EADS & NG win USAF KC-45 Tanker contract

Originally posted by Harlequin
and so it begins - the political fall out and law suites - it looks like the USAF will not get what they want so soon.

Yeah, kind of like when Boeing won the initial contract. Then the EADS/NG folks called in all the politicians that they had contributed to and now we get to go through it all over again.

Before folks jump on the A330 bandwagon, you may want to research cost/hour to operate it versus a 767 model.

In addition to my previous post, I cannot help but wonder what these very same outspoken politicians reactions will be in 10 years time when the KC-Y contract comes up for offer.

Why? Well, because its obviously not an acceptable solution to go for a 'foreign made' aircraft, its obvious they want 'an American tanker built by an American company with American workers'. And there is a problem with that. A sodding huge great big problem.

Because in 10 years time, the 767 line will be as dead as a dodo. And what does that leave for Boeing to offer as a tanker?

The 777 and the 787. Neither of which meets the 'an American tanker built by an American company with American workers' criteria any better than the KC-30, and infact in the 787s case, its a hell of a lot worse.

Airbus will be doing more work in the US with their 300+ KC-30s and A330-200F (which is going to be produced on the same production line in Mobile) than Boeing will be doing with their 787 line ever.

Sure, the KC-30 wings will be made in the UK, the fuselage shells will be made in France and Germany, and other pieces will be made in Italy and Spain. But they will still be just shells. They will still need to be outfitted from scratch at the Mobile plant, involving a lot of manual labour by skilled workers.

The 787 however has its parts arrive at Boeing Field from around the world 'prestuffed' - literally all the internals are already fitted apart from the cabin. Theres a hell of a lot less work to be done - and thus a hell of a lot less workers to employ.

Think any of that is going to come to the fore when the KC-Y contract comes up? Think the cries of 'an American tanker built by an American company with American workers' is going to be heard? Or are some people going to change their tune?

its not actually just about costs per hour - when the spec was revised boeing had the option of submitting a different aircraft , a bigger 767 (either -300 or -400 with 777 wings) or a 777 itself ; what they under estimated was the need for cargo/troop carrying - as of now C-17`s are being used to carry pallets , which is a complete joke for that aircraft and ideal for what is wanted in the KC-45.

www.commondreams.org...

"The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100 aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal, according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

In the process, BOEING ELIMINATED 19 OF THE 26 CAPABILITIES THE AIR FORCE ORIGINALLY WANTED"

and that was the main reason why boeing got its wrist slapped - there own lobbying came back and bit them in the a$$.

alabama senator will fight this , NG got the contract to build ALL freighter A330`s - thats 200 aircraft + the 179 tankers - which is a MASSIVE contract , they will be building an entire new line in Mobile for this creating ALOT of jobs

so you have 1 senator crying cause his state lost out and another fighting him cause her state won - and both republicans to boot


The 777 costs more than the A330 , the 787 delivery slots are filled for many many years , and boeing won`t mess with there airline money to keep the military happy ; air japan are allready hinting at moving there 20 airframe order for 787-3 to airbus , and so boeing are moving fast to keep them.


the whole matter is down to 5 key criteria ; the A330 won or tied in all 5 ; and only 1 was price - not only cost per hour , but lifetime cost projection and purchase cost; also the airforce factored in cost oper hour , in total life capability , cargo/fuel and people - and the A330 can simply carry more.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Yeah, kind of like when Boeing won the initial contract. Then the EADS/NG folks called in all the politicians that they had contributed to and now we get to go through it all over again.

Yeah, because absolutely no one went to prison off the back of that. Oh, wait ... wait ... I am getting a vague recollection here...

Yes, former Defence procurement officer and current Boeing employee Darleen Druyun went to prison.

Oh, theres more! Boeing CFO Michael M. Sears also went to prison and lost his job.

Hmmm, and it would seem that Boeing CEO Philip Murray Condit also had to resign due to ethical misconduct over the matter as well.

Oh, and before the above came to light, the original Boeing KC-767 deal was absolutely slated by the Congressional Budget Office because they calculated it to be more expensive for the USAF than an outright purchase of the airframes involved. The deal was then changed to a purchase of 80 aircraft and a lease of a further 20, and then it all fell apart because of the above.

Adds a bit of a slant to your 'EADS/NG called in all the politicians' now, doesn't it.

Before folks jump on the A330 bandwagon, you may want to research cost/hour to operate it versus a 767 model.

Yes, it would seem that the US Department of Defence did that and it came out in the A330s favour. This is what the commander of the USAF Air Mobility Command (you know, the people actually going to be using these aircraft) had to say -

Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

But oh well, I guess you armchair Federal budget and military procurements experts know best.

I didn´t want to open a new thread, its nearly unrelated, but...

VERY close call yesterday for a Lufthansa A320 on approach to Hamburg. Strong storms this weekend, you can literally see the plane pushd sideways on approach...



Video

[edit on 2/3/2008 by Lonestar24]

You can see the congressmans point though can't you, after all, why should an alliance work both ways? Clearly the best option is for Europe to close down its aerospace industry and buy everything from America with nothing going the other way, like good little 'allies'.

Clearly Boeing itself would never try to benefit from such an arrangement like those sneaky chaps at N-G are doing by pretending its their plane by putting their name on it. How silly would that look, Boeings name associated with say the Harrier, or the Hawk even? Er....

Back to reality, I hope the myopic xenophobic ranting displayed so far looks as silly on that side of the atlantic as it does on this side. Otherwise 'Americas closest ally' might be a bit offended, not to mention how Northrop Grummans skilled employees might feel if major political figures are saying that they, and their livliehoods, are less important than someone who works for Boeing. Thats a pretty dumb impression to give, he might need their votes in a future campaign and you can be sure they wont forget.

When the deal is looked at the KC-30 based option IS a real benefit for US jobs, Airbus itself has had a US base for years anyway besides the N-G investment that this order brings.

Really, what IS the problem? This is a converted airliner, not a stealth bomber.



[edit on 2-3-2008 by waynos]

I personally find it hysterical. There's a thread about this elsewhere on ATS where a member's wife is going to write a nasty letter to their representative, because the FRENCH are building our planes. This is going to be going around a lot for awhile. I knew it was going to be ugly after the contract was awarded, but I didn't think it'd be this bad 24 hours later. I thought by announcing Friday afternoon they'd at least get the weekend.

on a certain `pilots rumor` website there is a very accurate breakdown on how much of the A330 is built in the usa and how much of the 787 is - and guess which one has more ` buit in the usa` in it *clue the 787 has china building some of it - well what do you know*

reply to post by Lonestar24


read a good breakdown about that landing - it was rwy 23 at HAM , and he did a G/A after it was 36 gusting 50knotts , he also flared a little early and used slightly too much rudder (which is why the wing came down hard) - all taken from elsewhere because i am not a pilot

he did the G/A and came in on rwy 33

reply to post by RichardPrice


Richard, the big difference in this case is the fact that the US government using US tax dollars (Borrowed from the Chinese most likely) are buying a airframe that will result in less jobs for US workers. Couple that with an election year and you will get many appeals and this is going to be tied up for some time.

Make no mistake, Boeing allowed EADS into the competiton by some shady dealings with its previous bid, But its a core jobs issue and that will play a long way with rank and file workers, even if Boeing has inflated thier jobs estimate.

This is not a commercial airline buy or something like. Its the US Government spurrning a US company. Yes, NG is an add on for that reason, but its still really EADS versus Boeing when you get down to it.

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

Richard, the big difference in this case is the fact that the US government using US tax dollars (Borrowed from the Chinese most likely) are buying a airframe that will result in less jobs for US workers. Couple that with an election year and you will get many appeals and this is going to be tied up for some time.

Make no mistake, Boeing allowed EADS into the competiton by some shady dealings with its previous bid, But its a core jobs issue and that will play a long way with rank and file workers, even if Boeing has inflated thier jobs estimate.

This is not a commercial airline buy or something like. Its the US Government spurrning a US company. Yes, NG is an add on for that reason, but its still really EADS versus Boeing when you get down to it.

So what you are saying is that an inferior offering should be accepted because it supposedly gives more workers jobs? This is why politicians should never be involved in this.

I think Boeing has been given a big slap. I think that there are those who felt that they would get it because they are a US company and EADS was there to give an impression of competition. All credit to the US military for actually going for the best solution and not pandering to tradition or expectation.

Shame on US politicians who rant and rave about the decision being unpatriotic! Surely, the US military is being patriotic by making sure their kit is the best and if that means it just so happens to come from Europe then so-be-it! My sentiments echo RichardPrice's postings on this.

Regards

theres an interesting postings on `antoher pilots rumor` forum about the problems with 767-200`s - just today an AA 767 have a hydrolics fault which resulted in 2 flat tyres from the hard landing , apparantly there is now a few issues with this aircraft , its not like new anymore

reply to post by paraphi

I think that there are those who felt that they would get it because they are a US company and EADS was there to give an impression of competition.

I will hold my hands up to thinking that way, I was absolutely convinced of it and said so on this forum more than once.

Going to the jobs argument, it works both ways. There are many US aerospace workers gainfully employed making aircraft for overseas operators. Just look at Boeings efforts to maintain the C-17 line by selling them to the UK, Canada and Australia for instance.

Even more recently there was all that talk of possible Australian and Japanese purchases allowing the F-22 line to remain open a bit longer.

Look at the importance of the recent Korean and Singapore orders to the F-15 line - directly benefitting Boeing.

Maybe Boeing would be better off if everyone else pulled their orders for American planes and let them get on with building tankers for the USAF instead? Of course not.

Aerospace is a global business and the lines of nationality are very blurred, you only have to look a company like AgustaWestland, or Bombardier, or even the UK offshoots of Lockheed and Boeing, or even remember that BAE Systems is one of the Pentagons major preferred defence contractors. Yet some, like the aforementioned politician, seem to want it all ways - 'America should buy American planes and so should everyone else in the world' seems to be their rather unrealistic vision, though of course they don't really think like that.

All this whingeing about 'American' this and that is all just hot air, playing on a public perception of the Boeing name rather than the reality of the industrial situation globally.

I would like to see a televised debate where those complaining loudest are questioned about the actual Boeing content of the T-45, Harrier and even 787 amongst the other programmes mentioned in this thread by others, and asked why this is the only one they seem to object to? After all, being equally simplistic, if Boeing made absolutely everything itself on the planes it already produces wouldn't this cover the jobs they have 'lost' with this contract?

It is nothing more than political gameplaying and rabble rousing for the average uninformed gullible redneck, shame on them for playing these mind games instead of doing something real and valuable, like maybe finally getting round to rebuilding New Orleans. Or even just running the country.

Alas this is what politicians tend to do the world over, all we can do is not fall for it.



edit; and yes, I have seen the French unions whining about the impact it will supposedly have on jobs at Toulouse as well, these plonkers fill me with dismay whatever their nationality.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by waynos]

anyone got any `hard` numbers as to how much of the 767 is actually made in the US? i know theres figures for 7-late-7 and triple7 about (wings for 787 are made in japan for example and entire fuselage sections are made in italy) for the previous versions i can`t find any really hard data

Originally posted by Harlequin
anyone got any `hard` numbers as to how much of the 767 is actually made in the US? i know theres figures for 7-late-7 and triple7 about (wings for 787 are made in japan for example and entire fuselage sections are made in italy) for the previous versions i can`t find any really hard data

here's the pdf from the Air Force Times article about the awarding. In all honesty, as a man with my name on the side of a 48 year old aircraft (my KC-135 rolled off the assembly line in February of 1960), I don't care which one they pick. Just get the damn thing to us on flightline as fast as possible.

I see two very important points here that appear to be getting pushed aside by the various 'patriotic' arguments.

Firstly, the choice is yet another indication that the US is slipping in what it has to offer. Yet again the the offered product is NOT up to standard, and won't do what is asked of it - when will the penny drop that you are not producing 'the best'. I have no doubt that Boeing will tie up the decision in years of litigation and that leads me to the second point.

It is obvious that the US Government has absolutely no interest in whether it's fighting men have the best equipment available. It is more interested in how much money US businesses can make - government for business and damn the people. Indeed 'God bless business' and damn America!

This whole US purchasing procedure is cloaked in 'patriotic lies' to make it appear that the US is the technological leader in everything (many of the posters on this forum keep telling us about it). If and when the USAF gets their preferred aircraft (what it considers to be the best on offer) - and don't hold your breath for that - it will be called the N-G KC-45 (followed by some snappy patriotic and totally redundant name that nobody will ever call it) and the vast majority of Americans (including many on this forum) will believe that it is a shining example of American technological brilliance that leads the world - yeah right!

I have no doubt that Boeing could have won the contract and could have met the specifications - they just couldn't be bothered because they really believe that they can wave the flag and the contract will be given to them without the effort of offering anything worthwhile - how bloody arrogant - even more arrogant that they will attempt to convince a court that their attitude is the right attitude!. Sick, sick, sick.

Wake up America - you don't EVER get the 'best' by lying and cheating and dominating the market by eliminating your competition - look forward to it in everything made in the US of A, because when you deliberately start producing second best and force yourselves to buy it because of 'patriotism', then you are doomed to mediocrity! And then you have the temerity to think that everyone else will line up to buy your mediocrity from you.

America the technological world leader - don't make me laugh - you bought the Harrier from Britain (as the 'American' McDonnell-Douglas AV-8 Harrier of course) and tried every possible (and impossible) VTOL technology that you could think of for years and you still haven't built one that has gone into service - even the Russians managed that - and you expect us to believe that (30+ years later) F-35 will be the 'best' VTOL aircraft ever built - what an arrogant, sick joke! You can't even see when the rest of the world is laughing at you. You poor sick sad puppies!

How to sell the biggest lies? Cloak them in the flag! It's been going on since flags were invented.

But by all means, continue arguing about work share content, etc - the real point is that Boeing didn't put up the best offer - end of story. Either you want the best or you don't - make up your minds (and quickly) or the USAF will be tanking from leased RAF, CAF, RAAF tankers because soon you won't have any that are airworthy.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 2/3/08 by The Winged Wombat]

reply to post by The Winged Wombat


And with that arguement I pick the eurofighter for Canada's next fighter lol. Good points WW just wish the JSF wasn't suffering from the same flag waving in order to attract customers.

Well, of course it's much the same with F-35, isn't it. It will be the next thing that's even better than sex.

Even if a single engined combat aircraft is just what Canada and Australia have rejected as unsuitable for their purposes in the past!

But look at how patriotic it is !

The Winged Wombat

reply to post by OHANG


i totally agree - as do many many aircrew , the problem is those ladies and gentlemen at capitol hill like to get in the way.