Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:09 am

Just opened my morning paper a few minutes ago (The Oklahoman) and Boeing took a full page ad telling their side of the story about the USAF tanker desicion, just wondering if any U.S. Anetters are getting the same ads in their local papers or even European papers. Guess Boeing is doing a full court press to get voters on their side to get them to call their congressman. This link was in our paper yesterday highlighting how NG will affect the OKC economy here .
http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3220339/
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:01 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Thread starter):
Just opened my morning paper a few minutes ago (The Oklahoman) and Boeing took a full page ad telling their side of the story about the USAF tanker desicion, just wondering if any U.S. Anetters are getting the same ads in their local papers or even European papers. Guess Boeing is doing a full court press to get voters on their side to get them to call their congressman. This link was in our paper yesterday highlighting how NG will affect the OKC economy here .
http://newsok.com/article/keyword/32...0339/

The more I read about Boeing and this nonsense, the worse I feel about the company. Let it go, Boeing! NG got this contract. You'll get another later. Winners win and loosers loose. That's the way it works.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Blackprojects
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:22 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:17 pm

Boeing just do not seem to realise that they lost due to having a less capable product.

Which will still give the US defence Contractor economy a huge boost along with giving the US military machine a far more Capable and efficient Tanker transport.

But that is Boeing as they had the US Tanker fleet contract Sewn up for decades and thought it was just a matter of entering and Winning, Well now they are Bitching about loosing to a NON US machine when it will be Built in the US.

Boeing should give it a rest as all this Noise is just making them look like bad losers.  banghead   old 
 
Stratofortress
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:16 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:22 pm

Ad that will be published in major newspapers around the country, includes the following among other things:


SIZE Requirement. The KC-X Request for Proposal (RFP) sought to replace aging KC-135s, a medium-sized tanker. A future program, KC-Z, would aim to replace larger KC-10 tankers. In fact, during the KC-X acquisition process, Boeing was led to believe that its 767 was the appropriate platform to offer, since it appeared to answer precisely the Air Force’s requirements. Yet the KC-30 is much larger than the KC-767 and even 27% larger than the KC-10. This excess capacity sacrifices fundamental Air Force requirements of deployability and survivability. It doesn’t add up.

MISSION CAPABILITY. In analyzing Mission Capability, the most important evaluation factor, Boeing received the highest possible rating, meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters. Among other measurements, the Air Force identified positive "discriminators" as well as "weaknesses." While the KC-30 had 30 discriminators and five weaknesses, among them its aerial refueling boom, the KC-767 had 98 discriminators and only one weakness. It
doesn’t add up.

RISK. In assessing Risk, Boeing and its competitor received equal scores. And yet Boeing is an integrated company with one management team and 75 years of tanker-building experience. Furthermore, the KC-767 will be built on an existing production line that has made 767s for years. By contrast, the KC-30 will be built by a combination of a U.S. company and a European one, with two management teams on two continents, with no experience building tankers together-- utilizing numerous production facilities across Europe and in an American plant that doesn’t yet exist. It doesn’t add up.

COST. The RFP made clear that the Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (MPLCC) was the key Cost/Price metric for source selection. The MPLCC not only includes the cost of acquisition; it includes the cost of operation and maintenance. In its evaluation, the Air Force discounted the weight of MPLCC and inflated Boeing’s costs by billions of dollars, even though Boeing’s proposed cost data was in full compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation. As a result, the Air Force and taxpayers will pay billions more for the Northrop Grumman/EADS airplane. It doesn’t add up.

PAST PERFORMANCE. Past Performance was rated "Satisfactory Confidence" for both Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS, despite the enormous disparity of experience between the two in building tankers and military derivatives of commercial aircraft. Older and outdated Contractor Performance Assessment Ratings were used for Boeing while KC-X evaluators ignored or failed to adequately account for numerous troubled programs from its competitor (some examples include the Australian tanker, the A400M Airlifter, and E-2D SDD). Additionally, Boeing has certified and delivered to Japan two of the most advanced tanker aircraft in existence, a critical achievement that received insignificant credit. It doesn’t add up.


Boeing will not give this up, nor should it, because these are valid questions. Look at RISK... I mean come on, Boeing is riskier than NGC/EADS partnership?!

If you thought you were treated unfairly, wouldn't you appeal the decision. It is up to the GAO to issue a recommendation. I am willing to bet that GAO will not side with the Air Force on this deal. There simply are too many questions that need answers.
Forever New Frontiers
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18467
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:38 pm



Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
SIZE Requirement.

What could Boeing have offered instead? Boeing themselves say a KC-777 would take three years to develop (if it goes to plan).

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
RISK.

One word. Frankentanker.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
COST.

I think the AF said that Boeing's numbers were unreliable.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
PAST PERFORMANCE.

Hmm, how late were the Japanese and Italian KC-767s, yet Boeing is expecting credit for that?

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
I mean come on, Boeing is riskier than NGC/EADS partnership?!

The AF seems to think Boeing producing the Frankentanker with a new boom is riskier than NG/EADS producing a plane that's already flying. I don't see that as any less a valid view than Boeing's.

The AF thinks it adds up, and presumably has answers to all those questions. Why don't we just wait and see what the GAO has to say?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
flexo
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:55 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:50 pm

Well, why shouldn't Boeing fight? They are a company with shareholders who all expect them to make as much profit as they possibly can. Is it a better product? Probably not, but it is a pretty good product which the Air Force could easily use without losing much of its capabilities.

Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):

All this should of course be taken with a grain of salt as it is information provided by the losing party, Boeing. I'm sure Northrop Grumman would have quite a different story to tell!
 
agill
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 6:51 pm

An ad campain in newspapers? This is just getting sad. They are starting to look like our socialdemocrats, after they lost the last election, who somehow couldn't accept the fact that they had lost. To bad on such a fantastic company.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:03 pm

It is clear Boeing is playing the Public Opinion Card here. Which means they know (as most of the more sensible and intelligent A.netters who can read also do) that their bid was inferior. Basically this add is admitting that they have lost "with flying colors". They are desperate! And what for, it is a very healthy company business wise which has back-logs sometimes way past 2016 for several new products they are developing (i.e. the beautiful, but sadly enough still not yet flying B787)

This is nothing more then a relative cheap trick to put additional (public) pressure on the GAO and to "blacken" the decision makers at the AF. Which imho is stupid because they are the ones Boeing tries to convince they had poor and wrongful judgement. Yet at the same time they are referring to a possible KC-Z program which they might offer the B777 for as a platform. And the same decision makers are then to award Boeing a contract in a few years time?

