2
   

EADS beats Boeing to US tanker deal

 
 
Reply Sat 1 Mar, 2008 12:09 pm
The US Air Force awarded a $35-billion (23-billion-euro) contract to revamp its ageing air refueling tanker fleet to Northrup Grumman and its European partner EADS, snubbing long-favored US plane maker Boeing.

But:
Quote:

US lawmakers blast Boeing defense contract snub
Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 5,435 • Replies: 48
No top replies

 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 05:02 am
There are a lot of voters in this state who are very unhappy and as far as I know, Congress still needs to appropriate funding for the contract. It is a good thing to hear our Senators & Reps are sticking together on this. "unfortunate" is an understatement!!!

Quote:
"It's just a disaster," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., one of Boeing's biggest supporters in Congress.

"I'm extremely disappointed," Dicks said. "It's just one of the worst things in my whole life. I am just shocked over this."

Gov. Chris Gregoire called the Air Force decision unfortunate for Boeing and the state of Washington.

"Boeing and its workers build the best planes in the world. They will continue to enjoy great success with their 787 Dreamliner and other innovative products still to come," she said, calling the Chicago-based company a valued corporate citizen of her state.

Boeing, Washington state's largest private employer, would have built the tankers, based on its 767 jetliners, at Everett, Wash.

In a joint statement, the state's two senators and six of its nine House members said they were outraged by the choice of a European company "and its foreign workers" to provide a tanker to the U.S. military.

"This is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America's men and women in uniform," said the statement, which was issued by Dicks, Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, and Reps. Rick Larsen, Jay Inslee, Adam Smith, Jim McDermott and Dave Reichert. All but Reichert are Democrats.

"Boeing has 75 years of experience in building the tankers our military flies. Washington state's workers are second to none and so is their product," the statement said.

"At a time when our economy is hurting, this is a blow not only to our state, but the more than 40 states across the country who would help build this national plane. We will be asking tough questions about the decision to outsource this contract. We look forward to hearing the Air Force's justification."

Source:
http://news.columbian.com/news/state/APStories/AP02292008news286331.cfm
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 05:23 am
Boeing played dirty, they should get burned. We need to send work towards Europe because we want them to buy our defense industry stuff, in the long run this deal is in the benefit of the US military. It will allow America to continue to keep American assembly lines open on the back of selling to the world market. It is claimed that Boeing simply assumed that they would get the contract even after getting caught, that they put forth a rather crappy product to fill the order instead of trying to come up with a top notch tanker. If this is true then the military and Washington need to bust Boeing big time.

Congress will not kill this deal. Boeing and the other defense companies need to be taught that they don't have complete freedom to feed at the public trough, that there are standards for behaviour and performance.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Mar, 2008 05:37 am
Quote:
"I'm extremely disappointed," Dicks said. "It's just one of the worst things in my whole life. I am just shocked over this."
Get over it Dicks. Its called globalisation. Perhaps the US government for once acted in the best interests of the US tax payer and not just Boeing.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 06:04 am
Ah, well ... globalisation, yes, certainly ... but not if it's bad for the USA:

Congress may back Boeing

Quote:
A top-ranking House Democrat said Wednesday that Congress may block funding of the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion contract to overhaul the service's tanker fleet that was awarded to a partnership of Northrop Grumman Corp. and the European-based parent of Airbus SAS if the Air Force can't explain why it is outsourcing the mammoth contract, in part, to a foreign company.
[...]
Boeing officials claim that the project would fund 40,000 U.S. jobs, while most of the jobs in the Northrop/EADS proposal would go overseas.
[...]
The congressional outrage in some ways has a similar feel to the 2006 controversy spurred by a United Arab Emirates company's attempt to take over management of six U.S. ports, Murtha said. The deal was scrapped under congressional and public fury of placing the security of the nation's ports into the hands of a country with questionable ties to terrorism.

With the tanker deal, Murtha expressed indignation that European members of NATO failed to help provide 2,700 additional troops needed in Afghanistan but were still being rewarded with one of the most lucrative contracts in U.S. military history. One Washington state lawmaker has collected thousands of signatures in an online petition protesting the award to the Northrop/EADS group.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 07:17 am
After market and maintenance will be an even bigger assignment for the life of the tanker.

The EADs teams have always come up with newer designs (whereas Boeing relied on an existing frame). However, doesnt EADS seem to be the master of never quite meeting deadlines?

What are the performance differences in range and fuel carrying capacity? ARe theUSAF refuelers and the NAVY refuelers still non-interchangeable?. Does anyone care about how much waste there is on that point?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 07:38 am
The EADS bid obviously met the US military specification. If you wanted a pink flying pig, they'd supply.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 09:44 am
farmerman wrote:
The EADs teams have always come up with newer designs (whereas Boeing relied on an existing frame). However, doesnt EADS seem to be the master of never quite meeting deadlines?


The A330-200 was launched in 1995, introduced in 1998 and comes in passenger, freighter and tanker versions.

By the end of December 2007, a total of 870 A330s had been ordered and 515 delivered.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 10:01 am
I didnt catch that the EADs entry was the existing frame. (So I suppose the delay wont be that great).

My main question was how different are the specs between the two planes.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 10:04 am
I suppose so different that the Airbus was preferred.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 10:18 am
The Airbus is a bigger plane, Boeing is complaining that the Air force requested a smaller plane like the one they proposed. Airbus was chosen not only because it was deemed to be the better plane in every way, but also because they can deliver more planes per year, and Boeing majorly screwed up a tanker order for a couple of foreign countries. The Air force did not trust Boeing to stick to a schedule because of this past poor performance.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 10:25 am
Unlike AIrbus, whose rep , as defined by recent performance in the "Superliner" category, has been nothing less than sterling.

Im still more ineterested in specs than spin guys. head to head , Ive been told fuel economy, range, and payload. If thats true, then Boeing made a huge tactical error. If the specs are close, then Id want to see what alternative materials and design changes would have wrought.

I know its Monday morning Qbacking, but I seriously doubt that those on this thread were following the story while it was under review. What were reading now is packaged stuff from news wires.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 11:11 am
farmerman wrote:
Unlike AIrbus, whose rep , as defined by recent performance in the "Superliner" category, has been nothing less than sterling.
.


Tankers are not anything like a new generation of plane. They are relatively simple, and based upon long used airframes off of long existing production lines. It is a straightforward process of cranking out the copies.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 11:23 am
I guess I wont get any straitforward answers so, Ill just say g'day.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 12:13 pm
We will just have to wait until tomorrow to hear what is said.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Air Force will brief Boeing tomorrow on the decision to spend $35 billion for air tankers using Airbus planes.

http://news.columbian.com/news/state/APStories/AP03062008news288711.cfm
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Mar, 2008 02:39 pm
a/t this article GE AVIATION would be given a lot of work if the tanker contract goes to airbus !
so it's GE AVIATION against BOEING - the gloves are off !

Quote:
Wednesday, March 5, 2008 - 10:29 AM EST
Boeing calls for Air Force review of tanker contract awarded to NorthropBusiness Courier of Cincinnati
A decision on a military tanker aircraft that could mean billions for GE Aviation, is being questioned by Boeing Co.

Boeing wants an immediate debriefing from U.S. Air Force officials over their decision to award the KC-X tanker contract to a team composed of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the French-German parent of Airbus.

That award could mean billions for Evendale-based GE Aviation, which makes the CF6 engines that power the Northrop/EADS tanker.

Boeing said the Air Force has indicated the briefing will not occur before March 12, a delay Boeing says is unusual. The contract was awarded to Northrop and EADS on Friday.

"Consistent with past practice and recent experience, we would expect this briefing to occur within days, not weeks, of the selection announcement," Mark McGraw, vice president of Boeing's 767 tanker programs, said in a statement. "Given that we are already seeing press reports containing detailed competitive information, we feel that our request is more than fair and reasonable."

The Air Force placed an initial aerial refueling tankers aircraft order valued at about $35 billion, with a larger second order bringing the value to $100 billion over 25 to 30 years.

The KC-X project will replace the Air Force's fleet of 179 KC-135 refueling planes. The current KC-X deal is the first of an expected three-phase deal that would call for more than 500 planes.

Boeing proposed a derivation of its 767 jetliner. Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman and Airbus submitted a bid based on Airbus's A330 commercial aircraft, which Northrop calls the KC-30.

McGraw said Boeing's bid appeared to be less than Northrup-EADS' bid and assumed its offering was more cost effective from a lifecycle standpoint due to the lower fuel burn of the 767. McGraw also said he was confused by reports indicating that Boeing was judged a higher risk than the Northrup-EADS team.

"Northrop and EADS are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they've never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides," McGraw said. "We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher-risk offering."

The Air Force said the winner was selected a "best value" determination based on five factors: mission capability, proposal risk, past performance, cost/price, and an integrated fleet air refueling assessment (performance in a simulated war scenario).

After the contract was awarded to Northrup-EADS on Friday, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents nearly 720,000 members including 35,000 Boeing employees across the country, expressed outrage over the decision.

IAM General Vice President Rich Michalski said in a statement: "President Bush and his administration have today denied real economic stimulus to the American people and chosen instead to create jobs in Toulouse, France."

Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) is a $32 billion global defense and technology company whose 120,000 employees provide systems, products, and solutions in information and services, electronics, aerospace and shipbuilding to government and commercial customers worldwide.

