Recs

13

Boeing Wins!

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

The news is out, and the winner of the $40 billion KC-X Tanker contract is all but certain. So let's all give a great big round of applause to ... Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC  ) .

Not because it won the contract, of course. The opposite is true. Over the past few months, Northrop repeatedly demanded that the Pentagon modify its request for proposals (RFP) on KC-X ("Halt! Or I'll shout 'halt' again!"). In response, the Pentagon basically told Northrop to go jump in a lake, kept the terms intact, and forced Northrop to show its hand.

KC-X ... RFP ... M-O-U-S-E!
Faced with a loss of ... er, face ... if it proceeded to bid on what it had already labeled an unbiddable contract, Northrop made good on its threat yesterday and pulled out of the competition. In so doing, it almost certainly handed Boeing (NYSE: BA  ) a very profitable sole-source contract, eliciting cheers from subcontractors Rockwell Collins (NYSE: COL  ) , Spirit AeroSystems (NYSE: SPR  ) , United Technologies (NYSE: UTX  ) , and Honeywell (NYSE: HON  ) .

But it's not just Boeing and its aerospatial allies that have cause to rejoice today. This is really a victory for all of us: Boeing, the U.S. Air Force, taxpayers -- even Northrop.

"The first thing we do, let's [call] all the lawyers"
Six months ago, Northrop beat Boeing to win a related tanker deal -- the contract to service the existing fleet of KC-10 tankers. Because Boeing bought the company that built the planes, it had every right to expect that it would be allowed to service them, too. Instead, the Air Force gave the contract to Northrop.

By all rights, this should have booted up the by-now all-too-familiar defense contracting game. Following in the recent footsteps of contract-losing companies such as L-3 (NYSE: LLL  ) and BAE, Boeing would protest its contract loss to the Government Accountability Office, calling the decision flawed. Lawyers would be retained, briefs would be filed, and the process of awarding the contract would be dragged out interminably -- to the detriment of America's servicemen and -women, its taxpayers, and Northrop Grumman alike. Northrop would then, of course, retaliate on the next contract it lost to Boeing ... and on and on, ad infinitum.

This is the way the game's been played for years. But back in November, the Pentagon made a public plea to stop the insanity, so to speak, begging its contractors to play nice, make their protests "rare," and refrain from using them "frivolously."

At the time, I pointed out that the loss of KC-10 to Northrop offered Boeing a golden opportunity to do just that -- to change the "game," take the high road, decline to appeal the KC-10 award to its archrival, and let the chips fall where they may. To concede that Northrop had won KC-10 fair and square, in hopes that if or when Boeing won the larger, more lucrative KC-X contract, Northrop would do likewise. I urged: "It's time for both parties to declare a truce. Boeing should grin and bear the Air Force's decision on KC-10 today. If and when Boeing wins KC-X, Northrop should reciprocate, do the honorable thing, and not protest that decision."

Well, guess what? Boeing did just that back in November, swallowing its pride and very publicly declining to protest Northrop's KC-10 victory. And now, it looks as though Northrop is responding in kind.

You [don't] scratch my [eyes out], I [won't] scratch yours
In announcing its withdrawal from KC-X, Northrop averred: "we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process." Yet, even so, "Northrop Grumman will not protest."

Sure, you can fault Northrop for taking catty sideswipes at Boeing. CEO Wes Bush made a point of calling Boeing's plane a "less capable tanker" and grumbled that he hopes Boeing gets paid "much less" than the $184 million per tanker originally budgeted for Northrop's design in the 2008 competition. But considering that Northrop just lost $40 billion in potential revenue, I think we have to make some allowance for hurt feelings (and income statements) at Northrop. But the important point is this: Just as Boeing declined to appeal KC-10, Northrop is declining to appeal KC-X.

Foolish takeaway
To me, this looks like grand news for defense investors.

Why? Sure, in the short term, losing a contract may be bad news for the loser. But consider, if frivolous appeals fall out of fashion, contract winners today will have more confidence that they will remain winners tomorrow -- and not have their victories suspended or upended by appeals, and their coffers drained by trial lawyers. Investors, too, will know that when our companies win contracts, they really have won them -- or that a "bird" in the hand won't be swiped away by Wes Bush ...

Call me a crazy optimist, call me a Fool, but I really hope this is one trend that's got legs.

Boeing's stock has more than doubled over the past year. How do you know when the train has left the station and it's too late to buy? Here's how.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is a Motley Fool Hidden Gems selection, but Fool contributor Rich Smithhas no position in any stocks named above. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2010, at 10:37 AM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    One correction: The purpose of KC-X is to replace the fleet of ancient KC-135 tankers, which was derived from the Boeing 707. The newest KC-135 came off the assembly line 45 years ago, and we still have over 450 of them in service.

    The KC-10's entered service in the 1980's and are not scheduled to be replaced by KC-X at this time.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2010, at 10:52 AM, PokerBob55 wrote:

    The truth be told, the smaller plane was always the most desirable. The AirForce gave more credit to the EAD plane in there winng bid (before the BOEING protest). Boeing was right in saying the specs where changed with out there knowledge. The real question is why was the spec kept for a smaller plane that EAD doesn't have?