Or is Boeing afraid that since it has major problems with their "proven" B767-Tanker Platform (still paying $82.500,-- per day for compensations on the delay to the customers Italy and Japan), plus that the Frankentanker will almost be a redevelopment of older technology aspects in an unproven design, and the A330-MRTT development has gone quite smoothly (with planes already being build and flying and with a new type of boom (FBW) that already had its first wet contact), that the KC-Z may never arise and that the KC-45 will also take-over that role?

And then the arguments, Boeing was led to believe.....(bla-bla-bla), we have heard that quite a while. Mostly from die-hard Boeing fans. But where is the proof??? It was never delivered to us, most certainly not by Boeing or A-netters from the B-camp for that matter.

Many A-netters who have read carefully everything which was stated in the public available minutes of meetings as well as the full content of the bid-requirements already clearly stated and proved that Boeing was nothing led to believe. They chose the B767 as a tanker platform since this was already in development. That is what they had in mind all along ever since the first deal was "scuttled" by John McCain who found out that Boeing was going to earn excessively on the old B767-Tanker deal.

And remember the aircraft they have included in their bid, the B767-AT (Frankentanker) is a lot more capable then the originally proposed B767-Tanker. And they offered it at considerably lower prices. That is what the competition of NG-EADS did to their bid. And probably knowing they were out-classed they composed this strange and unproven mixture of 767-200/300/300-ER and 767-400 components. Every single component may be reliable in passenger service, but when you mix them up you have no guarantee whatsoever that they will work equally reliable then. Just look at the just referred to B767-Tanker problems which are years late for deployment at the Japanese and Italian Air Force. It could still be developed into a great tanker, but it will never be as good, let alone better then the A330-MRTT based KC-45.

All efforts by Boeing did not matter that much, they were still clearly beaten by a much more modern and superior airframe. Just as four other countries decided when comparing the B767 head-to-head with the A330-MRTT. It can not even be a surprise that the USAF picked the NG-EADS bid. It is the best choice they could have made.

Anyway, it is again a clear signal that they (Boeing) lost on merits and now they are almost losing their minds using everything else they can think of (in an election year(!)) to sway the opinion of policy and/or decision makers. Basically trying to put pressure on what should be an independent body in the US official structures. A very, very, very sad development for a company of this stature. Which makes some very, very good planes which are appreciated worldwide. They should not behave like this since this company, and many of its very fine workforce, do not need them to behave like this.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9999
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:16 pm

I believe that the GAO will take a very hard look as Boeing's comments related to costs and that may well be a problem for the Air Force. I would list this as critical.

Size, for me, is something that the politicians who will eventually fund a tanker (from either company) will look at very closely. What was in the original RFP and, more importantly why was it changed. If the Democrats win the White House in November the letter from McCain won't carry very much weight.

I would say that Boeing has some rather strong talking points. Now they have to back them up for the GAO and the Air Force is going to need to clearly demonstrate that at no time did they make a decision that improperly & adversely impacted Boeing. Lots of arguments are going to be placed and we just have to wait out the review. I would not be surprised to see a few problems develop for the Air Force, but then we haven't had a decent scandal for a while, well excepting New York Governors and that is getting boring.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:34 pm



Quoting Agill (Reply 6):
An ad campain in newspapers? This is just getting sad. They are starting to look like our socialdemocrats

All companies competing for big contracts place adds in local and national print and electronic media...hell, the EADS NG folks had a huge bill board praising it's entry into the tanker compation right outside the gates of Wright Patterson AFB where the source selection team was meeting for more than a year~!
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:38 pm

There is a significant difference between advertising and whining!
 
columbia107
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:42 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:53 pm

Media blitz is not the only thing and it appears it will not stop once the GAO's conclusions are made public.

Apparently, some Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill are exploring legislative action to stymie the Air Force's KC-X tanker award to Northrop Grumman/EADS in the event that Boeing's legal appeal with the Government Accountability Office fails.

Rep. Jay Inslee, (D-Wash.), in whose state Boeing would have built the KC-767 tanker had it won the KC-X contest, has publicly stated there are "six to a dozen strategies" under consideration.

These include: prohibiting the award of a government contract to any company found by the US government to be receiving illegal subsidies; directing the Air Force to reconsider the two tanker proposals and factor in subsidies in its evaluation; instructing USAF to reopen the bidding and allow Boeing to propose a tanker based on a larger airplane; and canceling outright the Northrop Grumman contract.
In God we trust
 
scottieprecord
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:28 am

Yea I saw this in the front section of the NY Times today.

I think for those John Q. Taxpayers who actually read newspapers, mostly older citizens, this went over quite well. Unless you're here reading on Anet, you most likely don't have much information on the subject and only heard a small snippet on the news and then it was dropped. Plus, older citizens are generally more about "Made in America" anyways.

What I wonder is what does Boeing expect to get from this. Are they trying to influence the decision of the GAO? Perhaps trying to garner support from Congress? I mean, there wasn't really any call-to-action for regular citizens... maybe just trying to support overall public opinion on the issue. Well, regardless, it got people talking again, so I guess it worked.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:37 am



Quoting Agill (Reply 6):
An ad campain in newspapers? This is just getting sad. They are starting to look like our socialdemocrats, after they lost the last election, who somehow couldn't accept the fact that they had lost. To bad on such a fantastic company.

Maybe you missed where the USAF didn't give Boeing any information on the tanker contract award for a lengthy period of time and allowed NG and its hired mouthpieces to set the message the entire time the Media was interested in this topic.

