GAO may force KC-45 contract rebid

[barit1]

See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008004177_apwaboeingtankerfightreax.html

[Huck]

A330 vs. 767?

Any real question there?

This contract is huge for my state - if we get to keep it....

[manrow]

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Lets see just how much fairness is demonstrated by the US in this instance; may the best product win, not just the American as has happened a lot recently not least of which are contracts for renewal of Iraq.

[NWSRG]

Was bound to happen...

The Boeing arguments were based on the Air Force not having applied their own criteria properly. And if they were right about that, which they now appear to be, then any auditor could only uphold their protest.

The seven points of the GAO determination are fairly damning...not on the KC-330 (as we should probably resume calling it!), but on the Air Force and their process...

[interpreter]

Sounds like Boeing imitating Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Dont like the result so lets call foul and start over again. Put the old war veterans out as well no doubt. Well who would have thought it.

[BenThere]

As it is a strategic asset, I would have supported excluding non-American bidders. And I would understand if other countries responded in kind.

[Huck]

Northrop-Grumman's as american as apple pie....

[airfoilmod]

"I cannot work this logic out." From the look of it Logic isn't your strong suit.

Airfoil

(no offense meant)

[fdcg27]

Ignoring the PR war waged by both Boeing and NG, Boeing actually had some valid points.
Boeing's primary contetion is that the evaluation criteria used by the Air Force were not consistent with the RFP, and also that the Air Force gave far more deference to the EADS/NG cost and risk figures than they did with Boeing's.
Boeing's case is bolstered by the fact that they could have offered a larger version of the 767, and they also have a couple of other large frames upon which a proposal could have been based, had Boeing been told that cubic capacity and payload would count for as much as they did.
The GAO is nobody's lap dog, so I don't think we can discount their finding as merely political or nationalistic.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Boeing gets another chance...and you know what, its not the first time.

AND the last time it really mattered, it was the B17.

AND the French should be damned glad that Boeing got that chance.

And I'm glad Boeing is getting another chance now.

[MarkD]

7stroke - what was the alternative offered to the B-17 as in this case?

edit - by my count this is actually the third chance (Druyun then the EADS win being 1 & 2)

[airfoilmod]

merely meant that "American pro-American attitude" seemed redundant.

rgds Airfoil

[sevenstrokeroll]

what was chosen was the B18 Bolo...I hope you look it up. Sort of a modified DC2...but you have to look it up.

The demo B17 crashed and couldn't fulfill all the parts of the contact awarding process just prior to WW2...but someone smart enough at the AAF got them built anyway.

[airfoilmod]

There is a Bolo on display @ Castle AFB Museum. Whattadogg. We uh might be uh speakin' germalian if it had been the Allied Steed.

Airfoil

[CANOPUS]

Sevenstroke,

No doubt a lot of hi jinx going on prior to the USA's eventual involvement in WW2. Who were the proposed design/manufacturing team for the B-18 Bolo? Had they fallen into disgrace ala Boeing recently? Or was the ultimate decision to award the BIG and final contract based national defense priorities?

CANOPUS

[fendant]

The "KC 330" is ways more American built than a 787!

The administration quickly learns from Mugabe or Berlusconi:O

[PAXboy]

BenThereAs it is a strategic asset, I would have supported excluding non-American bidders. And I would understand if other countries responded in kind.I think that what irritates many Europeans (perhaps many outside f the USA) is that they lobby every country to let them (the USA) bid for their strategic projects - but don't want the rest of the world to be allowed to bid for USA ones. The same attitude is shown in food production and other areas of manufacturing.

djfingerscrossedDoes it really matter that much where the profit is going to as long as the working men/women (from the US) get paid and then the state can reap the benefit from that?)Ah, I think that you have hit one of the nails on the head: where the profit is going ...

[philbky]

Moreover Boeing as an entity needs this project after the massive delays and cost over runs on the 787 and the almost total disinterest in the B747-8, so we can be assured that, in an election year, the airways between Chicago, Seattle and Washington, not to mention the candidates' destinations on their whistle stops, will be constantly being flown by Boeing execs eager to have the decision overturned.

It isn't a case of the winning product being generically non-American, it's a Boeing thing that only they should have right to produce transports and tankers in the USA.

[smuff2000]

Why can't Boeing and the American public accept that they don't always make the best product for the job, they knew when the RFP was issued that the criteria had been modified so that the A330 based design had a decent chance of winning, they could have offered a 777 based design then, so why moan now that the Airforce decided that the extra capacity was going to be useful.

EADS/Northrop/Grumman gave the Airforce very detailed parts and maintenance cost information, Boeing didn't ( commercially sensitive), so the Airforce have more confidence in lifetime costs.

EADS have a new technology boom refueling system up and running on the proposed airframe and have delivered the first airframe for conversion to Australia this month, so the Airforce had more confidence in the ability to deliver on time.

The KC767 is a hybrid of many variants of the commercial 767, Boeing haven't delivered any of thier recent military programs on time or on cost, they have only won 1 out of about 5 air refueling contracts worldwide in recent years, they haven't built an air refueling tanker for the best part of 50 years so is it any surprise that the Airforce don't have much confidence in them.

I believe that the Airforce chose EADS etc more because of this lack of confidence in Boeing than because of any significant cost benefit from either supplier.

[barit1]

Actually - I think initial contracts (a hundred ships or so) were awarded for both the B-17 and B-18, and after a year or two's service experience it was obvious which was fulfilling the real mission (which was not necessarily the original contract mission description...)

B-17s were so in demand that they were second-sourced (to Lockheed IIRC)

[MarkD]

7stroke - thanks for the history.

[sevenstrokeroll]

the b18 was produced and used during ww2. it was made by douglas. eventually used for offshore patrol.

The whole point is this:

The USAF should have the best plane possible for the real job. The real job is flying during wartime and refueling planes, and some cargo/pax lift.

And in the field, the B767 variant will use less runway, and sure be easier to fix in the field . Metal patching is easier than carbon fibre and more well understood. remember, these repairs might be made in wartime conditions.

And to the guy who wonders why the Americans think their military hardware is better. Well, it is. I've flown a japanese plane, two british planes, and many american planes.

I'll take the US stuff, thanks.

[philbky]

That's really deep, balanced research then.

BTW, the Airbus wing is more advanced than that on the 767, giving a more efficient aerodynamic performance, a faster climb to altitude and, reputedly, less close in turbulence, which may just be a matter of importance in refuelling.

[barit1]

the b18 was produced and used during ww2. it was made by douglas. eventually used for offshore patrol.

The B-18 was produced from 1936-40 approx. (FY 36- and 37- serials, 350 built for US, 20 for Canada).

[Buitenzorg]

And in the field, the B767 variant will use less runway

And this is mainly where your argument fals flat. The "KC-330" requires a 10,000 ft balanced field length to take off with a full load of gas or pax/cargo. This length of runway is not uncommon world-wide.

The "KC-767" requires a 12,000 ft balanced field length to take off with a full (but smaller than the EADS design) load. Runways of this length are rather rare, so the number of operating bases world-wide would be quite limited, or take-off loads would have to be (further) reduced, severely restricting operational flexibility for the Air Force.

In short, the USAF selected a tanker/transport which can carry more fuel/pax/cargo, from a much larger number of operating bases, and costs less per copy to boot. Sensible choice in my book.

Of course, if they made this choice contrary to their stated requirements (in the RFP) then the GAO will slam them, as they have slammed the USAF in their last two bid awards for precisely the same reasons.

[kwachon]

SelfStrokeroll7,

Have you asked yourself why most airlines are ditching the 767?. A google search might offer some clues!.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Kwachon

have you asked yourself the difference between a tanker and an airliner?(by the way, did you know that the citation crash in maine...pilot's insuarance wouldn't pay off...pilot didn't have a current medical...and no currency in type_

The 767 has a robust strength that might prove more useful in wartime.

B18 stuff...the point was that the B17 was a better plane...the prototype crashed , not due to its design, and wasn't able to compete in the contract process then.

The B18 was able to meet the contract. But was not the better plane.

Let's find out what the better plane for combat use is...and I'll bet its the 767...especially for field repairs.

