Yes, and according to her it was John McCain's fault and not the scheming BA CEO/CFO and AF acquistion folks that jacked the price of the original contract.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Boeing Tanker: Beans, Bullets, Oil, and politics .. and did we mention: politics ??
- Thread starter Morgan81
- Start date
Yes, and according to her it was John McCain's fault and not the scheming BA CEO/CFO and AF acquistion folks that jacked the price of the original contract.
Huh?
Interesting article and editorial from Aviation Week (sorry, I don't have a link) on Boeing's loss and some reasoning on why it happened. Metntioned were the smaller size of the Boeing proposal, the smaller cargo capacity and the fact that version Boeing offered had never been built before (it was a combination of '767-200 airframe; over-wing exits from the -300; floors, doors and structurally enhanced wings from the -300F; a cockpit, tail section and flaps from the -400ER') while the KC-30 proposal was very similar to the version that won the Australian tanker competition. They also talk about how Boeing discounted offering the 777 as a competing proposal.
That is just a few highlights, good article if you can get your hands on it.
That is just a few highlights, good article if you can get your hands on it.
Huggy Bear said:
She - Pelosi - is GREAT buddies w/ Senators Murray and Cantwell (both WA) -- and Dicks and McDermott when it gets right down to it, so this was not unexpected. You might even say they march in lockstep on ... virtually everything.
I've had one-on-one dealings w/ the two Senators in the past -- and while I am a supporter of Boeing in all this -- I find myself aligned w/ "strange bedfellows" once again, much to my dismay -- much like the BRAC campaign to save NUW from the chopping block a decade + ago ...
I need more vacation.
Lovers of only "American" products,
I know that whatever I say probably will not change your mind, but there is something wrong in your underlying theme throughout this thread economically. The US people win anytime we get a better product for a lower price. Now, if the Airbus product isn't a better product, you could argue against that, but we'll assume that they actually did research and picked the best choice. Even better is if the better product will be built in the USA. Economically speaking, money leaving the USA (going to corporate headquarters presumably) does not mean money left the USA. That money is useless unless it somehow makes it back to the USA. So, that money has to be spent in some way that will eventually have products or services from the USA. I'm not an economics teacher, so I'm sure that my explanation is less than stellar, but there are plenty of very easy to read economics books that explain this type of thing very well.
If we buy things made by a company like Boeing or Ford or GMC and they are not the best products for the price, we are actually paying an opportunity cost to have something that we could have had for a better price. We gave up money that had to be gained in some way for an inferior product. Not to mention, we are subsidizing companies that are apparently not competitive. Instead, they should figure out how to be competitive
Deep down does is make us feel good in happy places if we support "American" companies over a company that has foreign ties? Yes. Are we thinking logically and economically? No.
I know that whatever I say probably will not change your mind, but there is something wrong in your underlying theme throughout this thread economically. The US people win anytime we get a better product for a lower price. Now, if the Airbus product isn't a better product, you could argue against that, but we'll assume that they actually did research and picked the best choice. Even better is if the better product will be built in the USA. Economically speaking, money leaving the USA (going to corporate headquarters presumably) does not mean money left the USA. That money is useless unless it somehow makes it back to the USA. So, that money has to be spent in some way that will eventually have products or services from the USA. I'm not an economics teacher, so I'm sure that my explanation is less than stellar, but there are plenty of very easy to read economics books that explain this type of thing very well.
If we buy things made by a company like Boeing or Ford or GMC and they are not the best products for the price, we are actually paying an opportunity cost to have something that we could have had for a better price. We gave up money that had to be gained in some way for an inferior product. Not to mention, we are subsidizing companies that are apparently not competitive. Instead, they should figure out how to be competitive
Deep down does is make us feel good in happy places if we support "American" companies over a company that has foreign ties? Yes. Are we thinking logically and economically? No.
One thing we don't know (at least, I don't) is whether this is a fixed-price US$ contract. One must assume it is (can't believe DOD would take currency risk in a long-term contract), so to whatever degree there is a european cost component in the KC-45, that exposes EADS to the escalating value of the Euro against the dollar. In short, if EADS can't hedge their currency exposure to the US$ and if the US$ continues to slide in value against the Euro, EADS conceivably could lose their butts on this contract. If they didn't already have the A400M (military transport) and A380 losing billions for them, this would be less of an issue. Add to that the risk in building the new A350XWB, you easily see that they have the backsides exposed bigtime. To create a slightly more extreme analogy, it's like Boeing building their aircraft under fixed-price, long-term contracts and pricing the aircraft sold in Mexican pesos. Would you want to take that risk?
Airbus = better product at a lower price
Boeing has been price gouging the US Military for years now. This is a message they can't keep operating with impunity.
The Military and the US Taxpayers all win here. I don't understand some of your arguments. The thing is going to be built in the US, with US citizens (presumably almost 3,000 in AL) getting good paying jobs. You think everything Boeing is built in the US? Think again...
Boeing has been price gouging the US Military for years now. This is a message they can't keep operating with impunity.
The Military and the US Taxpayers all win here. I don't understand some of your arguments. The thing is going to be built in the US, with US citizens (presumably almost 3,000 in AL) getting good paying jobs. You think everything Boeing is built in the US? Think again...
The reason that McCain got involved was that the original contract would have cost the government $6B more than it should. My memory may be fading, but I believe that the planes were supposed to be leased. McCain began digging and asking why the contract cost so much-- later they found that Boeing had been making under the table deals to soak the government with one of the head AF procurement deals. Basically, she was steering the contract toward Boeing -- in return she was going to get a nice high end job @ Boeing. It was a major breach of procurement laws. The ex-AF procurement civilian did time @ Club Fed, as did some of the Boeing folks. The CEO and CFO lost their jobs.
And for everyone's wanking -- guess where Boeing's fuselage on the tanker was going to be built -- Japan. Oh, and you don't see the Senators from Alabama wanking. Wonder why that is......
...and the tail assembly comes from Italy. Who knows how much from China...
Having flown Boeing and 'Bus products, I'd take a Boeing anyday, anywhere, anyway. And I have ... that's just me ...
But the early indications that more US jobs will be lost in WA than gained in AL is a deal buster, for me.
All AW's anecdotal input, of course ...
But the early indications that more US jobs will be lost in WA than gained in AL is a deal buster, for me.
All AW's anecdotal input, of course ...
I knew all fo that, and your memory is not fading too much since you are right about the leasing and McCain being the one sink it, rightfully so I think. But I was more curious about this part?
I suspect that if Boeing has a leg to stand on that it will come out in the contract award appeals process. Does anybody have a link or copy to the CDD, and how each airframe stacked up with respect to the caps spelled out by the Air Force? Another thing to consider here would be the cost, schedule, and technology maturity. Granted AB's FCS might be weak, but if that is the case, the the fault lies with the AF for not ranking that capability high enough. Also, I've already heard that Boeing fell way short in almost all performance categories. If that is the case then the good hardworking American's at Boeing need to look squarely at management for pissing this away. Boeing still has a chance though, the "Buy American law" may help them out.
Those 135's still in service are well into metal fatigue issues. All those years supporting the SAC, TAC, and MAC missions did not age that aircraft well.