We heard LOTS of quotes from one lady who might need new kneepads after this episode in all kinds of media. She was making claims that NG/EDAS was better in 4 out of 5 categories and that Boeing was being arrogant assholes about the whole deal. We heard all about the "amazing new jobs" that America would get, but nothing about the economic reality of the jobs lost in America balancing out the scale. Many outlets just reprinting a nice propaganda piece handed to them by NG didn't mention the fact that at this time NG doesn't have a thing to do with the plane offered other than letterhead on the PowerPoint.

Point is the USAF let NG/EDAS run away with the message. If Boeing has to pay to get the other side in the papers, good for them.

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised to see the delay in debriefing Boeing as a line item in the actual protest.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:40 am



Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 12):
What I wonder is what does Boeing expect to get from this

I would think that a $40 billion and possibly a $100 billion contract maybe the reason. Get real.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
scottieprecord
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:46 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 14):
I would think that a $40 billion and possibly a $100 billion contract maybe the reason. Get real.

... Captain Obvious, is that you?

Anyways, I meant more specifically from the ad campaign. As in, how might it get them the contracts...
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:00 am



Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 15):
Captain Obvious, is that you?

It is I, I knew what you were referring to. I do not think a contract of that size and it's importance to our economy should be so litely dismissed as has been the case in some of the replies., especially from those of us from the US. The last time I checked, 1 billion dollars is alot of money, never mind 100 billion dollars.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:16 am



Quoting Agill (Reply 6):
An ad campain in newspapers? This is just getting sad

I think that maybe Boeing feels that is the only way to get out the truth about this shady deal. There is a saying here about changing horses in midstream. It sure seems that the Air Force may have done just that with respects to the needs and requirements for the new tanker. What do you think, that there is a bunch of idiots running Boeing? I think they were told one thing and congressional pressure on the Air Force caused a change in the specs after Boeings efforts were finished. There is another saying here, it is called Stacking the deck, a favorite tactic in our congress. I say look to Sen. John McCain, who had the ties to EADS.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
7cubed
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:02 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:44 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):
There is a significant difference between advertising and whining!

Whining, as in saying you're going to drop out of the competition if the specifications aren't changed to favor your product?
joe
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:44 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):

I think that maybe Boeing feels that is the only way to get out the truth about this shady deal. There is a saying here about changing horses in midstream. It sure seems that the Air Force may have done just that with respects to the needs and requirements for the new tanker. What do you think, that there is a bunch of idiots running Boeing? I think they were told one thing and congressional pressure on the Air Force caused a change in the specs after Boeings efforts were finished. There is another saying here, it is called Stacking the deck, a favorite tactic in our congress. I say look to Sen. John McCain, who had the ties to EADS.

And when NG tell the 'truth' in their ad, who, I wonder, will the public believe?
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:19 am



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 19):

And when NG tell the 'truth' in their ad, who, I wonder, will the public believe?

The GAO and congress have the responsibility to determine what happened in this competition between EADS and Boeing. We can speculate all we want and we will never know if it is not brought out into the light of day. I think Boeing must feel they were blindsided by the Air Force and whatever forces were at work to accomplish this awarding of the contract for a much larger aircraft than Boeing was told to present to the Air Force. I have to think that Boeing is not that stupid to miss the mark by that much on this project. I think the loss of a huge contract is worth the effort that Boeing is making. I find it hard to believe that Boeing was careless with this amount of money and work at stake. I think a little bit of pride was at stake here also.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:23 am



Quoting 7cubed (Reply 18):
Whining, as in saying you're going to drop out of the competition if the specifications aren't changed to favor your product?

That was attributed to EADS was it not?
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Charles79
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:35 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:33 am

I just read this in the LA Times...what a waste of money! I'm in the Air Force doing space acquisitions and if one of our losing bidders pulled this crap they can wave the next contract goodbye as well. By putting out this ad they made themselves look whiny and more like a screaming little brat than a serious industrial company.

The thing that bugs me (having inside knowledge as to how the AF/DoD operate) is that Boeing is trying to manipulate the mind of the public by making statements such as "the RFP said this" or "the RFP stated that", etc. Joe Public doesn't know this but in order to change an RFP the government team has to inform ALL bidders and request their responses. If at any point Boeing was caught napping and responded with a "no comment" too bad. In such a high-profile contract I bet that the AF team recorded every single decision agreed upon by the bidders. As a taxpayer now Boeing makes me real mad because a) our tankers ain't getting any younger thus the need to close this case and move on is bigger and b) this protest will end up dragging forever costing us taxpayers millions of $.

Boeing, for the greater good, let it go.
 
scottieprecord
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:43 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 16):
It is I, I knew what you were referring to. I do not think a contract of that size and it's importance to our economy should be so litely dismissed as has been the case in some of the replies., especially from those of us from the US. The last time I checked, 1 billion dollars is alot of money, never mind 100 billion dollars.

Haha of course, of course... I just didn't see this coming by any means. And I'm really still not sure why they chose to do it!

What surprises me the most is how tacky this ad looks - like someone's kid had a computer design project for Mrs. Smith's 7th grade Art class. I think they would have done better with more of a letter-format addressed specifically to the reader and signed by James McNerney. Like others have said, as it is now it's just childish bitching and whining, rather than more of a formal appeal to the American people.

Honestly, I just expected better from Boeing.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11160
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:22 am



Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 2):
Boeing just do not seem to realise that they lost due to having a less capable product.

The KC-767AT is not a "less capable product". Both were graded against the RFP (supposely fairly). There were no extra points awarded for exceeding any KC-135R capability, which is what the RFP stated as fuel load, off load, range, and cargo capability.

BTW, that is also why a reengined KC-135E was also considered. It met all the RFP requirements.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1):
The more I read about Boeing and this nonsense, the worse I feel about the company. Let it go, Boeing! NG got this contract.

Did you also feel that way when EADS pitcjhed a bitch when they lost a big airliner contract from AI to Boeing?

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 4):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
RISK.

One word. Frankentanker.

Since the KC-30 is not in service yet, or flying as a completed tanker, why is the KC-767AT riskier?

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 4):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
COST.

I think the AF said that Boeing's numbers were unreliable.

