The lost Boeing contract

[TheMercenary]

I am all for doing whatever we can to keep jobs in the US but not at the expense of quality. From what I have heard Boeing failed to meet any of the 5 benchmarks laid out in the bidding process. The AF is required by law not to consider anything but quality and mission, not the economics. The military has been required to abide by these standards for years. And now they want to change the rules and drop the contract from AirBus in favor of Boeing. I am not fond of anything made in France but if it is a better plane then we need to go with it. And it is not like we have not had or used quality product from Northrop Grumman.

Anyway, here is a NYT article that discusses some of the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/bu...boeing.html?hp

[xoxoxoBruce]

It should be interesting to watch this play out. Boeing was awarded the contract and Northrop Grumman/EADS protested.
Now they awarded the contract to Northrop, and Boeing is calling foul.
And so it goes.

[smoothmoniker]

Using patriotism as a cover for shoddy quality is just plain shameful.

[Beest]

Boeings argument on a pbs program the other night was that in initial stages they offered a larger plane, but were discouraged and encouraged to offer something smaller, lower load capacity, range etc. so they tendered this and were told they lost out to Airbus becuase their range, load capacity etc wasn't as high.

[lookout123]

The people who decide on the finished project aren't always the same as those who provided feedback along the way. Sometimes they are the same people who have just changed their minds.

The contract should go to the firm that produced the best product at the best value. ( not necessarily lowest price)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lookout123

The people who decide on the finished project aren't always the same as those who provided feedback along the way. Sometimes they are the same people who have just changed their minds.

The contract should go to the firm that produced the best product at the best value. ( not necessarily lowest price)

Yes, but any contract put up for bid, by the government or a private party, must be spelled out as to the goals/requirements for all bidders in advance.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Using patriotism as a cover for shoddy quality is just plain shameful.

Who said anything about shoddy quality?

[smoothmoniker]

Nobody. I was just spouting off poorly-formed opinions based on partial information and wild conjecture.

I was responding more, I think, to the "Buy American" sentiment that runs through the auto industry. I have no idea if that's what's going on here or not.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Nobody. I was just spouting off poorly-formed opinions based on partial information and wild conjecture.

I was responding more, I think, to the "Buy American" sentiment that runs through the auto industry. I have no idea if that's what's going on here or not.

That notion went out many years ago to the informed consumer. They make F-150's in Canada and Toyota's in Tenn. So many parts come from all over the world. No American cars are truely American any more.

[tw]

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Nobody. I was just spouting off poorly-formed opinions based on partial information and wild conjecture.

Your point was accurate. Boeing's 767 production line is diminishing due to superior competition. Boeing wanted corporate welfare to prop up the 767 by assuming Boeing will always get tanker contracts.

Boeing was using corruption at the highest levels of management and in the Air Force to win the contract previously. Corruption so flagrant that top Boeing management was removed. Still, if Boeing was making their best offer, then Boeing would have proposed a 777 tanker. But that product line has plenty of customers - does not need corporate welfare. Boeing did not want to convert a 767 production line to make superior 777s. Boeing hoped to automatically win the tanker contract to maintain a diminishing 767 production line - to avoid retooling by using corporate welfare. Boeing was not offering the better product. Boeing wanted government to protect a slowly dying product line.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Boeing was using corruption at the highest levels of management and in the Air Force to win the contract previously.

More complete and utter bullshit. They lost the contract. The AF top management did their job and did it well. The chose the best airframe regardless of who built it or where it was built.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

More complete and utter bullshit. They lost the contract. The AF top management did their job and did it well.

So why did so many top Boeing management and top Air Force officials who made the selection forced to resign and suffer possible prosecution? TheMercenary is again denying while forgetting to first obtain knowledge. He apparently did not bother to read what was posted and learn of the history of that tanker contract. Knowing without first learning.

[xoxoxoBruce]

tw's been reading to many scandal sheets.

On Boeing's end, it was two employees, and on the governments end one woman in the pentagon, that were colluding to find employment at Boeing for the woman after she left the government. Also, the Boeing people gave jobs to the womans two children. Both Boeing people and the pentagon woman, lost their jobs and went to jail. Now the other 99.99999%, of the something like 150,000 Boeing employees, have to sit through days of ethics lectures, on not abusing opportunities that they never get anyway.

Boeing tried to convince the Air Force they should change the specs to a larger capacity tanker, for which Boeing would use a larger airframe. The Air Force flatly refused, so Boeing went with the 767 airframe to keep the cost down. Boeing won the competition, but Northrop/EADs protested and the contract was rebid. During the rebid, Northrop/EADs changed their design to a larger airframe with more capacity. The Air Force saw more bling and chose it, saying it would give them more capacity without regard to the increased price or unproven track record. This is the basis for Boeing's current protest to the GAO, who unlike the Air Force, look at bang for the buck.

[tw]

The GAO report on this contract was only recently released. Although the report is only summarized, the report is unusually critical of how the Air Force selected this tanker contract.

Twice that the contract (potentially the largest in Air Force history) was awarded and then found to be awarded improperly. Air Force has 60 days to respond to this GAO report. But a much larger problem exists. Spend record monies on a fighter plane that cannot even provide ground support (F-22 Raptor). Lose track of and carry over the US nuclear bombs thinking they were only inert training bombs and leave them unguarded overnight. Send a nose cone (the trigger for a nuclear missile) to Korea for an order that was only suppose to be helicopter batteries. Numerous other Boeing contracts were found related to kickbacks and other shady deals. Air Force was making so many mistakes that top Air Force generals were recently 'asked' to retire.

How many other 'events' never got reported? Too much blood is in the water. This GAO report has been summarized as unusually harsh on Air Force management. Much more probably remains untold.

[Shawnee123]

True, and many Hondas are made right here in Ohio.