A unit of Chicago-based Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA), Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions. Headquartered in St. Louis, Integrated Defense Systems is a $32.4 billion business with 72,000 employees worldwide. The unit also has significant operations in Southern California.

GE Aviation is a unit of General Electric Co. (NYSE: GE), based in Fairfield, Conn.


source :
GE AVIATION TO BENEFIT FROM AIRBUS CONTRACT
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 02:00 am
farmerman wrote:
Unlike AIrbus, whose rep , as defined by recent performance in the "Superliner" category, has been nothing less than sterling.

Im still more ineterested in specs than spin guys. head to head , Ive been told fuel economy, range, and payload. If thats true, then Boeing made a huge tactical error. If the specs are close, then Id want to see what alternative materials and design changes would have wrought.

I know its Monday morning Qbacking, but I seriously doubt that those on this thread were following the story while it was under review. What were reading now is packaged stuff from news wires.


Tankers are merely gas haulers. The refuelling (transfer) systems are more or less designed to Air Force detailed specifications -- needed to ensure safe interface with existing receiver aircraft. As long as speed/altitude capabilities are similar (they are), the only performance characteristics that are significant are payload, range, endurance, fuel consumption, and maintenance cost & complexity. Some structural features may be significant as the aircraft will be in service for decades.

Price is an important factor and historically successful tankers have been spinoffs from successful airline designs - as with the KC-135 (Boeing 707) and KC-10 (McDonnel-Douglas DC 10). Which bidder had or was expected to have the most reliable manufacturiung/delivery potential was also a likely consideration.

Competitions necessarily have winners & losers. Often the results are determined by differences that are relatively insignificant, but which are definite enough to give the bureaucrats the comfort they need that they chose "correctly". Politics does enter the equation, but it is a safe bet that the Northrup/EADS team distributed the cash flows for manufacturing across key states every bit as effectively as did Boeing.

The Air Force and Navy refuelling systems are indeed different. The Air Force system with a rigid boom is necessary for large aircraft like the B-52, C-141, C-5, B-1 & B-2. The Air Force uses the same system for its tactical aircraft simply for standardization. The Navy (& USMC) uses the NATO-standard hose and drogue system for its generally smaller tactical aircraft. The system is smaller & more compact than its alternatives and self-contained versions in drop tanks are available to temporarily make any aircraft a tanker (a big advantage on a crowded carrier). Air Force tankers are configured with both systems so they can routinely refuel Navy and NATO aircraft as well.

If this procurement is to be overturned , it is much more likely the Democrats will do it in the next administration -- the Dems are in a seriously protectionist mood right now. It will be amusing to watch the Europeans discover that they really won't like many of the "changes" ("yes we can") that may be in the offing.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 02:37 am
georgeob1 wrote:
If this procurement is to be overturned , it is much more likely the Democrats will do it in the next administration -- the Dems are in a seriously protectionist mood right now. It will be amusing to watch the Europeans discover that they really won't like many of the "changes" ("yes we can") that may be in the offing.


There is no way this contract can be taken away from Airbus without major consequences for American international relations. It also would be highly likely that Boeing would suffer on the commercial side as pissed off governments make sure that Airbus gets their countries orders, even if Airbus does not have the best plane for the job.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 02:46 am
I must admit that I've nearly no idea why which aircrafts use what tanker.

(We've used one like this in coastal regions

http://i32.tinypic.com/1ptc9f.jpg

that when abroard

http://i32.tinypic.com/ip2zcg.jpg :wink: )

-----------------------------


http://i27.tinypic.com/2zyak48.jpg

First it were the Japanese cars, then the European airplanes ...
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Mar, 2008 10:47 am
Quote:
Boeing's tanker bid damaged when Air Force changed criteria, Dicks says

source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2004263690_boeinghearing06.html

Quote:
The Associated PressPublished: March 8, 2008

Boeing Co. said late Friday that it will give "serious consideration" over the weekend to filing a formal protest of the Air Force's decision to award a $35 billion (€22.7 billion) tanker contract to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp.

Following a debriefing by Air Force officials Friday, Boeing said in a statement that reports of it losing the competition by a wide margin are inaccurate.

source: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/08/business/NA-FIN-US-Boeing-Tanker-Statement.php
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Leveraged Loan - Discussion by gollum
Web Site - Discussion by gollum
Corporate Fraud - Discussion by gollum
Enron Scandal - Discussion by gollum
Buying From Own Pension Fund - Discussion by gollum
Paycheck Protection Plan - Question by gollum
Dog Sniffing Electronics - Question by gollum
SIM CARD - SimTraveler - Question by gollum
Physical Bitcoin - Question by gollum
Bitcoin - Question by gollum
 
  1. Forums
  2. » EADS beats Boeing to US tanker deal
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 10:54:19