Yes, they did say that, then used USAF cost numbers based on the KC-135, and not airliner costs based on 10 million flying hours of the B-767 and A-330 airliners.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 4):
Quoting Stratofortress (Reply 3):
PAST PERFORMANCE.

Hmm, how late were the Japanese and Italian KC-767s, yet Boeing is expecting credit for that?

We have been over this before. The USAF cannot consider the contract performance of any airline or other country these competitors may have had. So USAF cannot consider the performance of the Italian, Japanese, or Australian tanker programs (although now it appears they did talk to the RAAF about the KC-30 program, and used those considerations, possibly violating US laws).

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 4):
The AF seems to think Boeing producing the Frankentanker with a new boom is riskier than NG/EADS producing a plane that's already flying.

At the moment of the contract announcement, the KC-30 and KC-767AT were equilly rtisky programs.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
It is clear Boeing is playing the Public Opinion Card here. Which means they know (as most of the more sensible and intelligent A.netters who can read also do) that their bid was inferior.

I can read, I am an A.Netter, and I flew USAF tankers. So why, exactly was the Boeing proposal inferior? Where does the KC-767AT fail to meet the RFP?

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
(still paying $82.500,-- per day for compensations on the delay to the customers Italy and Japan),

No, that is not true. Give us a sourse.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 8):
I believe that the GAO will take a very hard look as Boeing's comments related to costs and that may well be a problem for the Air Force. I would list this as critical.

That is correct.

Quoting Scottieprecord (Reply 23):
What surprises me the most is how tacky this ad looks - like someone's kid had a computer design project for Mrs. Smith's 7th grade Art class. I think they would have done better with more of a letter-format addressed specifically to the reader and signed by James McNerney. Like others have said, as it is now it's just childish bitching and whining, rather than more of a formal appeal to the American people.

Honestly, I just expected better from Boeing.

Not even out of college, yet (UT?) and already an art, and airplane critic.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):
I think that maybe Boeing feels that is the only way to get out the truth about this shady deal. There is a saying here about changing horses in midstream. It sure seems that the Air Force may have done just that with respects to the needs and requirements for the new tanker. What do you think, that there is a bunch of idiots running Boeing? I think they were told one thing and congressional pressure on the Air Force caused a change in the specs after Boeings efforts were finished. There is another saying here, it is called Stacking the deck, a favorite tactic in our congress. I say look to Sen. John McCain, who had the ties to EADS.

There also appears to be some ready to retire USAF Flag Officers ties to NG or EADS-NA.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 22915
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:45 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The KC-767AT is not a "less capable product". Both were graded against the RFP (supposely fairly). There were no extra points awarded for exceeding any KC-135R capability, which is what the RFP stated as fuel load, off load, range, and cargo capability.

BTW, that is also why a reengined KC-135E was also considered. It met all the RFP requirements.

If this were all so, then why wouldn't the re-engined KC-135E have won the competition? It meets the KC-135R requirement exactly, and would be the lowest cost and the lowest risk.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:01 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):
If this were all so, then why wouldn't the re-engined KC-135E have won the competition? It meets the KC-135R requirement exactly, and would be the lowest cost and the lowest risk.

Good question...

Besides, the KC767 didn't fully meet the requirements as some keep on mentioning ad infinitum: it can't take off from a 7,000ft runway at MTOW under all of the meteorological conditions required by the USAF. It is definitely not a good idea to have a fleet of tankers which are seriously payload limited on many of the fields they are supposed to be used on and the USAF seems to think the same!

The bottom line is that the A330 came out first on EACH of the FIVE overal criteria the USAF used to combine all evaluations into, whereas the KC767 managed to beat the KC30 ZERO times! I'd say that is proof of a greatly inferior product.

It shouldn't come as a surprise really as the USAF in depth analysis of both frames merely confirms what the commercial airlines have concluded a decade ago already: the 767 is no match for the A330!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18467
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:22 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Since the KC-30 is not in service yet, or flying as a completed tanker, why is the KC-767AT riskier?

Because the KC-767AT is based on a yet-to-be-built 767 Airfix kit of components from three different 767 versions. Never been built. The A330MRTT is flying today and the boom has now passed fuel.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The USAF cannot consider the contract performance of any airline or other country these competitors may have had.

Then why is Boeing even mentioning it?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:31 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
There also appears to be some ready to retire USAF Flag Officers ties to NG or EADS-NA.

It does not surprise me at all, that is a standard procedure now it seems, to position ones self for a big paying job after one leaves the military or our congress. I consider these types scumbags, feeding at the trough like pigs, there is never enough for them, and some would certainly sell our strategic interests for personal gain, the record shows this over and over again.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
can read, I am an A.Netter, and I flew USAF tankers. So why, exactly was the Boeing proposal inferior? Where does the KC-767AT fail to meet the RFP

I think that maybe you have a little more knowledge and experience than 99.9% of us out here on this type aircraft and I was taught to value such experience and knowledge. I would like to thank you for sharing that with all of us who do not have that base of knowlwedge on this matter.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:44 pm



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
Besides, the KC767 didn't fully meet the requirements as some keep on mentioning ad infinitum: it can't take off from

Have you ever heard of hitting a moving target? Boeing makes a proposal and the target mysteriously moves to a larger plane, or should I say target, that does come into the picture, does it not? Larger plane, larger target, after all we are talking about war are we not? I think that Boeing just may have a team with a little more knowlwedge of bidding on government contracts than you or I. Of course one has to know what one is bidding on.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
It is clear Boeing is playing the Public Opinion Card here. Which means they know (as most of the more sensible and intelligent A.netters who can read also do) that their bid was inferior.

I can read, I am an A.Netter, and I flew USAF tankers. So why, exactly was the Boeing proposal inferior? Where does the KC-767AT fail to meet the RFP?