    Was it really the size of landing fields at bases world wide? If so then why did EAD win the first bid? I must agree that the smaller plane (767) is more desirable for a lot of logistics world wide. But the plane is not superior to the Airbus. The 767 is the better plane for this job, but a limit of one true bidder is not a good thing. I still wonder how EAD ever won the first bid? What was the AIrForce higher up's thinking? And should EAD make a more suitable plane? A lot of questions with no real answers.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2010, at 11:00 AM, KENOFVA wrote:

    I agree wholeheartedly and now if we could get the politicians to cease and desist, there would be a real victory.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2010, at 11:11 AM, FBEditorial wrote:

    http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2010/03/08/kc-x/

    http://www.glgroup.com/News/KC-X-Tanker--And-Thats-The-Way-T...

    http://www.glgroup.com/News/Airbus-A380-Woes-Continue-To-Cri...

    Its about time NOC dropped the charade and did the right thing and step out of this contest.

    The A330 tanker is an utter mess, just ask the Australians. At least the 767 has a tanker variant in service with the infrastructure in the US to support it - none of that exists for Airbus.

    All Airbus wanted was taxpayer money to subsidize their ageing A330 on USA shores. That dream is rightfully shattered.

    The EU is crying about fair play etc - where was their fairness when they launched the A330 with illegal aid? Where was the fairness when they launched the A400M?

    Just look at EADS wondeful FY09 earnings today...

    Cry us a river Europe, take NOC with you as well!

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2010, at 2:02 PM, bomberboy wrote:

    Here is the story. Tankers are for all intents and purposes a flying gas station. So the effectivness of a tanker is in reality; how much fuel can it off load to the reciever aircraft at a given range. Remember the KC-135A used 12000 feet of runway when heavy, but could off load more than it's empty weight in fuel. When the CFM-56 engined R came along it just got better in both runway, flight and off load performance. So the whold selection criteria should have been, how much fuel can you give the bomber/fighter/tanker (reciever aircraft). And how far can you fly off load the max amount of fuel and then return to your home base. And let's not forget the nuclear environment. They are still the primary strategic refueling resource for the United States. When we look at commercially derived aircraft, they have a long way to go to survive in a nuclear environment including electro magnetic pulse (MANDATORY REQUIREMENT). So there is a long chasm between a B-767-200LR and an aircraf capable of perfoming multiple refulings in what will be increasingly a hostile environment including nuclear. I am a retired USAF Bomber/Tanker pilot, and the KC-135 was and is a real workhorse. Big shoes to fill no matter who builds the replacment.

  • Report this Comment On March 09, 2010, at 4:13 PM, memoandstitch wrote:

    From the way you describe the story, it looks like the defense companies are colluding to swindle taxpayers. In any case, having only one bidder in every procurement auction can't be good.

    Now the government needs to revise defense spending bills and add $1 trillion more to the deficit.

  • Report this Comment On March 10, 2010, at 10:55 AM, TMFDitty wrote:

    @memoandstitch: I'm not sure how you got that impression ... but I am sure that was not the impression I intended to convey.

    This is not collusion -- this is simply a return to the way contracting is supposed to be done:

    1. Customer asks for bids.

    2. Contractors make their best offers.

    3. Customer picks the offer *it* likes best.

    [4. Losing contractor insists that customer must change its mind.]

    [5. Goto 1.]

    Losing steps 4 & 5 is, to my mind, a good thing.

    TMFDitty

  • Report this Comment On March 10, 2010, at 11:25 PM, memoandstitch wrote:

    That's not what happened with the tanker contract. Step 2 and 3 are completely missing. Boeing will get the tanker contract without any competition. You just said that. When a contractor withdraws from an auction in exchange for a side payment (KC-10 contract in this case) from another bidder, it is collusion.

    Now Boeing has the upper hand over the taxpayers because it can demand any price it wants on the KC-X tanker.

  • Report this Comment On March 12, 2010, at 12:17 PM, bmetouri wrote:

    Guys

    The important thing here is to maintain jobs in the US, this contract will go a long way to secure the jobs of those thousands of dedicated Boeing workers and keep their families safe. Just see the damage the oil companies have done to the economy of Texas and Louisiana by closing plants there and investing billions in similar plants overseas.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1131111, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/25/2012 10:01:44 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 45 minutes ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:02 PM
NOC $58.50 Down -0.31 -0.53%
Northrop Grumman C… CAPS Rating: ****
LLL $67.19 Down -0.49 -0.72%
L-3 Communications… CAPS Rating: ****
SPR $23.41 Down -0.21 -0.89%
Spirit AeroSystems… CAPS Rating: ***
UTX $73.02 Down -0.48 -0.65%
United Technologie… CAPS Rating: ****
BA $70.00 Down -1.39 -1.95%
The Boeing Company CAPS Rating: ****
COL $50.15 Down -0.47 -0.93%
Rockwell Collins,… CAPS Rating: ***
HON $56.75 Down -0.52 -0.91%
Honeywell Internat… CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement