Did Boeing Just Win the Tanker Contract?

• Report this Comment On December 03, 2009, at 11:01 AM, FBEditorial wrote:

  "We'll pull out of the bidding, forcing you to award a non-competitive contract to Boeing at a higher price than you want."

  If NOC sticks to its guns and does not submit a proposal for the RFP, then the USAF can decide to either annul the KC-X altogether or rightly offer the deal to whoever remains in the bidding contest that matches their criteria.

  By no means is a Boeing win certain, irrespective of EADS/NOC being in/out of the competition. Just look what happened in Feb 08 as proof!

  The fact remains that if EADS/NOC do not bid and Boeing wins, they have little-to-no course for protesting the win.

  The USAF can only consider tenders from those who supply their proposals.

  From the very outset, this has been about EADS wanting to set up an industrial base in the United States using US taxpayer money - period.

  If they pull out of the bidding, good riddance.

  It should have been sole-sourced to Boeing in the first place. Would the Europeans provide a competitve platform for their national air requirements like the US has?

  A resounding bloody "no" is the answer. Once out, keep them out.

  http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/12/02/kcx-tanker/

• Report this Comment On December 03, 2009, at 11:04 AM, FBEditorial wrote:

  If Northrop and EADS want out, they should be kept out.

  http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/12/02/kcx-tanker/

  This should have been sole-sourced to Boeing years ago.

• Report this Comment On December 03, 2009, at 11:57 AM, jrusso9722 wrote:

  NOG-EADS has no leg to stand on. They are attempting to panic DOD. NOG does not need the tanker. They build every CVN Aircraft Carrier, and, they share submarines with General Dynamics, Electric Boat Div. They just received $170M to further DDG-51 Arleigh Burke of Destroyer, and the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class of Stealth Destroyer.Billions will be coming their way. I believe EADS is becoming a burden to them. But, they are trying to scare DOD into again, changing the bid spec at the last moment, to further their chances, on a A330 tanker that's wrong for the job.

• Report this Comment On December 03, 2009, at 2:35 PM, dhstache wrote:

  I think you completely missed the subtlely hidden point. The NG statement also included "The company said the draft RFP...is structured in a way that "places contractual and financial burdens on the company that we simply cannot accept,"...

  The RFP, as understood, contains up to 15 years of "Fixed Price Development", which places severe financial risk on the eventual contractor. This is similar to the A-12 Termination issue currently in Federal Court arguing "Billiions" of dollars

  I would have to believe that one size tanker versus another would pale in size to the potential financial risk of accepting the terms contained within the RFP.

  Frankly, I hope Boeing declines to bid as well and sends a very strong messge to Congresss and the DoD.

  Besides, Do we really wnat our American Armed Forces in a Foriegn Built aircraft? What would happen is France all of sudden got pissed off at Amercia and refused to export or service the A330? Then what????

• Report this Comment On December 03, 2009, at 3:28 PM, spankda wrote:

  I have been in and worked for the Air Force for the past 20 years. Tha last 3 years I have been working on a "tanker" base with the pilots who fly the KC135. Talking to the pilots, they all say to a man (or woman) that they DO NOT want or need a bigger aircraft. What they need is MORE aircraft in the sky. The problem during the Iraqi war was not the amount of gallons of fuel available, but the amount of aircraft able to dispense the fuel. Maybe the Pentagon is finally listening to the operators instead of the accountants........

• Report this Comment On December 03, 2009, at 5:09 PM, luckybeatsgood wrote:

  This is the KC-X program, relpacement for the small end of the tanker fleet (KC-135). The KC-Y program will be a few years down the road to replace the larger fleet, KC-10 for example.

  Why doesn't NG/EADS propose one of their smaller aircraft for the KC-X, and reserve the A330 for the KC-Y which it is much better suited?

  It appears NG/EADS is trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

• Report this Comment On December 04, 2009, at 12:24 AM, TMFDitty wrote:

  Good question, lucky.

  I've a hunch -- and nothing to back it up -- that the only way Northrop/EADS is able to beat Boeing on price is by offering a larger aircraft; one which can carry more fuel, and so deliver more gallons per $ spent/mile flown. And a further hunch that the devalued U.S. dollar and expensive Euro is to blame.

  --TMFDitty

• Report this Comment On December 04, 2009, at 12:30 AM, FBEditorial wrote:

  "Why doesn't NG/EADS propose one of their smaller aircraft for the KC-X"

  Because the next sized smaller airplane they have is the A321, which cant even do transcon, is a narrowbody and wouldnt fit the RFP. The A300/A310 would have worked but both are out of production.

  "that the only way Northrop/EADS is able to beat Boeing on price is by offering a larger aircraft; one which can carry more fuel, and so deliver more gallons per $ spent/mile flown."

  The A330 is heavily subsidized anyway, why NOC cant knock down the prices say a lot for who will actually be spending their hard earned bucks to modify these for the USAF and its not "partner" EADS.

  Further, "more" fuel etc on the A330 is costly - most USAF aerial tankers come back with a significant quantity of fuel on board. Storage, infrastructre and support costs have to be borne by someone and the USAF will not want to stump the bill.

• Report this Comment On December 04, 2009, at 11:26 AM, MarkDWeiner wrote:

  People seem to be forgetting the history of this contract.

  Boeing won it first but that win was based on corrupt practises that got people sent to prison. The contract was cancelled due to Boeing's criminal behavior.

  Northrop Grumman-EADS won the contract in the second round. Boeing filed a complaint and the "keep-the-jobs-in-America" people and Boeing went on the offensive with a not too honest public relations campaign.

  In this third round of bidding, Northrop Grumman kept its proposed package the same. Intimate pricing details from the second round that Northrop Grumman won were released to Boeing as a result of Boeing's appeal. Northrop Grumman felt Boeing had an unfair advantage because of the pricing details that were released to Boeing. Northrop Grumman wanted a level playing field. The Air Force refused.

  Now it appears that the Air Force is cooking the RFP to favor a Boeing win.

  What I hear in the previous posts is Boeing continuing its attack on the Northrop Grumman win. If you can't build a better product then attack the competition.

• Report this Comment On December 07, 2009, at 5:45 AM, FBEditorial wrote:

  Nothing like revisionist history.

  First time around, NOC demanded that the USAF keep out the WTO case. Wish was granted.

  Second time around, NOC demanded recognition for the bigger tanker being able to do "more". Wish was granted and won the contract last year.

  Boeings protest was upheld by the GAO as the USAF had inconsistencies in awarding points.

  This time around, NOC is complaining that WTO ruling should not be included and that the RFP does not give reward for a bigger plane - will they get their wish now that they've thrown their toys out the pram and threaten to exit?

  The USAF should call their bluff and let them walk.

  As for the pricing detail, NOC already knows that the last contract is void and Boeing has no advantage this time around. Its a clean slate - they and everyone else in Alabama should get over it.

  And why is NOC worried about price? The A330 is the most subsidized twin engine widebody to date (until the A350 arrives).

  Cant they convert them to tankers cost effectively?

  NOC should either shut up and compete, or drop out.

  Simple.

• Report this Comment On December 07, 2009, at 1:34 PM, 2007GTCS wrote:

  Weiner, your ignorant analysis of this situation is seriously flawed. If you are saying the contract was cancelled due to Boeing's criminal behavior (associating the entire Boeing company when it was one employee within Boeing), then you should have also included the entire USAF as being criminals too, as there were hte same amount of people involved in crimnal activity within the USAF, so the entire USAF is just as guilty as Boeing in regards to the first contract.

  Secondly, Boeing's protest filed on the most recent contract award to EADS was valid, and had there not been mistakes during the contract award process (BY THE USAF), Boeing would have won that contract. What the government should have done after determining their mistakes is to have reversed the decision and given Boeing the contract, since they legitimately won that last contract.

• Report this Comment On December 10, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Kyle5749 wrote:

  First, Northrop and EADS will build their tankers in Alabama, not France.

  Second, Boeing has been sending jobs to Japan and Italy, so there is no guarantee that if Boeing gets the contract the jobs will stay in the U.S.

  Third, aside from Boeing's tankers costing more and being less efficient, the Boeing tankers have had a history of mechanical difficulty. In one instance, a tanker flying over the Sea of Japan could not get it's refueling boom to retract. The plane was forced to make an emergency landing. When the tanker touched down, the boom struck the ground and caught on fire. The Northrop/EADS plane has, to my knowledge, never had any difficulties like that.

  Fourth, even if Boeing's protest to the GAO had had some merit, the fact that Boeing got to see details about Northrop's bid while Northrop was point blank denied the same right to see Boeing's bid is certainly suspicious.

  Fifth, for several years now, the Air Force has been pulling away from Boeing and granting more and more of its contracts to companies like Northrop. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Boeing has a tendency to fall years behind on production (look at Boeing's Dreamliner production, for example).

  Sixth, the Air Force has already stripped Boeing of the contract to provide maintenance to the tanker and awarded the tanker maintenance contract for the next nine years to Northrop. So even if Boeing wins the contract, it is Northrop that will be maintaining these aircraft, not Boeing. Doesn't it make more sense for the same company that provides maintenance on these air craft to be the same company that built them in the first place.

  Finally, Boeing lost the bid last year because their tanker is not only smaller and less efficient, but it is also $3 billion dollars more and takes a longer time to produce.

  Friends, giving this contract to Northrop/EADS is a no-brainer. Boeing had their chance - TWICE. they blew it both times. Give the contract to the company that will do the best job. Give it to Northrop/EADS!

• Report this Comment On December 10, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Kyle5749 wrote:

  First, if Northrop and EADS get the contract, they will build their tankers in Alabama, not in France.

  Second, Boeing has, for several years now, been outsourcing work to Italy and Japan. If they get the contract, there is not guarantee that the jobs will stay in the U.S.

  Third, it's not just that Boeing's tanker is smaller. Boeing's tanker is more expensive (to the tune of $3 billion more) and takes longer to produce. Someone spoke about getting more tankers rather than bigger tankers. With Northrop/EADS, we can have both.

  Fourth, even if Boeing protest was valid, they still got to see pricing information on Northrop's bid while Northrop was denied the opportunity to see the same information for Boeing's bid. That smacks of favoritism.

  Fifth, aside from Boeing's tanker costing more, doing less, and taking longer to produce, the Boeing tanker also has a history of mechanical difficulties. While flying over the Sea of Japan, one of the Boeing tankers refueling booms would not retract, forcing an emergency landing. When the tanker landed, the boom struck the ground and caught on fire.

  Sixth, the Air Force has, in recent years, been stripping Boeing of its contracts and awarding them to companies like Northrop. In fact, the contract to provide maintenance to the tankers was taken from Boeing and given to Northrop. This means that if Boeing wins the contract, they will not even be responsible for servicing their own planes. Plus, it just makes more sense for the people who provide maintenance to be the same ones who built the things in the first place.

  Finally, Boeing is becoming notorious for delays in production (look into the situation with their Dreamliner). If Boeing gets the contract, who knows when the Air Force will get their new tankers.

  Boeing had their chance to win this contract. In fact, they had two chances. They lost both times for good reason. The contract should go to the company that makes the best product. The best product is clearly the Northrop/EADS tanker.

• Report this Comment On March 11, 2010, at 8:50 PM, rmacchia1 wrote:

  For Kyle5749,

  Get your facts straight. Boeing didn't loose anything. The lease deal was marred by an unscrupulous Air Force Acquisition executive, who rightly, went to jail. The second round was won by NOC/EADS via unfair resetting of evaluation criteria by Air Force officials who bowed down to a certain Arizona senator, who should resign from office. When the DRAFT RFP came out in early 2008, it called for a refueler comparable to the KC-135. In negotiations, Boeing asked the USAF, if they preferred a bigger frame, such as the 777. The USAF said, "NO." They wanted a smaller airframe comparable to the KC-135. When the final RFP came out, the requirements were for a smaller refueler. During the competition, Mr. McCain jumped in and pressured the DoD and the USAF to modify certain elements of the RFP criteria to make the larger Airbus plane more competitive. Airbus makes smaller aircraft than the A330, why did they not submit a smaller sized airframe, in accordance with the RFP requirements? Instead, the USAF leadership buckled under McCain's threats and rearranged the evaluation criteria to give size more value. THAT”S WRONG!! That's why the GAO upheld all of Boeing's protests. You can't change requirements or weighted values in mid-competition without rewriting the entire RFP and starting over. Had the evaluation criteria been left as originally intended, NOC/EADS would not have won--live with it!! The GAO know a bit more than you do….

  Now there's another RFP out. It's pretty much the same as the original RFP that came out in Feb of 2008. It asks for a KC-135 comparable aircraft. NOC/EADS are claiming favoritism towards Boeing's smaller aircraft. Why can't NOC/EADS submit a proposal based on one of Airbuses smaller plane, i.e., the A320? Boeing was willing to up it's submittal to the 777, if in fact that's what the USAF wanted. But, the fact of the matter is that the warfighter wants a KC-135 comparable tanker. So, NOC/ EADS/ the French / the Germans / and you have only yourselves to blame. Meet the warfighter’s requirements; don’t force the warfighter to modify his/her needs simply because you live in Alabama, France, Germany or the moon.

Add your comment.