Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid  
User currently offlineYazoo From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 487 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14039 times:

OMFG, sorry but this is getting ridiculous... The pentagon is truly making a mockery out of this bid. I can totally understand Boeing's frustration...

EADS to re-enter tanker competition, Again....


Purple Pride!
120 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2351 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 13937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Other than asking for asking for/granting a brief extension, what exactly have EADS and the Pentagon done that's so ridiculous? It's not like Boeing hasn't ever asked for extensions in past.

User currently offlineYazoo From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13834 times:

Well I'm sorry, but This has dragged on for as long as I can remember. First Boeing is selected (back in 2003) then the program is put on the backburner for some time. Fast forward to 2008, now its EADS that wins the contract, just for it to be cancelled again. A month or so ago, EADS drops out of the race and Boeing is finally seen as the sole contender. Now EADS re-enters again which will probably drag the process even longer, I mean c'mon! this is worst than a mexican telenovelas...


Purple Pride!
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13799 times:

Now that a foreign entity can bid without a US partner, let the Russians in too. It will be interesting to see how much more price pressure will be there for A and B.

Come on Yuri, you can win. 


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 13635 times:

Pot... Kettle... Black... Again...

Sigh...   Can we have a law that makes it illegal for PR people from each company to release media releases until the process has finished?

I want the Russians to bid as well - the sooner they do, the sooner there will be real value for money for the US taxpayers.


User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 13605 times:

Quoting Yazoo (Reply 2):
Well I'm sorry, but This has dragged on for as long as I can remember. First Boeing is selected (back in 2003) then the program is put on the backburner for some time. Fast forward to 2008, now its EADS that wins the contract, just for it to be cancelled again. A month or so ago, EADS drops out of the race and Boeing is finally seen as the sole contender. Now EADS re-enters again which will probably drag the process even longer, I mean c'mon! this is worst than a mexican telenovelas...

Northrop Grumman dropped out of the race, EADS North America is about to enter the race.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 13470 times:

Strong rhetorics are needed to push an aircraft that has been outclassed two times already on the civil market. In my ears there is a tune of desperation...

User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 13429 times:

“While we are disappointed in the bid submission delay, we hope for a fair and transparent competition free of any additional changes intended to accommodate a non-U.S. prime contractor.

 

Remember they weren't the ones "fair" in the first round (to state it very, very mildly) they have been using back door politics to frustrate the second round & have the rules changed.

Now them stating this..   



User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 16 hours ago) and read 13252 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 6):
Strong rhetorics are needed to push an aircraft that has been outclassed two times already on the civil market. In my ears there is a tune of desperation...

Well, the Sherman tank was not the best in WWII but it worked, guess in this day and age for a tanker a/c it must be the best of the best of the best, bring on the 787 or A350 since they both are putting the 767 and A330 out to pasture.  
Quoting keesje (Reply 7):
Remember they weren't the ones "fair" in the first round (to state it very, very mildly) they have been using back door politics to frustrate the second round & have the rules changed.

I know that being the fair and open minded person that you are you will correct the second to third and the equivalent for the 2008 debacle will be posted shortly, as someone else in this thread said

Quoting cpd (Reply 4):
Pot... Kettle... Black... Again...
Quoting cpd (Reply 4):
Sigh... Can we have a law that makes it illegal for PR people from each company to release media releases until the process has finished?

How about we add the fans to this sentiment, but you have to question, what makes us on this site any different from those working for these companies, we breathe the same air, we want the same things for out children, etc. etc. etc.)


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 15 hours ago) and read 13182 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
Well, the Sherman tank was not the best in WWII but it worked, guess in this day and age for a tanker a/c it must be the best of the best of the best, bring on the 787 or A350 since they both are putting the 767 and A330 out to pasture.

My remark was strictly about the 767. I agree even the A330 is not the youngest airframe (though it is one of those that outclassed the 767 on the civil market). And indead the 787 beats any of these two.

But IMO 787/A350 are not good candidates:
- More expensive
- Sold out
- Unmature
- Fuselage clearance to the ground (I think an adult can not walk under a 787 without banging his head! Check the pics)

What about the A350? If I review my comment from above I have to revise it:
The proposed Boeing tanker is based on an aircraft that has been outclassed already THREE times on the civil market!
By A330, 787 and A350! E.g. in case of Aeroflot, Asiana, Hawaiian the A358 will be used to replace 767's!


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 13 hours ago) and read 13009 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 9):
But IMO 787/A350 are not good candidates:
- More expensive
- Sold out
- Unmature
- Fuselage clearance to the ground (I think an adult can not walk under a 787 without banging his head! Check the pics)

But the reason the KC-135s are being retired is mostly due to metal fatigue, something these new airframes readily address.

Seems stupid to be buying new metal airframes when you know the limiting factor on them is metal fatigue.

Seems much smarter to make the KC-135s last a bit longer by bringing KC-135Es up to KC-135R standard.

It'd easily buy us another decade to wait for the CFRP birds to mature.

And yes, the 787/A350 will be much larger than the KC-135s.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 12981 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 7):
Remember they weren't the ones "fair" in the first round (to state it very, very mildly) they have been using back door politics to frustrate the second round & have the rules changed.
Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
I know that being the fair and open minded person that you are you will correct the second to third and the equivalent for the 2008 debacle will be posted shortly, as someone else in this thread said

You forget that not getting punished means they never did anything wrong. So only Boeing is bad because one of their people were punished and they paid a fine.

Frankly, at this point I want Boeing to win just to spite select Airbus Aficionados for their arrogance and hubris. John Stewart calls it "Ballsheimzers" and it certainly applies. It's neither a nice nor a productive attitude for me to have, but to quote Popeye, "I've stands all that I can and I can't stands no more".

[Edited 2010-04-21 06:46:51]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9101 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 12960 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
But the reason the KC-135s are being retired is mostly due to metal fatigue, something these new airframes readily address.

Corrosion, not fatigue. During the cold war, KC-135s sat around and did very little flying (comparatively to todays passenger operations), that is why the airframes have such low time on them. But they were not built by Boeing to have a long life, it was common in those days for parts like the skins not to have corrosion inhibitor applied prior to assembly.

This is like comparing a fire tender that sits in a fire house and gets a call out every other day, and a commercial truck that is on the road 12+ hours a day.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
Seems stupid to be buying new metal airframes when you know the limiting factor on them is metal fatigue.

The A330 was certified last year to have the same heavy maintenance periods as the 787, I would not be surprised to learn that the highest time A330 has already taken over the highest time KC-135 (probably a RC-135) airframe. I would think that many A330 are averaging over 12 hours flying a day, every day.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 12873 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
Seems much smarter to make the KC-135s last a bit longer by bringing KC-135Es up to KC-135R standard.

I don't contradict this logic. It has some merits.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Frankly, at this point I want Boeing to win just to spite select Airbus Aficionados for their arrogance and hubris

If it would be arrogance and hubris then every pro-EADS statement could be negated with a better argument. Yet much more than half of my statements (if you mean me) straightforward never get challenged, questioned or even answered (* see below). If I am wrong convince me and I will join your line of defence. Your bias (I have no problem with it and I admit you are quite balanced) seems to have frustrated you because all reasoning efforts don't seem to overcome the "adversary" protest.

But you have to agree that the reasoning in Boeings favor is far from bullet proof. Every campaign were 767's are/were pitched against A330's never has been a walk in the park for Boeing. It is natural that the effort to make a 767 look better than a A330 can be countered in many aspects. In short words: in 2010 the 767 is an easy target to beat.

In 2010 you have to bet on a high level of ignorance to sell somebody the 767's as high-tech (to a lesser degree this is valid for the A330 as well, though significant A330 sales in the presence of 787's/A350's give it at least in some aspects the appearance of current technology).

*: E.g. my claim that no 767 will ever offer the same capability per spent $ has never been rebuted convincingly. It is not possible because the civil airliner market has spoken about that. But if it is a fact, why claim that the cheapest solution should win? If every invested $ clearly returns less?

The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best. By obvious manipulation: who else requires fix minimum requirements & fix unit number? e.g. if the 787 would be pitched against the 767 the 767 would still win because the price is a bit lower. Do you tell me that if the 767 would be 5% cheaper but 40% less capable that this RFP sets a proper criteria if the 767 wins? No, it does not and it must be allowed to tell it.

Fix minimum requirements & fix unit number are hardly seen in the business world and guarantee less than the best outcome. It can lead to a situation where the cheapest solution is X% cheaper but the lost capability (or "not realized" capability) is several times X%.

The 767 is so inferior in capability-per-invested-$ that you can spot nervous Boeing statements and nervous Boeing fans everwhere... I for example am completely relaxed in this. If the table is so tilted there is realisticly nothing to expect for the A330. It is amusing to read how the 767 is made "big" for a last time. Retirement in the civil sector already has started. That is no easy prerequisite to sport it as newest USAF asset. In reality the 767 is an extremely honourable aircraft and has well earned its retirement. I would almost say it does not deserve this last battle that seems unwinable by merits (spider chart).

This is not the picture of the 767 that I want to keep in remembrance: the 767 as old fashioned tanker in the biggest air force selected by strong political backing.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 11 hours ago) and read 12846 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best. By obvious manipulation: who else requires fix minimum requirements & fix unit number? e.g. if the 787 would be pitched against the 767 the 767 would still win because the price is a bit lower. Do you tell me that if the 767 would be 5% cheaper but 40% less capable that this RFP sets a proper criteria if the 767 wins? No, it does not and it must be allowed to tell it.

We don't know that A330 is 5% more expensive and 40% more capable. As above, we do know it can haul more fuel but burns more fuel to do so.

And in my mind it is valid to choose a less capable item at a lower cost, even if the cost is not in scale to the decreased capability.

We all do that all the time in the things we purchase. Why buy the 6 seat car when you only use 4? Why buy the 4 CPU server when your software can only use 1?

It's nice to speculate about manipulation, but it'd be nice to have some actual evidence of manipulation.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
This is not the picture of the 767 that I want to keep in remembrance: the 767 as old fashioned tanker in the biggest air force selected by strong political backing.

Any outcome now will be tainted by strong political backing. On the EADS side we had McCain and Murtha, we now have Trent Lott and Sarkozy, and Sen Shelby holding up DoD appointees. On the Boeing side we had the old scandal and now we have Norm Dicks throwing his weight around.

Getting an order for 179 frames is just too much pork for anyone to restrain themselves.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 12787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
Every campaign were 767's are/were pitched against A330's never has been a walk in the park for Boeing.

And yet since the A330-200 was authorized for sale, for every three frames Airbus secured orders for, Boeing secured orders for two 767s.

There is this "implied truth" put forward again and again by certain people (not yourself) that the day Airbus announced the A330-200, Boeing never recorded another 767 order.

If one repeats a lie often enough, eventually some people start to believe it's true. But it isn't.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
In 2010 you have to bet on a high level of ignorance to sell somebody the 767's as high-tech (to a lesser degree this is valid for the A330 as well, though significant A330 sales in the presence of 787's/A350's give it at least in some aspects the appearance of current technology).

If the USAF valued technology as the prime motivator, they'd have demanded a new-build tanker. But what they value (truthfully, what they have been forced to value) as the prime motivator is cost, which is why they have to buy a commercial airliner-based model. And all that fancy technology the A330-200 has makes it more expensive.

The US Air Force is not US Airways. They have a different set of criteria they are evaluating these aircraft on than a commercial airline would. Many, if not most, of the arguments put forward here are how the A330-200 is such a great product for a commercial carrier, it should therefore be a great product for a military carrier because, well, they're the same, aren't they?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best.

Just as the USAF went to great lengths with the old RFP to make the A330 look best.

What grinds my gears is the belief that it's okay for the US government (through the USAF) to engineer an Airbus win, but not for the US government to engineer a Boeing win - doubly so when I have yet to see the government actually doing so, while we have confirmation (through the GAO report) that the USAF did.

The RFP criteria is designed to get a minimum set of capabilities for the lowest price possible. Because Boeing has an "old", "outdated" and "unwanted by the market" design on offer, they can meet that price. But because Airbus has a "new", "modern" and "loved by the market" design on offer that just also happens to cost a good bit more than Boeing's offer and therefore probably can't meet the price, it's all just totally unfair and manipulative.

If EADS wants to win this, then all they have to do is beat the price Boeing can offer with their PoS 767-based product. Airbus Military will lose money on every frame, but they'll have the prestige of beating Boeing out of providing the USAF with their tanker.

And maybe this will allow EADS to successfully soak other militaries on their A330 MRTT purchases to make up the losses.

[Edited 2010-04-21 09:26:51]

User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 12655 times:

And what our European friends from Germany, France and Spain need to explain is when and what the offset procurement will consist of. I, for one, need to see a clear timeline for an equivalent purchase of military hardware from LM, NG or Boeing of the same value as what EADS would supply to the US in this Tanker deal. If it's not going to be in troop transport or fighter jets then I have a tough time understanding why it is that the United States has to willingly cut its own veins for the continued economic advantage of Europe when we ourselves are in desperate need of restoring our own economic balance in both trade and manufacturing vis a vis Europe. It's an odious topic but it lies at the very heart of the issue. As inherently stupid as most of our politicians are they do seem just intelligent enough to understand that spraying huge wads of trade balance-busting government cash all over Toulouse and Sevilla is simply moronic.

I'm just like my friends from Spain, France and Germany. I believe my country is best able to supply the young people I send in harm's way with the hardware they need to do their job. Nothing I make is good enough for your soldiers and nothing you make is good enough for mine. The one thing I will agree with though is why the US bothers to even conduct an open competition on this deal. It is one area where these three countries blast us with their brains, they are too smart to even pretend to want open and fair competition for the serious buys. The small stuff no problem, but the real big stuff? No way. We still have so much to learn.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 12659 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And yet since the A330-200 was authorized for sale, for every three frames Airbus secured orders for, Boeing secured orders for two 767s.

There is this "implied truth" put forward again and again by certain people (not yourself) that the day Airbus announced the A330-200, Boeing never recorded another 767 order.

If one repeats a lie often enough, eventually some people start to believe it's true. But it isn't.

Creativity with numbers Stitch  

During the last 5 yrs Boeing delivered 45 767s, Airbus 334 A330s. Backlogs also speak a clear message.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The RFP criteria is designed to get a minimum set of capabilities for the lowest price possible.

Yes and those minimum capabilities are based on the KC135 tanker capabilities. Anything more cannot be valued anymore. I think everybody immediately saw the new goal behind these changed political forced upon selection rules. NG backed off.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 9 hours ago) and read 12617 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
Yes and those minimum capabilities are based on the KC135 tanker capabilities. Anything more cannot be valued anymore. I think everybody immediately saw the new goal behind these changed political forced upon selection rules. NG backed off.

And the 2007 tanker competition was solely for a KC-135R replacement till McCain and the paid EADS lobbyists on his staff got the rules changed to allow for "extra credit". We don't have speculate to "see the goal behind these changed political forced upon selection rules" in the 2007 competition, the letters McCain wrote and the relationship his staff had with EADS are public record.

The current competition places things back to where they started in 2007, and hopefully makes it easy for the USAF to finish the competition without years of protest.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 12609 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):


Creativity with numbers Stitch.  

During the last 5 yrs Boeing delivered 45 767s, Airbus 334 A330s. Backlogs also speak a clear message.

Right back at you, since you are including A330-300 deliveries in that total.  

And I can find years where the 767 outsold and/or out-delivered the A330.




But then that's a big part of the problem. Everyone is happy to argue general facts, but few people seem to want to argue relevant facts (as it applies to KC-X, USAF tanker operations, and the RFP). When both sides make their arguments broad enough, they're pretty easy to support, even if they end up not really applying to the discussion anymore.

Quoting keesje (Reply 17):
Yes and those minimum capabilities are based on the KC135 tanker capabilities. Anything more cannot be valued anymore.

It can be valued, but only to a point. Otherwise, Boeing would just bid the 777 Freighter and have won by default since Airbus Military has nothing comparable to offer.

And that's where the bruhaha has been. Airbus supporters want the US "to spend a good deal more money to get a good deal more capability" while Boeing supporters point to the 767 offering more capability than the KC-135 and question whether the extra capability the A330 MRTT offers on top of that is worth the extra cost it would require to obtain and operate.




Being blunt again, all three RFPs should have ensured a Boeing win.

They won the first one because they cheated. having it written so only they could realistically bid. Though it should be noted that Airbus at the time had not yet created an MRTT of either the A310 or the A330, so if it had been a truly open competition, could Airbus have realistically bid, much less win? Nonetheless, Boeing cheated, was caught, and were subsequently stripped of the win.

Boeing should have won the second RFP for the same reason they are believed to be the favorites to win the third one - they have the better price and good enough value. But with the second RFP, it was Airbus that cheated (with the support of certain members of the USAF and Congress) to win and was caught for it and they were stripped of the win, as well.

So now here is round three, and this time, the DoD seems to have finally developed an RFP that neither side can cheat to win. Before it was announced, the "common belief" was that it would be written to favor Airbus so Boeing caterwauled. After it was announced, the "common belief" changed that it was written to favor Boeing so Airbus is the one now caterwauling. But since neither side appears to be able to game the RFP, it's going to be considered on which proposal better meets the RFP.

And again, nothing is stopping Airbus Military from undercutting Boeing's offer, just as Boeing could low-ball the KC-767, themselves, to negate what extra credit the A330 MRTT will be able to earn under the RFP for it's extra capabilities over the KC-767. As long as either company doesn't seek redress from their respective governments to cover any losses undercutting said offer would incur, it's all legal. And if EADS feels as confident about how fantastic the MRTT is as their supporters on this board are, they should feel confident in submitting prices to other RFPs at a high enough price to generate sufficient profit from each deal to offset any loss from the USAF bid price.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 12595 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
*: E.g. my claim that no 767 will ever offer the same capability per spent $ has never been rebuted convincingly. It is not possible because the civil airliner market has spoken about that. But if it is a fact, why claim that the cheapest solution should win? If every invested $ clearly returns less?

You fail to see several important points.

1. The USAF is NOT your airforce. Its not operating a small fleet of fighters near home, and a secondary mission to support "expeditionary forces". Its not using fighters with probe and drogue equipment. Its a huge airforce with lots of equipement everywhere for everything. Everything uses a boom. Again, everything uses a boom.

2. Better for commercial passenger hauling is WORSE for tankering. The better a plane is optimized for hauling passengers the worse it is for hauling dense cargo (fuel). More troubling is that more and more engines and wings are optimized for high altitude cruise, which leaves thier effiency at lower altitudes and speeds far worse than planes of old. If they can do it at all.

3. The KC-135R is already "more" tanker than the USAF needs. Time and time again we have looked at the USAF's actual usage of tankers and found that not only is the KC-10 has not been desired, but that the KC-135R rarely takes off at MTOW and rarely ever returns with only the minimum reserve fuel. Thats right almost ALL KC-135R flights take off with a partial fuel load and land with fuel avialible for offload.

4. More costs more. The KC30 gets its higher total fuel offload by lofting many more tons of fuel, then burning a good portion of it for its own use. Its going to cost more to operate in fuel, ALOT more. Then we get to basing requirements. The KC-30 is HUUUUGE. To put a fine point on it, it requires as much tarmac, hangers, etc as a B52, which we all know is a tiny little thing. Er... wait. Or with its nearly identical wingspan and 30ft difference to a early 747, the USAF could have double the fuel offload of a KC30 by converting 747's. They could have bought new KC747s instead of KC-10s, but somehow they found the DC-10's smaller frame size a good thing and the offload more than enough at that RFP.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13):
The new RFP went great lengths to make the 767 look best. By obvious manipulation: who else requires fix minimum requirements & fix unit number?

Again, tell me how its "fixed" or "obvious manipulation" to order toothbrushes when you need toothbrushes. I can tell you the guys won't like brushing thier teeth with a chain saw, and the combat engineers won't like trying to cut a tree with soft bristles. This RFP is simple, do the KC-135R's job with a dash of modern avionics on the side. There isn't fluff added on. No gray area of Cost vs Capiblity. Its do job A, lowest price wins. Only way to hit the comparision between offerings is to have effectively an identical price. So if EADS can offer the KC30, meet all the manditory requirements, and bid 1% lower than Boeing... they win. Easy no?

Lets not forget that EADS again gets a (nearly) free ride in actual milcon costs with the selection of the bases best able to handle a new large aircraft, not the bases selected by study as being the ones most needing the new larger planes.

Also the reason for the fixed number of frames is due to the fact that YOU CAN NOT replace several KC135E with 1 KC30, much less more than 1:1 on the KC135R. The KC135s have 1 boom. The KC30 has 1 boom. Both can be on station long enough to cause crew fatigue issues. The only place it could make the difference is if the KC135's had a low mission ready rate. Strangely unless they are in the shop for major upgrades they are avalible for use virtualy all the time. Expecting a new more complex type to achieve the KC135's avaliblity in the near term is... foolish. So if the USAF sent planes to the desert on a 1:1 basis as they aquire KC30, we would almost certainly see a drop in avalible offload. Same for the KC767 as ironing out the bugs in pilot, MX, supply, etc training takes time and these ALL affect if a plane can be usable. We see the same effect when airlines take a new type into service where they have limited people trained, and they spend a good amount of time learning the new gear. They don't throw a new type into service on the day they get it.

So in short, the USAF needs atleast 1 new frame for every 1 old frame they retire. This is why the bidders are bidding on a fixed quantity contract.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12556 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 5 hours ago) and read 12397 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Again, tell me how its "fixed" or "obvious manipulation" to order toothbrushes when you need toothbrushes. I can tell you the guys won't like brushing thier teeth with a chain saw, and the combat engineers won't like trying to cut a tree with soft bristles. This RFP is simple, do the KC-135R's job with a dash of modern avionics on the side. There isn't fluff added on. No gray area of Cost vs Capiblity. Its do job A, lowest price wins. Only way to hit the comparision between offerings is to have effectively an identical price. So if EADS can offer the KC30, meet all the manditory requirements, and bid 1% lower than Boeing... they win. Easy no?

Indeed, but both parties must present a price that the auditors believe is realistic.

You are not allowed to underbid just to skunk the competition.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out.

EADS are pretty sharp players.

If they are spending this much time and money to bid, they believe that they can win.

I thought I read that they have 200 employees working on formulating the response to the RFP, which can easily run to 20,000 or 30,000 pages.

An order for 179 airframes and a direct pipeline to Uncle Sam's coffers doesn't come along all that often.

Some call this a once in a lifetime contract, and I think that's about right.

So, even if the deck is stacked heavily against them, they'll stay in the game till the end.

So, two more months of our lives wasted on tanker threads!  



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 12347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
But with the second RFP, it was Airbus that cheated

Airbus never cheated, employees of Boeing did (in the first bid). That is a major difference here Stitch. Do not forget the facts since you are usually very good at stating correct facts.  .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Frankly, at this point I want Boeing to win just to spite select Airbus Aficionados for their arrogance and hubris.

For the same reason I want Airbus to win. And no one can deny that the amount of arrogance and hubris has come at least at a factor of 10 to 1 more from Boeing Aficionados then from Airbus is this debate. (OK, maybe it is 9 to 1  ).

And of course Airbus is offering the better (superior) product in this competition here.  Wink.

[Edited 2010-04-21 14:59:31]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 12325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 22):
Airbus never cheated, employees of Boeing did (in the first bid). That is a major difference here Stitch. Do not forget the facts since you are usually very good at stating correct facts.    .

The A330 MRTT did not meet all of the minimum requirements to win the bid, yet they still did. If that's not cheating...

And I did note they had help from the USAF and Congress in that regard, just as Boeing did when they cheated in 2002.


It's why discussion of this line of topic should just be banned by the moderators. Even the people who are actively trying to be logical and use empirical processes are tripping themselves up.

Once the RFP winner has been announced, we can start discussing how unfair / fair said decision was based on the criteria released with the win, so we'll all at least be on the same page to start.  Smile

[Edited 2010-04-21 15:23:17]

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 12309 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Once the RFP winner has been announced, we can start discussing how unfair / fair said decision was based on the criteria released with the win, so we'll all at least be on the same page to start.

I am sure that will be heavily debated here. And we would be on the same page to start.  


25 Post contains links and images allegro : Toot-toot! Agreed. I would like to remind everyone that the you cannot lower your price below your cost and sell to the US Federal government ... it
26 TheCol : For those who are dying to find out how this is going to turn out, feel free to google the "Maritime Helicopter Project".
27 Post contains images zeke : Yes and that is the true face of America showing itself, free trade for all as long only America has the advantage. This goes back to the days of the
28 rheinwaldner : These numbers are fictional and show an example how this RFP fails to pick always the most cost efficient solution. I don't say that the numbers appl
29 par13del : How exactly would they do that, this is one I would like to see explained since all those governments actually run a trade SURPLUS with the US, if th
30 zeke : The only country which that would be true for every month would be Germany, they were the world leading exporter until China took over. With the stro
31 tarheelwings : Apologies to the moderators for going off topic, but..... For those that claim that the US does not practice what it preaches when it comes to free t
32 A342 : I've seen this claim dozens of times, but no hard evidence to back it up. But even assuming it is true, then it was was the USAF/DOD who "cheated", b
33 Post contains images Stitch : Others have summed it up quite well across hundreds of posts. A search will provide you with plenty of background, or you could read the actual GAO r
34 KC135TopBoom : I am not convinced that all planned 179 new tankers will be bought, no matter who wins the tanker compitition. I doubt the bean counters will allow a
35 KC135TopBoom : Even the USAF said, in 2008, the KC-30 could not perform the published breakaway emergency procedure, and the GAO confirmed that. This and other requ
36 Post contains links mffoda : "And that applies to just about every piece of military equipment that the US has, e.g. the C-17 is "more" of a freighter than the USAF needs, most o
37 Post contains links mffoda : photo didn't post?? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...00px-Pzh-2000_inside_of_a_C-17.jpg
38 Post contains images AutothrustBlue : Has the DoD even tried to baragain with A&B for better prices? The AF is going to receive billions worth in planes; surely both companies would l
39 par13del : Well I was looking at the trade balnace be year not per month which is more important and relevant in this case, I'll let KC135TopBoom response nelow
40 Revelation : Because all you are comparing is the max amount of gas it can lift. There are a lot of other metrics that matter, like acquisition cost, milcon cost,
41 XT6Wagon : If this were the case, Hydrodynamics and areodynamics would be the same thing. However its not. The density of the fluid you are traveling through ma
42 wingman : Zeke, others have made the point for me. You have to understand that in opening this tanker competition to EADS the US has done something which angers
43 zeke : They don’t, have a look at how many industries they go around protecting. If US workers would work for US$1 or less a day like people do in Asia, t
44 tarheelwings : Again asking the moderators for some leeway since I realize we are going off topic but...... Zeke, You are not refuting what I am stating, if the US
45 Post contains links allegro : Simple. They get more plane, for more money and that was part of the GAO upholding of the protest by Boeing. Great summary here: http://www.gao.gov/d
46 Stitch : That's effectively what this RFP does, by defining what the USAF must have in order to replace the KC-135 fleet and what they would like to have beyo
47 Post contains images astuteman : In fairness, that isn't an example of EADS "cheating".... Although to be fair, with the exception of the M777, which has no competitor anywhere that
48 Post contains images EPA001 : Off topic: A "stichting" in the Netherlands (foundation) does not need to be a non profit organisation. There are for example housing societies (stic
49 A342 : I've never claimed that Boeing has manipulated the current RFP nor have I implied it. But the notion that EADS cheated is wrong. And those who claim
50 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : What is the average standard of living in Asia, compared to the US? Those people who work for $1 or less per day are being taken advantage of and wor
51 kanban : there are three of you that have beaten the same thoughts to death in three different threads.. same arguements, same name calling, same pages of opin
52 columbia107 : What does the USAF need a superior product for? The need is for an aircraft to refuel the fighters. The days of a gold plated version to do the job a
53 Post contains images astuteman : In most cases this is more than offset by he re-investment of funds in new, or ugraded plant in the USA No they don't, and they can't, otherwise BAE
54 flyingAY : Could you please provide references for these numbers? Somehow I find them very hard to believe. 459 Saab 340s were manufactured. Some more than 800
55 rheinwaldner : This is not an advantage. Not for them, not for anybody.. But for the USAF to award the KC-45 there must have been an advantage. Even a large one. Fo
56 Post contains images par13del : This is the same US Air Force that was interested in the 100 tanker lease deal, whats the difference? Do you believe that the US Air Force is some st
57 A342 : Ok, thank you. After reading the link, I fail to see why the KC-30 could not perform such a procedure. "Boeing contends, citing the statement of its
58 Post contains links zeke : Depends on where you live, just like the USA. A lot of them used to, until the media got wind of it, and all of a suddend things changed. You will fi
59 Revelation : Quote 1: Quote 2: Interesting use of selective quoting and quibbling to avoid the main point, which is that the overall US-EU trade balance is wildly
60 KC135TopBoom : As I said before, the advantage to the USAF was post USAF retirement job promises. NG and the USAF people making the selection made these "packs", bu
61 rheinwaldner : Wild guesses! I thought you promised us facts? The GAO would have exposed that if it would just bare a little thruth. Hands up who wants a job after
62 Post contains images allegro : Oh, I forgot about those beautiful Vanguards and what goes in them ... like US reactors and Trident D-5's ... IIRC the lifetime costs (acquisition an
63 KC135TopBoom : In the US, it is illegal for military or government employees to lobby for post retirement jobs from contractors they oversee or have any decision ma
64 Post contains images EPA001 : Correct. Dutch tax laws for predominantly foreign companies are very attractive. Many diiferent companies are therefore in the Netherlands. Even a po
65 XT6Wagon : Bzzt. Thanks for playing. Again you fail to pay attention to whats being discussed. The version of the KC767 offered to the USAF are effectively 767-
66 Stitch : Much like many US companies - including Boeing - are incorporated in the State of Delaware as it's corporate tax structure is the most favorable in t
67 Post contains images EPA001 : Though the numbers say it all, they were not mine. You quoted the wrong person.
68 A342 : Nope. They have said they'll use the -300ER wing, or at least they did last time. The fact that the new pictures show blended winglets confirms that,
69 Aesma : If small and cheap is the deal, why EADS doesn't offer the A310 ?
70 ThePointblank : Out of production.
71 KC135TopBoom : Currently, some 40% of all KC-135 missions are for training, 55% are operational sorties, 3% are cargo/pax/MedEvac, and 2% are repositioning or depot
72 A342 : What do operational sorties consist of, apart from refueling aircraft over combat zones (currently Afghanistan and Iraq)?
73 KC135TopBoom : They are any operational refueling sortie from RC-135s and E-3s to fighter drags, to air bridge missions, as well as in the combat areas, and more. Th
74 ebj1248650 : From the source text: "Only Boeing can produce a tanker that will meet the Air Force’s 372 requirements and promise delivery of a combat-ready, saf
75 XT6Wagon : The A300-600 would make a far better basis for the USAF tanker than the A330. But as stated its out of production and buying used frames for the 179
76 Aesma : Surely for such a big order production could be restarted ? It was stopped very recently.
77 XT6Wagon : cost too much in time and money. They would need to build a new production hall even if they had all the tooling. They also would need several years
78 Aesma : I thought the tanker would be assembled in the US anyway ?
79 zeke : The trade balance in the US is more influenced by the flow of investment funds than the export and import of goods, for things to balance it is a fou
80 KC135TopBoom : You are right, given enough resourses both OEMs can build the tanker to meet all the requirements. But the kicker this year is the unit cost being of
81 zeke : MCR rates are only for aircraft that available for use, google "KC-135 MCR" you will see some references which state that. MCR is the military versio
82 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : You are correct. That is what happens when I don't proof read before I post, thanks for the correction. Where I wrote "and includes" should have been
83 mandala499 : Passengers, cargo and fuel have an equal denominator... WEIGHT. Newer planes have lower efficiency at lower altitudes and speeds far worse? You can't
84 Post contains images EPA001 : A very good post Mandala499 which takes care of all this 24% more fuel consumption hubris we have been hearing in favor of the old-tech B767. That fi
85 Post contains images mandala499 : Exactly... if the mission profile required is overwhelmingly on the lighter end, Airbus would not consider using the 330. If it's overwhelmingly on t
86 KC135TopBoom : Well, no it does not. Airliners tend to fly at near constant altitudes and airspeeds, tankers often vary altitudes and airspeeds for refueling, highe
87 Post contains images EPA001 : I did not read this from you, but remember that another poster stated this. I took that statement for correct, which now obviously is not the case. M
88 Post contains images mandala499 : Indeed. And as much as I like to see the A330 win it, if there is really no need for a 100T fuel load to tanker to the receivers a lot of the time (t
89 par13del : Not too technical here but does the fact that the A330 in your number go to less range reduce their fuel burn to comparable 767 numbers? I thought th
90 Post contains images mandala499 : LRC would yield lower speeds at lower weights for a given altitude. I could pick FL390 if I wanted to, but since we're not talking about trip fuel bu
91 rheinwaldner : Could you please make the calculation for supplying 100 767 loads of fuel to a remote location for both? We should expect the A330 to require less so
92 mandala499 : I'll do a crazy one instead... When carrying stuff (which can include fuel) from A to B, the 330 is likely to win in terms of muscle and burn. But wh
93 zeke : With a total combined fuel/cargo payload of 50t on the A330, you are very light, FL310/FL350 is below optimum. The A330 is M0.01/0.02 faster than the
94 rheinwaldner : Fuelburn of 37tons means that the A330 still burns less than the 767. How can the tankering ratio be worse? (maybe it depends on decimal places, the
95 Post contains images mandala499 : Zeke, I used LRC and 0.8M on the 330 FCOM 2 and FCOM 3 (PW) and on the 767 (PW) FPPM. The 50T payload isn't light, it's featherlight (and, somewhat ri
96 KC135TopBoom : There are very few missions that would require a 100 Ton fuel offload, and neither the KC-30 (max fuel 122 tons), nor KC-767NG (max fuel 101 tons), a
97 Post contains images par13del : Another question, why the switch in flight level between the A330 and the 767 for comparions, my main reason for asking is that as a tanker, its prim
98 zeke : The KC-10 lifts a maximum of 160,200 kg, or 353,180 lb, or 160.2 tonnes, or 176.6 tons. And often they do not have enough KC-10s for those missions,
99 Post contains images mandala499 : Because in the data that I have, FL290 data is not there (for transition base to loiter area and back (incl the descent etc... yes the data is in the
100 KC135TopBoom : There are numerous reasons why on some of those type missions it is better (operationally) to use multipule KC-135s as opposed to one KC-10. I will n
101 XT6Wagon : More to the point, planes have thier own requirements. There is 0 possiblity you would want to refuel a U2 and a A10 at the same altitude. Yet neithe
102 ThePointblank : C-130 Hercules with a boom?
103 XT6Wagon : yah not going to happen for just one plane. Be funny if they added an additional probe system just for that reason to the A10. And hey, maybe the pil
104 Post contains images mandala499 : Well, there's one blatantly obvious scenario for that... when your priority is to offload as fast as you can to multiple assets, you need more booms
105 KC135TopBoom : Building a tanker that has enough fuel to transfer at 100 KIAS and 335 KIAS, plus overrun airsppeds to 355KIAS+ will be a very expensive tanker. Can
106 Post contains images par13del : Well me being a dweed , this RFP is about replacing KC-135's with enhanced capabilities, how much of the items in the RFP are about the capabilities
107 KC135TopBoom : Correct. I am one who 1st would like to see the KC-135Es reengined, and 2nd buying the Boeing offer. But doesn't the old saying go "third times the c
108 Post contains images mandala499 : It's gonna be one hell of an interesting design... if it can ever exist! If I understand it correctly, the KC135 with CFMs are fitted with 1st Gen CF
109 kanban : are you allowing for the airframes and wings being close to the end of their life... 15 years ago I'd agree if we don't get new birds in the fleet, t
110 KC135TopBoom : Correct, the KC-135R/Ts and RC-135s are equipped with the first Gen CFM-56-2B engines. The USAF is still reengining a few RC-135s a year with this en
111 Revelation : USAF itself were planning to run them out till 2040+ until the 2001/2002 "Boeing Stimulus Plan" make the new tankers an option. Granted the birds are
112 mandala499 : Indeed, it seems that most won't reach the end of the design life by 2040... maintenance cost seems to be the issue. Now if the KC-135s still got a l
113 KC135TopBoom : Well, the USAF has not much control over the offered A-330 and B-767 airframes, except to say the tanker had to be an "off the sheilf design". Mainte
114 zeke : Sure and one of the biggest reasons is for currency, with so many tanker crews, you need sorties to maintain currency. If you got to launch a KC-135
115 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Yes, aircrew (Pilot and Boom Operator) currency is one of the reasons to use several tankers on a mission that could be accomplished with fewer tanke
116 Post contains links zeke : I smell B/S when people use lines like that. Tankers would be flown like airlines over 95% of the time, in a normal "1gish" coordinated flight. With
117 Post contains images maxter : Kinda like Weapons of Mass Distraction is guess
118 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Of course you do. News flash, almost all military aircraft are flown most of the time in '1 G' coordinated flight, not just tankers. Even air refueli
119 Post contains links A342 : No, you can't draw that conclusion. Only engines that have been removed from service will disappear from a TCDS, such as the GE90-75B and -92B varian
120 KC135TopBoom : Isn't the CFM-56-2B only used by military aircraft (KC-135, E-3, KE-3, and E-6)? Isn't the engine on the DC-8-70 series the CFM-56-2 and CFM-56-2A?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Reaction To EADS's Tanker Bid
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
EADS/NA Considers Tanker Bid - Requests Extension posted Fri Mar 19 2010 08:31:48 by tugger
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
WSJ: Congress Wants KC-777, Boeing Likely To Bid posted Mon Dec 5 2005 15:39:09 by N328KF
Boeing Willing To Use 787 As Tanker posted Wed Sep 14 2005 16:10:29 by N328KF
Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg posted Tue Jan 11 2005 22:51:09 by JMV
US Senate To Allow Airbus Tanker BID posted Mon Nov 22 2004 21:35:48 by Dayflyer
Boeing Plans To Double US Air Force Tanker Deal posted Fri Oct 3 2003 14:31:52 by Kl911
Airbus Tanker Bid Pullout - Implications? posted Tue Mar 9 2010 05:46:19 by AirbusA6
Northrop Out Of Tanker Bid posted Mon Mar 8 2010 14:41:38 by PlaneAdmirer
AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement posted Wed Jul 9 2008 08:16:59 by Scbriml

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format