a second and albeit very rigged chance. Under the original contract awarding to Northrop EADS, the jobs would have been in a location that not only could use those jobs, but also here in the US of A, not overseas. But again, it wasn't at Everette or Wichita so the greedy guts up at Boeing HQ & the Unions couldn't have that.

This was a Boeing victory(with inside help in Congress direct pipelined to the Pentagon), a victory for the losing design, and a major loss of would be capability to the Air Force. Mark my words, when we get down the road a few years, this horribly bad decision will rear it's ugly head in a multitude of ways. When it does, few of those behind it all will be visible. Given time, I suspect a major scandal will come of this too.

[stiz]

"its got nothing to do with how good your product is. Its who you know and how much money you can afford to spend on persuasion"

:monkies:

[kilo delta]

See...brown envelopes DO work..allegedly ;)

[noddy]

See...brown envelopes DO work..allegedly ;)

So I wonder if Boeing will get investigated like BAe did for bungs to obtain Typhoon contracts?

[Bjoern]

I went like this upon reading the headline for the first time:

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/


The MRTT would've needed less adaptive measures than the 767...but eh, the USAF should know what it's doing. Or not. We'll just sell the A330 to the rest of the world then instead the rest of the world *and* the US.


- Edit: I'd offer some A330MRTTs to Iran and North Korea and be like "If we had the USAF contract, we wouldn't have to do this!" :>


Also, the sales talks with Iran would be fun:

"Here, you can buy our MRTTs now."
- "Umm, okay. We'll take five."
"You'll get a kilogram of weapons grade plutonium with every dozen."
- "In that case...we'll buy two thousand!"
"A new nuclear research lab to boot if you buy two dozen A320s and leave Israel alone."
- "Deal!"

And the world would be a much better place...


The end.

[txnetcop]

I went like this upon reading the headline for the first time:

http://nooooooooooooooo.com/


The MRTT would've needed less adaptive measures than the 767...but eh, the USAF should know what it's doing. Or not. We'll just sell the A330 to the rest of the world then instead the rest of the world *and* the US.


- Edit: I'd offer some A330MRTTs to Iran and North Korea and be like "If we had the USAF contract, we wouldn't have to do this!" :>


Also, the sales talks with Iran would be fun:

"Here, you can buy our MRTTs now."
- "Umm, okay. We'll take five."
"You'll get a kilogram of weapons grade plutonium with every dozen."
- "In that case...we'll buy two thousand!"
"A new nuclear research lab to boot if you buy two dozen A320s and leave Israel alone."
- "Deal!"

And the world would be a much better place...


The end.

I'm sure being the intelligent individual I know you to be you are not serious...but if I were you I would stop this now! When you consider the state of the world at present...this isn't funny Bjoern!
Ted

[wombat666]

I went like this upon reading the headline for the first time:
The MRTT would've needed less adaptive measures than the 767...but eh, the USAF should know what it's doing. Or not. We'll just sell the A330 to the rest of the world then instead the rest of the world *and* the US.
- Edit: I'd offer some A330MRTTs to Iran and North Korea and be like "If we had the USAF contract, we wouldn't have to do this!" :>
Also, the sales talks with Iran would be fun:
"Here, you can buy our MRTTs now."
- "Umm, okay. We'll take five."
"You'll get a kilogram of weapons grade plutonium with every dozen."
- "In that case...we'll buy two thousand!"
"A new nuclear research lab to boot if you buy two dozen A320s and leave Israel alone."
- "Deal!"
And the world would be a much better place...
The end.

How to get a thread locked plus an infraction all in one step!
:173go1::173go1::173go1:

[Daveroo]

ive been folloing this thing in the pages of air international magazine..and it was pretty clear that boeing woould get the contract or they would never stop filing protests and flinging accuasations of wrong doing..airbus/EADS had no chance...but what i find distrubing is that everyone think
s its so great that americans will get jobs now...eads was going to buld the planes in the USA soouth/southeast not france/UK..and most of the Boeing airplane will be built in Tiawan and shiped here for final assembly...but just a few american workers will assemble it.....so whats best for americans? the airbus /eads product....

[stansdds]

Hey, I'm in here before the lock!

I dunno, politics is politics and I'm sure it had a lot to do with this decision. Looks to be business as usual and I think that applies equally to all nations.

That's all I'll say.

[huub vink]

Good news, especially with regard to the jobs it will create within the U.S. How they could even seriously consider the Airbus tender amazed me.

The relation between price and quality perhaps.....

Huub

[TeaSea]

Bottom line from the perspective of the force, it really doesn't matter which platform the Air Force bought.

The KC135's and KC10's need to be replace as soon as possible. Their upkeep alone is a significant cost as the airframes age.

As the average tanker crew....they probably don't care. Just get them an airplane that spends more time flying than down for maintenance, and one that doesn't smell like piss from the decaying relief tubes.

[HvyEng]

It DOES matter to the force which platform was purchased, our capabilities are directly affected by it. Would it matter to the force if the Army purchased kids bicycle helmets and said "it creates American jobs, so it’s good for you, just go to work”?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
The contract is to replace the KC-135, not the KC-10. The KC-10’s "upkeep alone" is not part of the picture. I was the "average tanker crew,” we do care, but our voice is not heard and opinion was not wanted by the USAF, this was a political deal from the start. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
--Dan<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

[Panther_99FS]

Here's an interesting bit of information that some of you will hate, some of you will disagree with but it is what it is...

What matters most is how well the aircraft meets the requirements, not how well it performs overall....A perfect example of this is the F-22 vs YF-23.....The F-22 met the written USAF requirements better than the YF-23.....

[stiz]

What matters most is how well the aircraft meets the requirements

before or after they get changed to suit a certain party ;) :monkies:

[Jen]

I wouldn`t be surprised if quite a few europian politicians, would start thinking if we actually needs a joint Strike Fighter.
On second thought, we can get a eurofighter for half the price, or a swedish grippen for a quarter of the price. http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon22.gif


Jen

[deathfromafar]

All those of us who know & realize that there is an immediate need for a new Tanker for the Air Force also know that branch of service has not been well served by the way this entire affair has been handled/conducted going back to the lease scandal up to now. The A330 MRTT won fair and square the first time yet Boeing protested and got the competition reopened and the requirements redrawn to heavily favor them. The latter mention and the lease scandal pretty much amount to Bid Rigging. The politics involved also wreak & this is not a matter of one party vs another party. It's all about a piece of the budget pie and what districts & interests therein get a cut of it. That's nothing new at all in the course of awarding competitive Govt contracts but in this case it is obviously rotten. Here's another issue, Boeing so underbid this contract, not only are they not going to make any significant profit on it but actually face a serious loss which guess what, the tax payers will end up footing the bailout on later. In the end, Boeing will have great difficulty delivering the end product to the Air Force on time, numbers and more. The first new KC-767 won't see first flight until 2015 or later and delivery perhaps even later. The Air Force will end up with a larger number of less capable Tankers at both a higher fly-away cost and long term operational cost.

The company is in serious trouble because of major delays & serious problems with both the 787 and 747-800 and with this Tanker debacle, one has to wonder if the poor management in Chicago will tank the company(no pun intended).

It's mid afternoon and I need something for my headache...:frown:

(My soap box is now stowed for the day....)

[CWOJackson]

Almost sounds as if Boeing is owned by Bill Gates.

As I recall, there were serious issues in the original bid process that unintentionally handicapped Boeing. That was the sole reason Boeing protested and why their protest was upheld, and regardless of who had won this time around there were bound to be disappointed people for their own reasons.

Moving beyond the national/brand biases, political banter and everything else, the 767 is a proven and reliable platform. There's little doubt that Boeing has and continues to build great aircraft for our military.

Congratulations to Boeing and to our aircrews.

[SixGhost]

Considering the first KC767A was to be delivered to our country in 2005 and it finally arrived in 2011 with dumbed down capabilities...good luck USA! Maybe this time Boeing won't take 5 bloody years to fix a fluttering problem caused by a pod!

[huub vink]

I wouldn`t be surprised if quite a few europian politicians, would start thinking if we actually needs a joint Strike Fighter.
On second thought, we can get a eurofighter for half the price, or a swedish grippen for a quarter of the price. http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon22.gif


Jen

In the Netherlands there is already a lively discussion going on. Not because there is any doubt about the aircraft, but mainly because the US doesn't keep its promises about return investments. Obviously the economical part and the political part from a deal have become more important than the product you are actually buying.

Huub

[Z-IanMCD]

I wouldn`t be surprised if quite a few europian politicians, would start thinking if we actually needs a joint Strike Fighter.
On second thought, we can get a eurofighter for half the price, or a swedish grippen for a quarter of the price. http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/icons/icon22.gif


Jen

Europe should rethink the need for overly expensive american equipment, when we can get fine European equipment for far less.

And so much for the so called free market. Apparently over the pond free market means buying american (and in this case inferior) equipment.

So indeed Europe should go Rafale/Eurofighter or Gripen and thus save money and jobs.

*rant mode off*

[txnetcop]

Europe should rethink the need for overly expensive american equipment, when we can get fine European equipment for far less.

And so much for the so called free market. Apparently over the pond free market means buying american (and in this case inferior) equipment.

So indeed Europe should go Rafale/Eurofighter or Gripen and thus save money and jobs.

*rant mode off*

I suppose you believe that all Airbus parts are mfg and assembled in Europe...you have some reading to do. I think the real issue Huub nailed down exactly.
Ted

[Bjoern]

I'm sure being the intelligent individual I know you to be you are not serious...but if I were you I would stop this now! When you consider the state of the world at present...this isn't funny Bjoern!

I know sarcasm/irony is hard to detect in written form, but I thought being *so* over the top shouldn't leave a trace of doubt that I wasn't being very serious at all.

After all, it mostly works in books.

Also, you should know me by now - at least a little.




How to get a thread locked plus an infraction all in one step!
:173go1::173go1::173go1:

See clarification above.

[txnetcop]

Let's face it some things just shouldn't be said Bjoern even joking and I was sure that you were joking. I never doubt your intelligence or sincerity what I doubted based on the comment was your judgment.

[Z-IanMCD]

I suppose you believe that all Airbus parts are mfg and assembled in Europe...you have some reading to do. I think the real issue Huub nailed down exactly.
Ted

I know exactly where Airbus/EADS parts are manufactured Ted. And indeed, Huub was right: america does not keep it's promises (on return investments and other things).

So I stand by my comments that Europe should buy European, instead of overly priced american stuff. At least over here, the price is right, we have full control over the stuff we buy and we have more Europeans working.

And I realise that this is going to cost me an infraction.

[Bjoern]

Let's face it some things just shouldn't be said Bjoern even joking and I was sure that you were joking. I never doubt your intelligence or sincerity what I doubted based on the comment was your judgment.

It's bad judgement to put a bit of humour into serious matters?


Not in my book, but whatever, you're the admin here.

[txnetcop]

I know exactly where Airbus/EADS parts are manufactured Ted. And indeed, Huub was right: america does not keep it's promises (on return investments and other things).

So I stand by my comments that Europe should buy European, instead of overly priced american stuff. At least over here, the price is right, we have full control over the stuff we buy and we have more Europeans working.

And I realise that this is going to cost me an infraction.

Why does this cost you an infraction? You're entitled to your opinion. The industry itself is not even convinced Airbus design or parts are better engineered than Boeing's parts but hey that is based on what I know and have read. Since I am not an expert on such matters I will leave it to the industry. I don't see any way to keep these damn politics out of decisions made on who gets what..not on our shore or yours.
Ted

[Z-IanMCD]

Why does this cost you an infraction? You're entitled to your opinion. The industry itself is not even convinced Airbus design or parts are better engineered than Boeing's parts but hey that is based on what I know and have read. Since I am not an expert on such matters I will leave it to the industry. I don't see any way to keep these damn politics out of decisions made on who gets what..not on our shore or yours.
Ted

Well, you surprise me with not giving me an infraction for making supposedly anti-american comments.

But the bottom line of the matter is that the USAF is going to get the inferior aircraft for the job.

As a patriot and ex-serviceman, doesn't that pain you?

[txnetcop]

Well, you surprise me with not giving me an infraction for making supposedly anti-american comments.

But the bottom line of the matter is that the USAF is going to get the inferior aircraft for the job.

As a patriot and ex-serviceman, doesn't that pain you?

Look I bleed Red, White, and Blue but I'm not blind or stupid. I also believe the Airbus would have been the better choice in this case for several smaller reasons but think about this: you are flying an aircraft whether Boeing or Airbus that wins because of a lower bid. You can't tell me they don't cut corners to come as close to bid as possible so as to not get cancelled. Personally I dread the thought of flying military aircraft from any nation today. I'm glad I don't have to. I want Airbus and Boeing to do well because I depend on both when I fly in their aircraft. Whether we like it or not we live in a global economy and can't afford the luxury of buy American or buy European. I would love to see cooperative markets that don't hurt our workforces so terribly...in a perfect world which I have yet to see.
Ted

[Sascha66]

So if Airbus had gotten the contract, there would have been more jobs in the US? The whole process seems to be irrational to me...

[txnetcop]

So if Airbus had gotten the contract, there would have been more jobs in the US? The whole process seems to be irrational to me...


I am very sure I did not say that...

[PRB]

So if Airbus had gotten the contract, there would have been more jobs in the US? The whole process seems to be irrational to me...

Possibly. Who know? EADS employs lots of people in this country, and lots of Boeing parts and bits are made outside the country. The criteria should not be the number of jobs created within the borders of this country. It should be which is the better product for the best price, and (same question) does it meet the requirements?

In general it makes sense to me for a country's military stuff to be made by that country. But allies also share military technology, and the US and Europe are, and thus have a long history of sharing military stuff. No big deal there.

I haven't followed the story closely so can't offer an opinion on which is the better product.

[casey jones]

I think the 767 is a proven airplane, I still have fatih that America will always do what is best for its Air Force...(but I would have liked to see the 757 be a tanker).

Cheers

Casey

[wombat666]

Also, you should know me by now - at least a little.

We certainly do!
Clear enough?????
:173go1:

[Bjoern]

We certainly do!
Clear enough?????
:173go1:

Too clear.

[b52bob]

Before the lock.....

So the US is biased towards Boeing?

Think EADS turboprop, the engine selection (TPE), and timely, on budget delivery.

Having worked on Boeing products (B-52, KC-135) and hearing from an insider at US Airways regarding the Airbus, I'd pick Boeing anytime.

[stiz]

So I stand by my comments that Europe should buy European, instead of overly priced american stuff.

allthough the american off the shelf stuff is mostly cheap than 1 paticular BAE systems, who have never done a plane on time or on budget and positivley overcharge on everything possible. Then our goverment throwing more money in to add their own uneeded stuff :monkies:


So if Airbus had gotten the contract, there would have been more jobs in the US? The whole process seems to be irrational to me..

Yes there would have been, the final assembly plants would have been in the states (somewhere in the middle i belive). If you look at both the specs given by the company the amount of jobs created would have been about the same .. just in different states. Anyway both companys build their planes all over place, so the wing might come from the south pacific, fuse from timbuktu etc, the only thing done in the states by both companies would have been the final assembly and weapons bits.


I think the 767 is a proven airplane, I still have fatih that America will always do what is best for its Air Force...(but I would have liked to see the 757 be a tanker)

just because its a good civi airliner doesnt automaticly make it a great militray plane *points to nimrod* :monkies:

[Panther_99FS]

America doesn't buy American all the time....case in point, the C-27...

But going back to Airbus, the original solution during the lend lease period was again Boeing....and you can subsequently make a case that the requirements were rewritten to favor Airbus.....

[CG_1976]

Also the USCG with the HC-144 or a CASA 235.

[Quixoticish]

just because its a good civi airliner doesnt automaticly make it a great militray plane *points to nimrod* :monkies:

The Nimrod was a great military aircraft and was fantastic in both the maritime reconnaissance and ELINT roles.

It was only when they tried to cram it full of even more electronics and turn it into an AEW platform that it started to show its limitations.

[SixGhost]

America doesn't buy American all the time....case in point, the C-27...

Which was to be ordered in great numbers to fulfill many different roles but then reduced to 78 and then again to 38, negating the possibility to build the airplane in a brand new factory in Jacksonville (FL). The JCA programme, as it stands now, is a farce. As a matter of fact, who would have put to good use those planes, is still desperately asking for them (NG).

Another example might be the VH-71...

See what I did there?;)

[Panther_99FS]

F-22 was ordered in great numbers and then reduced....:173go1:

[Z-IanMCD]

Again, the USAF was in favour of the Airbus, and testing proved it to be the superior aircraft.

Thanks to politics and downright protectionism (not free market principles) the USAF is getting an inferior aircraft.

it really doesn't get any clearer than that!

[Panther_99FS]

IAN,
Read my 2 post prior....Boeing won the original lend lease contact and one can make the debate that the requirements were first modified to favor Airbus..(though I'll be the first to admit that there were some bad things associated with this decision)...but no one here seems to be "objecting" to the requirements being first rewritten to favor Airbus....

[Z-IanMCD]

IAN,
Read my 2 post prior....Boeing won the original lend lease contact and one can make the debate that the requirements were first modified to favor Airbus..(though I'll be the first to admit that there were some bad things associated with this decision)...but no one here seems to be "objecting" to the requirements being first rewritten to favor Airbus....


You ARE joking right? An american requirement rewritten to favour a European aircraft? When pigs might fly maybe. But not in this world.

No, the USAF was denied the right equipment, because the "defenders of the free world and free market" saw fit to forget about the free market.

As a result, american servicemen will die in greater numbers than if the right plane would have been bought.

The whole thing smells of disgusting politics and above all lies.

[Panther_99FS]

You ARE joking right? An american requirement rewritten to favour a European aircraft? When pigs might fly maybe. But not in this world.


No I'm not joking....You need to read up on the lend lease agreement and how things went over to Airbus after that :)

Anyways, food for thought if you choose to learn about the complete history of the USAF tanker project rather than select portions...

And now, I sign off from this thread...

[txnetcop]

You ARE joking right? An american requirement rewritten to favour a European aircraft? When pigs might fly maybe. But not in this world.

No, the USAF was denied the right equipment, because the "defenders of the free world and free market" saw fit to forget about the free market.

As a result, american servicemen will die in greater numbers than if the right plane would have been bought.

The whole thing smells of disgusting politics and above all lies.

Your ignorance of published documentation is beyond belief. The Air Force chose Airbus. But for argument's sake let's say that you could be right. Your agenda is obvious. It has nothing to do with being concerned about servicemen. You simply want to bash America. Why do you persist in this foolish bashing? Clearly based on your lack of knowledge you're not an expert. You don't have any more behind the scenes facts than we do and yet you insist on being obnoxious about something you have no real knowledge of. It is all based on conjecture on your part.
Ted

[deathfromafar]

I'd like to reiterate a past point. Between the KC-135R and KC-10A, it is well known that crews and the service itself prefer the capability and maintainability of the KC-10 over the 135 hands down. The KC-135 has been a tremendously successful and durable airframe but the two types are very much different classes(size & capability) of aircraft even though they perform the same exact job. Again, the KC-767 numbers are similar to the 135R and without question, the 767 is unquestionably an excellent airframe. The A330MRTT is larger, more rated thrust, greater cargo & fuel capacity than the KC-767. Technically, it is different classification/capability and closer to the KC-10 by a good bit than the KC-767. I've said this before and still stand by it. If Boeing had made an attempt to make a tanker version of the 777F, then they could have not only bettered the A330MRTT but also more closely matched the KC-10's capability which would be preferred. Again, the Air Force would be better off with something with greater capability than the KC-135R which the KC-767 is replacing but it's stepping backwards from the KC-10's capability.

Everything is subject to change and rumor has it, the Boeing contract may be severely reduced in the face of coming budget cuts if not canceled outright so all of this may end up becoming very moot.

[Roger]

Airbus v Boeing threads always seem to descend into an intercontinental war of words. However it isn't more important than simming...which is what brought us all here in the first place. No good can come of this debate, here so let's allow this thread to drift off to the nether world of locked and lost threads...