[fdcg27]

This isn't really a matter of which would be the better aircraft for the task.
Rather, it is, in the case of the GAO decision, a question of whether the Air Force properly evaluated the two proposals with respect to the written RFP the Air Force issued.
Having said that, I think that we need to consider the potential economic benefit to our country in deciding which aircraft to buy.
If the EADS/NG aircraft is selected, Airbus has said that all A330F aircraft will be built in the US, in the same faclility as the tanker. Within the next five years, it is probable that all A330 (as well as A340, if anyone wants a new one) production would be moved to the Alabama facility, since Airbus will need the space for the A350.
If this were to happen, future products for the Alabama facility would be virtually guaranteed. Airbus gains a produciton facility with dollar, not Euro based costs, and the US gains a long term source of well-paid jobs.
Boeing, on the other hand, will preserve a relative few jobs on the 767 line, with no future potential, and I write this as a Boeing shareholder.
If we grant that either airplane could do the job, we should then ask which one will yield the greatest long-term benefit to our economy.
While I hate to admit it, the Airbus is probably the better choice from the standpoint of its future contribution to our economy.

[Lee Norberg]

Have you asked yourself why most airlines are ditching the 767?. A google search might offer some clues!.


All I have to do from where I work in Bethpage, NY (NGC) on a west landing pattern to JFK around 1 PM is look-up and watch the air-traffic making finals.

Yes, there are 747's, 767's and 777's- but a good number of various Airbus
model types are there.

Lee Norberg
Oakdale, NY

[Whalerider]

GAO rules in favour of Boeing

I don't know why anyone should be surprised at this, the U.S. has being doing this for years. From the BAC 1-11 days when the CAB would not give support to airlines which ordered the 1-11, but if they changed their mind and ordered DC-9s that support was suddenly forthcoming.

From the Middle East Airlines intention to order the VC-10 - until Washington told the Lebanese government it would get no aid unless the 707 was ordered.

From the years of banning Concorde on supposed pollution grounds, while KC-135s, with 10 times as much pollution wandered European skies.

Don't forget the years that Pan-Am, TWA then Delta operated intra-European routes from Germany - when no European carrier would be allowed to do the same in North America.

The virtual ban on British cargo aircraft at Anchorage - because Fedex was not allowed carte blanche from Prestwick. That carrier still operates daily from Stansted though.

Over the decades the U.S. has proved it loves competition - as long as it is not in its own back yard !

Open Skies ? Please don't make me laugh !

[sevenstrokeroll]

If one checks the pprune rumor area, one can see an airbus 330 that welded on the brakes or seized an axle...and it is sitting , waiting for repair.

I'll take a boeing with a NWS problem to an airbus with a welded brake as a tanker!

[Buitenzorg]

GAO rules in favour of Boeing

Not quite the case, the GAO certainly isn't saying that the USAF should award the contract to Boeing. What they are saying is that the USAF didn't follow their own published "rules" in awarding the contract to EADS, to wit they didn't prioritize the strong and weak points of each offer in the manner they said they would (in the RFP), thereby leading Boeing to formulate a bid that wasn't the best Boeing could have made. The GAO are recomending that the USAF clear up their priorities with both bidders and allow them to submit revised bids if they so wish.

The real shock here is that this is the third major equipment contract award by the USAF that has been failed by the GAO in the last few years. One would have thought that after the first two fiascos, and with a major equipment contract award to a foreign (and dare one say it, French!) company, the USAF would have made sure that all t's were crossed and all i's were dotted as protests were sure to be forthcoming. Slack staff work will have USAF crews flying tired, old, less-capable aircraft for maybe years longer while the legal brouhaha goes on.

[engineer07]

I never cease to be amazed at the negative reaction to anything where good old Boeing loses. In this case the miscalculated - they thought they could sell the US taxpayer a 1970's design and keep their cashcow B767 production line open for another 10 years (ring any bells - that's exactly what they suceeded in doing with the KC135). Unfortunately they were up against a modern 1990's design which has already wiped out the B767 in commercial service for very god reasons. The KC30 was clearly a better product in almost all respects and one which will still be 'current' in 30 years time - that certainly cannot be said for the B767. Ever wondered why to date only the Japanese and the Italians (who are both tied to Boeing politically) have bought the old B767 tanker ?

Let's hope politics does not reverse the decision as that will probably trigger a trade war - and I think the good ol' USA has more to lose than to gain in a military equipment trade war.