I do not mean to be disrespectful to you and your service record, sir, (or to anybody else for that matter), but:

In the passenger market the 767 was killed by the A330. The A330 will in the end be killed by the B787. There is nothing unusual about that. What's unusual is the fact that when it comes this type of tanker aircraft, the B767 suddenly can "in certain biased peoples minds" easily keep up with or beat the much newer, more efficient and more capable A330. But it clearly does not do that. Nobody is disputing the superiority of the A330 as an airplane and as a tanker aircraft. But when the A330 beats the B767 in a military deals, suddenly all hell breaks loose. Maybe emotionally it is slightly understandable, but factual it is not! (Remember, my country usually buys US made, especially our Air Force, and I sleep very well knowing that they do this. But they not do this all the time, and we hardly have any aviation industry left (slightly exaggerated) since Fokker went down the drain)

There is so much information around on the web, in books, in professional journals, etc, etc, (also in several threads in this part of the forum) which documents that the basic A330-MRTT is a better airplane compared to the B767-AT. (Sometimes even compared to the A310-MRTT!). And even though I am pretty sure Boeing would have (will?) created out of their concept a very fine performing tanker aircraft, the KC-45 based on the A330-MRTT is a better aircraft. And NG-EADS will deliver a better plane to the USAF. Period!

And there is a big difference between an inferior bid, or failing to meet the RFP. Inferior is a proper qualification if you get beaten on points, even when the margin is very narrow! You can be beaten by another plane (or car, or truck, or washing machine) even though your own bid has met or surpassed all the requirements described for it.

Nice example: If I am searching for at least a 3 series BMW type of car (not my type of car btw), and I get offers for a Mercedes E-class and an Audi A8, which in this special case are evenly priced, both will do very fine. But usually the Audi A8 (a direct Mercedes S-class or Lexus V8 competitor) will beat the Mercedes E-Class (which is a direct Audi A6, BMW-5 series competitor). It is just a bit better, roomier, more luxurious, etc, etc. The same thing happened here with this deal!

And that is something a professional company as Boeing with its track-record should not be whining about imho!
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:22 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 30):
In the passenger market the 767 was killed by the A330. The A330 will in the end be killed by the B787.

Airbus still has not sold as many A330's as Boeing as sold 767s... the 767 is still being sold, though in ever smaller numbers as it is replaced by the A330/A350 and the 787. The A330 competes with both the 767 and the 777 (it is sized between the two) It has its merits and sells well... but it hasn't killed anything. The Boeing products it competes with in the LCA marketplace sold just fine.
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:00 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 31):
but it hasn't killed anything.

True, but the 767 was the victim of increased air travel demand. And in a commercial sense, it is dead with only 46 orders (the bulk being freighters) in years 06 and 07, with none yet in 08. Sales wise, the A330 including freighters has sold 895 compared to just over a thousand. Impressive figures considering the A330 was roughly a decade later into service.

I am very fond of the 767 though. I remember on launch being convinced the 762ER range figures were a misprint  Smile
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:19 pm



Quoting Pygmalion (Reply 31):
Airbus still has not sold as many A330's as Boeing as sold 767s... the 767 is still being sold, though in ever smaller numbers as it is replaced by the A330/A350 and the 787. The A330 competes with both the 767 and the 777 (it is sized between the two) It has its merits and sells well... but it hasn't killed anything. The Boeing products it competes with in the LCA marketplace sold just fine.

I fully agree with your statement. But you are missing the point. Because I never said that Airbus had already sold more A330's then Boeing has sold 767's. On March 26th Boeing reports according to their website 961 total orders. Airbus reports per February 29th to have sold 895 copies of several A330's. That is not a big difference between the two and orders for the A330 keep coming in, just look at the orders for the A330 which were announced this week. The B767 is not selling anymore, and there is hardly a back-log left. And the B767 has been on the market many more years then the A330.
I have also said that since the business of selling airliners is going very well for Boeing, they do not even need this order. They have their hands full with the B777 production, the B787 development and production ramp-up and the B747-8 development. Whih is a good thing imho.

Do not get me wrong, I also do not want to take anything away from the B767 performance. I have flown on it a couple of times and it was always a good ride. And as a fan of aviation I like all aircraft and airplanes. But as a product in the highly competitive commercial airliner market the B767 was surpassed by the A330 on basically all levels. And I expect the B787-A350 to do the same to the A330 and B777 in the future. Again, there is nothing unusual here.

I only stated that if the B767 is beaten as a product by a better one, why is it so hard to accept that? Because it is a Boeing? Look at the current A330 market sales, and remember the fact, when interpreting these numbers, that Airbus had to (and sometimes still has to) win orders from many traditional and loyal Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas customers worldwide. That makes their sales total even more impressive and is a clear signal that the market wants this aircraft and does not want the B767 anymore.

The A330 as a plane is much better then the B767, it is also much newer. So that comes as no surprise and this is undisputed. Now out of both aircraft types tanker aircraft are made, and suddenly the B767 is much better according to Boeing and their fans, (I have even read here somebody stating that the B767-AT was the much more modern aircraft!) and should be bought!

And I have read a lot (too much) that no foreign product should be bought! That is xenophobia and has nothing to do with either the B767 or the A330. No modern airlines produced today is 100% made in one country. So every plane ordered always means having foreign technology and supporting foreign economies for the percentage of an airliner that does not come from manufacturing country A, B, C or D.

Whining about this decision is also saying to the serviceman and women: "we want you to have the second best product to perform your duty" (politely), or it is saying to these same man and women: "we want you to rely on inferior products to do your duties, but you just have to deal with it because it is a little bit more american built". (harsh, but the truth!).

The USAF made one of the most thoroughly funded decisions on such a large contract ever. They clearly found the NG-EADS bid to be superior according to the RFP!

Nobody has delivered any proof that the B767-AT (an unproven concept as a whole) clearly outperformes the already flying and much more capable A330-MRTT. Not even Boeing. They come up with whiny statements (with no proof) like "we were led to believe........" but can not even prove the well informed members here on A-net wrong. That is because these well informed members on A-net are right with their analyses in this case.

There are many statements in multiple threads here on this forum about the performances of both planes seen in the light of the RFP. Many well informed people on this forum, better informed than me, have clearly proven this with highly detailled and very well written posts. Again thanks to them.

And too many rebuttals on these factual posts were very often beside the point, even sofar that many respected members kept resubmitting their factual information and too many B-supporters just not believing these plain facts, even if they are verifiable for everyone.

If you read through all the posts on this forum about the USAF awarding this contract to NG-EADS, that is clearly the bottom line where it comes down to. As if the USAF is the criminal here, or NG is the bad guy here, or EADS-NA is the bad guy here. All of them highly respected departments and companies providing worldwide security and providing worldwide highly skilled jobs to many people.

That still amazes me! And that is what I have said. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

Kind regards.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:35 pm

For some reason it seems like Johnnie Cochoran could rise from the grave with a ridiculous new catchphrase to help Boeing.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must ACQUIT."


To cite the original RFP just doesn't matter. I will hold this against Boeing for many years. Airbus is the better plane. Airbus is the more dignifed, honorable company (in this event).

Boeing is hoping to win on a technicality. Childish.

By delaying the tanker program, Boeing is urinating on the faces of our soldiers, and decreasing our national security. Maybe it is time for Boeing to stop crying, change its diaper and take a nap.

[Edited 2008-03-27 15:43:35]
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1582
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:15 pm



Quoting Flexo (Reply 5):
Well, why shouldn't Boeing fight? They are a company with shareholders who all expect them to make as much profit as they possibly can. Is it a better product? Probably not, but it is a pretty good product which the Air Force could easily use without losing much of its capabilities.

Precisely. I'm surprised people don't realize the Jim McNerney school of management. While the KC-30 may be the better product over a "pretty good" product, the selection process was flawed by the addition late in the process of category #5.

This is all the opening a CEO like McNerney needs. He will press this to the end to protect his shareholders.

If Harry was still around there would be no protest.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:19 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 33):
On March 26th Boeing reports according to their website 961 total orders. Airbus reports per February 29th to have sold 895 copies of several A330's.

Current numbers appear to be:

767: 1011 orders, 961 delivered

A330: 970 orders, 515 delivered
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:45 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
For some reason it seems like Johnnie Cochoran could rise from the grave with a ridiculous new catchphrase to help Boeing.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must ACQUIT."


To cite the original RFP just doesn't matter. I will hold this against Boeing for many years. Airbus is the better plane. Airbus is the more dignifed, honorable company (in this event).

Boeing is hoping to win on a technicality. Childish.

By delaying the tanker program, Boeing is urinating on the faces of our soldiers, and decreasing our national security. Maybe it is time for Boeing to stop crying, change its diaper and take a nap.

Flighty, do you get paid to come up with this stuff, or is just that you are afraid NG/Eads (Airbus} is going to lose?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
To cite the original RFP just doesn't matter. I will hold this against Boeing for many years. Airbus is the better plane. Airbus is the more dignifed, honorable company (in this event).

Why doesn't it matter? You ask for a Honda, and then pick a Kenworth: I think it does matter! That is sure a technicality for a fact! As for Airbus being the more honorable company; they would never protest would they?-Get real. As for holding it against Boeing for years, thats your priviledge and the best of luck with that. Hold it against them till the cows come home. I am sure it means just about as much to them as it does to me.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
By delaying the tanker program, Boeing is urinating on the faces of our soldiers, and decreasing our national security. Maybe it is time for Boeing to stop crying, change its diaper and take a nap.

And congress didn't do that by rejecting the lease deal, and McCain didn't do that by getting the Air Force to not accept a sole source selection?

Boeing thinks they got the raw end of the deal and they have a right to protest. They have not protested in 30yrs, and perhaps never, so they must think they have a pretty good case. They are going about it by the law as they have that right, just as do other companies that have and do protest bids. If that's childish, so be it.

You can yell and bitch and try to slander all you want, but it is not going to change one thing! So just set back and see what the GAO decides, and just going from your post, you might want to check your own britches!

[Edited 2008-03-27 16:57:41]
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:06 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 33):
I only stated that if the B767 is beaten as a product by a better one, why is it so hard to accept that? Because it is a Boeing? Look at the current A330 market sales, and remember the fact, when interpreting these numbers, that Airbus had to (and sometimes still has to) win orders from many traditional and loyal Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas customers worldwide. That makes their sales total even more impressive and is a clear signal that the market wants this aircraft and does not want the B767 anymore.

The A330 as a plane is much better then the B767, it is also much newer. So that comes as no surprise and this is undisputed. Now out of both aircraft types tanker aircraft are made, and suddenly the B767 is much better according to Boeing and their fans, (I have even read here somebody stating that the B767-AT was the much more modern aircraft!) and should be bought!

The A330 is a bigger plane, not a much better plane. Even still, it's recent success in the commercial airliner market over the 767 owes more to the fuselage diameter enabling side by side LD3 placement in the cargo hold than any other feature. Boeing is addressing that deficiency for the commercial market with the 787. However, that feature is not particularly relevant to the USAF. Therefore sales performance in commercial aircraft market should not have any bearing on what the USAF buys. After all, commercial airlines demanded and got a wider fuselage for the 707 than the C-135 fuselage. Military needs and commercial airline needs are not the same.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:29 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 34):
Boeing is hoping to win on a technicality. Childish.

I do not think, lobbying and political interference and maybe some down right rigging of the spec sheets can be called a technicality, not in my world anyway. I also think that trying to win back a 40 billion dollar contract that may have been denied to Boeing by those tactics is very important to Boeings bottom line.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:05 am



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
Besides, the KC767 didn't fully meet the requirements as some keep on mentioning ad infinitum:

It met or exceeded every threshold requirement as did the KC-30.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
t can't take off from a 7,000ft runway at MTOW under all of the meteorological conditions required by the USAF.

Neither can the KC-30.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
It is definitely not a good idea to have a fleet of tankers which are seriously payload limited on many of the fields they are supposed to be used on and the USAF seems to think the same!

We have been doing just fine for the past 45 years with an even less capable tanker.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 26):
The bottom line is that the A330 came out first on EACH of the FIVE overal criteria the USAF used to combine all evaluations into, whereas the KC767 managed to beat the KC30 ZERO times!

That remains to be seen.
 
CYQL
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:00 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
At the moment of the contract announcement, the KC-30 and KC-767AT were equilly rtisky programs.

How can the KC-30 be as risky as the KC-767AT, when the first A330's to be converted are already flying while the KC-767 is on a piece of paper.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 27):
Because the KC-767AT is based on a yet-to-be-built 767 Airfix kit of components from three different 767 versions. Never been built.

I would have compared it to a Matchbox kit, molded in three colours.

In my opinion Boeing has no choice but to fight it, they are terrified of Airbus setting up an assembly line in the US.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14770
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:35 am



Quoting 7cubed (Reply 18):
Whining, as in saying you're going to drop out of the competition if the specifications aren't changed to favor your product?

This is a somewhat skewed point Boeing is used in the press, from the point the draft RFP went out, it was not changed to better suit the KC-30. The only real changed the USAF made was to their model which they changed previously to suit the KC-767 lease deal. The changes effectively allowed the KC-767AT/KC-30 to compete under the new RFP.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
The KC-767AT is not a "less capable product". Both were graded against the RFP (supposely fairly). There were no extra points awarded for exceeding any KC-135R capability, which is what the RFP stated as fuel load, off load, range, and cargo capability.

Extra points ARE awarded for meeting RFP/SRD objectives like being able to takeoff at MTOW in 7,000'.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
BTW, that is also why a reengined KC-135E was also considered. It met all the RFP requirements.

That is not correct, a CFM56 upgrade to the KC-135 falls behind on the multi point refelling front and runway performance.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
Since the KC-30 is not in service yet, or flying as a completed tanker, why is the KC-767AT riskier?

As you know, the KC-30 is flying as a complete tanker, has been for some time. It completed its civil flight testing certification in Jan.

It has been over a year now that is has been configured as a tanker http://www.eadsnorthamerica.com/1024...ases/2007_03_22_MRTT_Boom_Pod.html

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):

Yes, they did say that, then used USAF cost numbers based on the KC-135, and not airliner costs based on 10 million flying hours of the B-767 and A-330 airliners.

The 767 numbers Boeing were using were for the 767-200ER, that frame is 17,000 lb to 77,000 lb lighter (767-200ER MTOW varies between 335,000lb to 395,000 lb) than the KC-767AT (412,000 lb same as 767-300ER/766-300F), that is 17,000-77,000 lbs of unaccounted fuel burn that Boeing does not want to publish.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
We have been over this before. The USAF cannot consider the contract performance of any airline or other country these competitors may have had. So USAF cannot consider the performance of the Italian, Japanese, or Australian tanker programs (although now it appears they did talk to the RAAF about the KC-30 program, and used those considerations, possibly violating US laws).

They have, they did meet with Australia, an Australia stated they were very happy with the KC-30 development. http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssI...tilitiesNews/idUSN2427186520080124

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
At the moment of the contract announcement, the KC-30 and KC-767AT were equilly rtisky programs.

The KC-767T has never been built, the A330-200 gets built all the time, all 4 A330-200 SDD frames for the USAF have either completed manufacturing or as in the process now. No metal has been cut for the KC-767AT, the design is not even complete.

I note the USAF has asked the GAO to dismiss the Boeing petition, we should hear about that within the next 80-90 days. By that time all 4 A330 SDD frames will be complete, and conversion can commence immediately, the USAF will have all 4 SDD by 2010, Boeing cannot even guarantee completing one frame this year.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 24):
No, that is not true.

From what I have heard it has been US$82,000 PER day the KC-767 was late for Japan, and over two years late (?)

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 36):
Current numbers appear to be:

767: 1011 orders, 961 delivered

A330: 970 orders, 515 delivered

You will need to keep revising those numbers up (Air Asia, SQ, RAF), even more A330s have been ordered, and will continue to do so. 767 sales are dead.

Quoting Alien (Reply 40):
It met or exceeded every threshold requirement as did the KC-30

But it did not meet every objective (extra points) nor was it as "efficient" (as defined under the RFP) in the tanker role (primary role) as the KC-30A.

Quoting Alien (Reply 40):
Neither can the KC-30.

Yes it can

"The KC-30 aircraft can deploy fully loaded from airports and airfields with a 7,000ft runway."

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc30tanker/

"The KC-30's superior performance characteristics ensure the tanker will be able to deploy from the largest number of airfields and airports possible. The aircraft's excellent takeoff performance allows it to depart from a 7,000-ft. runway fully loaded."

from http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/performance/deploying.html

"The KC-30 can take off from a 7,000-foot runway carrying 245,000 pounds of fuel, its full load. The KC-767 needs 8,000 feet with its full load of 202,000 pounds. If we look at the same takeoff distance for both competitors, each carrying 202,000 pounds, the KC-767 needs 8,000 feet while the KC-30 only needs 6,100 feet, which means the KC-30 can operate out of many more runways globally."

from http://www.eadstankerupdate.com/2007/issue_30.htm

Quoting Alien (Reply 40):

We have been doing just fine for the past 45 years with an even less capable tanker.

That is not true, they have had to significantly upgrade the KC-135 over that period, and also purchase the KC-10, KC-130 and buddy packs.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:43 am



Quoting M27 (Reply 37):
you are afraid NG/Eads (Airbus} is going to lose?

Certainly. Although the A330 has already won on its merits, it can easily lose in politics.

I AM afraid they are going to lose. Much like I was afraid OJ Simpson would go free. And look what happened. It was an embarrassment. And the higher purpose of the debate was lost.

Here, the purpose is to supply the USAF with a tanker. Also, to make American economy stronger. The EADS bid accomplishes both.

Rewarding Boeing for an already ancient 30-year old platform is pointless. The 767 was successful. Paying Boeing for it accomplishes nothing for the American economy.

Getting EADS / Grumman on shore as a new widebody builder is a significant check on Boeing's monopoly power. That makes the US economy stronger and builds our on-shore capabilities.

Are we so afraid of a new employer in the USA? When did that become evil?

I would prefer the EADS bid even if the A330 were slightly inferior as an airplane. But as it happens, it's SUPERIOR as well! So it's a win / win / win.

If you support Boeing here, you literally oppose the United States Air Force. I deplore this action. Let the USAF get what it wants in a "time of war." This isn't the time for Boeing's pageantry and baby-kissing. This isn't the time for Boeing's golden shower of piss on our military capability.

Boeing is quite literally claiming an industrial politic in which it pulls the levers of power in our democracy to feed its hungry craw. Shame on them. Our military has made its decision. It was the right decision that highlighted true American values. Meritocracy, fair competition. Not power to the draft-dodging billy goats who run our (.... I'll spare you the rest)

Quoting M27 (Reply 37):
You can yell and bitch

By definition, I am happy with the status quo. I seek no change. Let the whiners be silenced. Let them be quiet, for a long time to come.

What if we always awarded military contracts to moaning, groaning whiners? I'd rather not

Our USAF even said Boeing was unresponsive / rude to them during meetings! As if Boeing had all the power in the decision of the USAF. Do they?

Quoting M27 (Reply 37):
and McCain didn't do that by getting the Air Force to not accept a sole source selection?

OMG puh-leeze. McCain polished his law enforcement credentials (important for a President) by exposing some of the lowest, sleaziest of corporate criminals.

This is in no way comparable to B's whining about the spec-sheet, which was written by somebody called the United States Air Force. You know what, maybe Airbus convinced USAF that their spec sheet ought to change, and the USAF was convinced. Maybe (!!) Airbus had superior tactical analysis, which gave new ideas to the USAF. Is that so bad?

What is more important, a totally fair contest, or winning wars? Winning wars, so the spec sheet can be changed if need be, so we can defeat Al Qaeda or whatever the idea supposedly is.

It is the height of bizarre irony that Boeing is pissing about tiny trivial matters in a contest in which it, itself has a flagrant record of criminal activity. It would be funny if Airbus includes the sentencing hearings of the Boeing executives, jail doors clanging shut etc.

Like O.J., Boeing has a good chance of going free. That doesn't mean they deserve my cheers.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9999
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:45 pm

While there is a tendency here to call Boeing a "whiner" how many military contracts have they lost over the past 30 years - the time frame where they have not filed a protest? Not filing a protest for over 30 years does give the protest they do file a lot more stature than a company that files on a regular basis. Considering that history it seems a bit queer to call Boeing a whiner.

Considering the note above that they KC-30 is 27% larger than the KC-10 isn't it reasonable to consider the KC-30 as a replacement for the KC-10? Is the Air Force changing their planning for the whole tanker fleet without discussing it with Congress? Might cause problems when they go to Congress for approval to replace the KC-10s in the future.

While I'm not against the NG/Airbus contract I do believe that it needs to be investigated by the GAO to ensure total transparency verified by a third party. The Air Force rapidly requesting that the protest be dropped by the GAO is, in itself, an unfortunate situation as it leads to some considering that there is something to hide. Not a wise move on the part of the AF. There is sufficient money involved to justify a vigorous investigation by the GAO - and there is a need for their findings to be made public.

Finally, there is the issue of retiring military officers moving to well paying jobs in the defense industry. It may be time to pass a law similar to the lobbyists law and forbid retiring officers from working with defense contractors or their lobbyists for a minimum of 3 years after their retirement. Boeing's problems with the lease deal pretty well highlights the potential problem and it's time to ensure that this situation is cleared up.
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:18 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
Might cause problems when they go to Congress for approval to replace the KC-10s in the future

Espicially when Congress finds out about infrastructure costs at all Tanker bases

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
The Air Force rapidly requesting that the protest be dropped by the GAO is, in itself, an unfortunate situation as it leads to some considering that there is something to hide.

Where there is smoke there is fire

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
Finally, there is the issue of retiring military officers moving to well paying jobs in the defense industry.

Rumors of Gen Lichte AMC//CC has a dream job waiting for him in the priate sector.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:57 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
Finally, there is the issue of retiring military officers moving to well paying jobs in the defense industry. It may be time to pass a law similar to the lobbyists law and forbid retiring officers from working with defense contractors or their lobbyists for a minimum of 3 years after their retirement. Boeing's problems with the lease deal pretty well highlights the potential problem and it's time to ensure that this situation is cleared up.

There are some laws that address the issue of who can work for whom upon retirement and in some cases, some people (like contracting officers) are banned for life from working for vendors they have issued contracts to.

As for other retiring officers...all defense corporations do this, including ret USAF officers working today for EADS as well as NG, LM, BA etc. Hiring retired military members by DoD contractors in itself is a win - win situation. First, the contractors get an employee to work in a field they are fully trained in, and are considered to be most loyal and dependable employees. The Govt also "wins" in that it's own professionals now serve with the companies who hope to provide the exact items the military wants in future systems. What better way to help teach career "white board" program managers and widget engineers who've never served in the military to better understand what the military requirements will be for current and future systems?
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13475
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:09 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 43):
What is more important, a totally fair contest, or winning wars? Winning wars, so the spec sheet can be changed if need be, so we can defeat Al Qaeda or whatever the idea supposedly is.

I maybe wrong, but I think the history books say that all the great civilizations in past history fell because of curruption, greed, moral decay and a list of other things to numerous to mention. It seems that you advocate , a little cheating on these matters such as national defense in your reply.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9999
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:33 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 46):
Hiring retired military members by DoD contractors in itself is a win - win situation.

It's a win-win situation if there is no potential conflict of interests during the officer's final 5 years of service. If there is even the appearance of conflict then I believe that there should be a barrier. Few folks from the tanker lease deal serving in jail right now is a rather good indication of the potential for problems. The issue now is to avoid both the problem and the appearance of a problem.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18467
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Doing Media Tanker Blitz

Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:15 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 44):
The Air Force rapidly requesting that the protest be dropped by the GAO is, in itself, an unfortunate situation as it leads to some considering that there is something to hide.

They're asking for some parts of Boeing's protest to be dismissed by the GAO, not the whole protest.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2645592520080326

Quote:
The U.S. Air Force on Wednesday said it filed a motion asking the Government Accountability Office to dismiss parts of Boeing Co's protest against a $35 billion aircraft contract to Northrop Grumman.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LyleLanley and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos