Boeing Wins US Air Force KC-X Refueling Aircraft Contract

[bossy22]

Source: NYC Aviation

Boeing’s 767 airliner-based NewGen Tanker design beat out the Airbus A330-based design put forward by EADS.

The Air Force deal, expected to be worth about $35 billion, will cover 175 production aircraft and 4 test platforms over the next 20 years


Read more: http://nycaviation.com/2011/02/boeing-wins-us-air-force-kc-x-refueling-aircraft-contract/

---

some good news finally

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

1. Who says corruption, incompetence and fraud doesn't pay?

Well, atleast they can't possibly fuck up more than they already did on the Japanese and Italian 767 tankers. Hopefully EADS has the stomach for an appeal.

[bossy22]

5. and a refueling boom falling off doesnt count?

Boeing isnt perfect. Both aircrafts are not mature designs and still are in the testing phase but i'd rather go with the company that is american and who has a larger industrial foot print in the U.S.

The CRS even questioned if the EADS aircraft could meet the "Buy american" act standards since roughly on 50% of the aircraft would have U.S. made components (boeings aircraft would have more than 80% u.s. Componenets)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

7. The EADS spinoffs were much greater

Since they were ultimately going to continue building the Airbus A330 in the US - while Boeing is just going to close the line and fire everybody when they finish the tanker program. There will be no further export orders for this turkey, their nonperformance on the Japanese and Italian tanker programs complete discredited the platform. And like the US they only bought Boeing because Japan and Italy are major stakeholders in the 767 program.

Airbus can't keep up with demand for the A330 because Boeing is incapable of delivering the 787, the spin-offs of that factory would have been enormous and EADS could have become the economic engine of the region - an area starved for high-value added manufacturing.

And booms and drogues don't fall off, fighters break them off.

[pnwmom]

12. You don't know what Boeing would do when the tanker program is done.

And the number of jobs here created by Airbus would be a small fraction of those by Boeing.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. What jobs is Boeing "creating"?

They have been building the 767 for thirty years, they have delivered (borderline-flyable) 767's to Italy and Japan.

This platform has been completely discredited by Boeing's performance on the 767 Tankers already purchased by Japan and Italy, once their done they will close the shop. Nobody wants 767's because they can buy the A330.

Airbus on the other hand was going to build a widebody airliner plant in the US for both military and civilian orders that will operate for decades to come, especially since when the 787 program finally collapses demand for the A330's that would have been built there would have been even greater.

[pnwmom]

24. The 50,000 jobs across the country they will need to build this plane.

The new plane is simpler than the ones that have been sold to Japan and Italy, which are in operation now.

The U.S. doesn't need Airbus, the European company, gaining a greater and greater foothold here. That's hardly a benefit.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

27. That is ridiculous,

50,000 new jobs to continue building an existing airplane? That is sheer fantasy. Like the claim selling India a handful of C-17's was going to create 30,000 jobs in Long Beach - or more people than worked at the plant in Long Beach in 1960.

And you really, really, don't want to bring up the Italian and Japanese tankers. And no, this will not be simpler than they are, which is all the more reason for concern Boeing isn't too good at engineering anymore.

And America needs Airbus more than ever, Boeing as a builder of commercial aircraft is on the outs. Their credibility has been destroyed by the 787 disaster, the 737 is nearing obsolescence and the market for 737 sized aircraft is going to be very crowded. The current management of Boeing (the same assholes who ran McDonnell Douglas into the ground) could very well decide investing in a new commercial jet just isn't worth while when every order will be hard fought with steep discounting by the new entrants, especially when they can just go for easy defence contracts where they get paid even when their shit doesn't work. The Italian 767 tankers are so-far five years late and barely a peep, airlines on the other hand get sort of pissy when airplanes are many years late.

[pnwmom]

36. America doesn't need Airbus at all. n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

38. Remember that in ten years

When the final Boeing 777 comes off the assembly line and the media is in a frenzy about the last ever American built passenger airliner. With around the clock retrospectives of the failure of the 787 and the halcyon days of the 747 and Pan Am. As Airbus is dominant and Bombardier and Embraer fight for second place with the Japanese, Chinese and Russians making their presence known.

[pnwmom]

40. Dream on. n/t

[KDLarsen]

50. Rubbish. Plain rubbish.

Airbus have plenty of suppliers in the US, just like Boeing has plenty of suppliers around the world.

Don't forget that unlike Boeing and the B767, Airbus have a full orderbook for the A330 platform (Pax, Cargo & Military) in the future, and were going to open a new A330 line in the US. Giving Boeing the contract aren't creating new jobs, as the majority of the workers on the 767 line would probably have been transferred to the 787 line instead.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

51. How dare you bring facts into this!

American Won, FUCK YEAH! (smashes beer can into forehead)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ensemble]

30. from what I've read...

Boeing 50K, EADS 48K.

[pnwmom]

37. Not in the U.S. Most of the EADS jobs would be in Europe. n/t

[nalnn]

43. I'm with you on this one.

I live less than 30 minutes drive from where the EADS plant would have been employing hundreds of my neighbors. Heck, maybe even myself at some point. But, I think the better design won out as well as the company that will reinvest more into the U.S. economy.

[pnwmom]

11. Boeing's plane will need 24% less fuel and can land at more airports.

And it met all the 372 requirements at a better price. EADS might appeal, but it won't have a basis for a win.

Interesting that you would rather Europe get the vast majority of those jobs.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

13. A mediocre platform for 99% of the price of the gold standard

What a value!

After the criminal conduct by Boeing in the earlier tanker scandal I wouldn't much care if they were built entirely in Europe, but you already know that wasn't the case.

EADS was going to build an Airbus widebody plant in the US for one of their most successful aircraft, Boeing is going to churn out a few more 767's and close the line.

Not a tough call,

[pnwmom]

17. Boeing paid for that scandal and the people involved lost their jobs.

The U.S. won't benefit by punishing Boeing -- and all its current employees -- forever.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. And this $35 billion dollar contract doesn't make all that worth it?

Don't punish Boeing forever - just don't reward them for their criminal conduct where the 767 tanker program is concerned.

[pnwmom]

23. No, not for the individuals who were responsible and who lost their jobs.

Why would those people care that, years later, Boeing got the contract after all?

Only a few people were involved in that scandal, but the consequences affected everyone.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. yeah, bet their shareholders are feeling really "affected" right now

So basically per your statement, corporations shall feel free to continue with their fraudulent actions - just have some sacrificial assholes ready to throw under the bus.

[pnwmom]

35. She wasn't thrown under the bus. She was the one responsible for her self-serving actions. n/t

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

39. don't be naive

For Boeing to be an innocent in the matter when Ms. Druyun approached Boeing offering to perform industrial espionage on their behalf they should have immediately called the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and reported her. They didn't and not only utilized the EADS information she stole on their behalf but rewarded her richly for it both with a quarter of a million dollar salary and do-nothing jobs for her daughter and son-in-law.

I am horrified to see such as slack attitude towards corporate crime around here, post-merger Boeing is every bit as rotten to the core as Enron was.

[pnwmom]

41. Which is why Sears, the CFO, was fired (and served jail time)

Condit, the CEO, resigned; and Boeing paid a fine of $615 million. Boeing paid for the crimes of Dryun and its former management, but it shouldn't have to pay forever.

It's funny that such a big fan of Airbus has the nerve to call Boeing "rotten to the core."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus

In June 2006 Airbus was embroiled significant international controversy over its announcement of further delays in the delivery of its A380. Following the announcement the value of associated stock plunged by up to 25% in a matter of days, although it soon recovered afterwards. Allegations of insider trading on the part of Noël Forgeard, CEO of EADS, its majority corporate parent, promptly followed. The loss of associated value was of grave concern to BAE, press described a "furious row" between BAE and EADS, with BAE believing the announcement was designed to depress the value of its share.<61> A French shareholder group filed a class action lawsuit against EADS for failing to inform investors of the financial implications of the A380 delays while airlines awaiting deliveries demanded compensation.<62> As a result EADS chief Noël Forgeard and Airbus CEO Gustav Humbert announced their resignations on 2 July 2006.<63>

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

42. $615m fine in exchange for a 35 billion dollar contract a few years later,

and some dead weight in jail, you do the cost-benefit analysis. They would make the same bargain 999 times in a row.

And...

France Clears 17 Executives of Insider Trading at EADS

PARIS — France’s market watchdog ruled late Thursday that 17 current and former executives of Airbus and its parent, EADS, did not violate insider-trading laws when they sold company shares three years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/global/18eads.html

[pnwmom]

44. They deserved the 35 billion dollar contract.

They met all the 300+ requirements, just as EADS did, but they did it with a tanker that will cost significantly less over the operational lifetime. And that's with a conservative estimates of fuel costs -- the more oil prices increase, the more savings will result from the Boeing tanker.

The EADS tanker had more bells and whistles, but Boeing won because it met the requirements at a better price. A win/win for the military and the taxpayers.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

45. Sending two 767's to do the job of a single A330 isn't remotely efficient

It isn't fuel efficient, it isn't HR efficient and it isn't utilization efficient.

Boeing deserved to be banned from the competition for the leasing scandal, they deserved to be rejected based on their demonstrated incompetence on the Japanese and Italian 767 tanker programs and they deserved to be rejected on a value basis relative to the A330.

[pnwmom]

46. Now you're getting into hypotheticals. Sorry, but this decision

was made using actual numbers -- and EADS lost. But at least they're not acting like sore losers. Even though they put their dollars into John McCain's campaign -- and it did seem to pay off in the 2008 decision.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x506654

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

47. That is why EADS won in 2008 and the only sore losers are Boeing

Who in 2008 when faced with the latest loss for the plane nobody wants turned to politics instead of their few remaining engineers to develop a worthy competitor for the looming KC-Y and KC-Z competitions.

[pnwmom]

52. "Few remaining engineers"? You really are living in fantasy land. The GAO

agreed that the 2008 contract didn't follow proper procedure, so Boeing was perfectly justified in asking for a do-over.

If the GAO makes the same finding this time, EADS would also be justified. But it won't happen.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

53. So you are also uninformed about Boeing layoffs, color me shocked!

The GAO finds what congress tells the GAO to find, I hope EADS challenges this decision though. The nonsense forty year fuel projection is a solid basis for one.

And Boeing is chronically short on engineering resources due to fifteen solid years of downsizing and outsourcing to the point of complete dysfunction.

[pnwmom]

54. I am well aware of the layoffs, and I'm well aware that tens of thousands

of engineers remain. And, of course, this contract will mean re-hirings of many of those who have been laid off.

I welcome an EADS challenge. The 40 year fuel projection is conservative. We're already at peak oil and prices have only one direction to go over time.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

57. The forty year fuel projection is a fiction

Given in that it is highly likely that either aircraft would make it through its service life without being re-engined as the KC-135 was with both JT3D and CFM56 engines. It applies equally although the A330's higher ground clearance is more favorable to re-engining with an off-the-shelf engine. It is also ridiculous because the future fleet utilization and mission profile are both unknowns. In the 90's tankers were more or less collecting dust with extremely low utilization and I certainly hope the past decade won't be representative of future utilization. History of the KC-135 fleet shows it is completely meaningless.

If the 787 disaster wasn't enough of a motivation for Boeing to go on a hiring frenzy I don't see why this would be, indeed even after the collapse of the 787 program Boeing has continued to cut both engineering and test resources when there needed most.

[ensemble]

2. well...

Good news? depends on your perspective, I guess.
Honestly, once Obama was elected, I thought EADS had about a .1% chance of winning the tanker contract.

[Diclotican]

3. ensemble

ensemble

The fact is that EADS never had a fighting chance in hell, to winn the bid for bulding the new tanker for the US airforce.. it was a show for the public, who in the end of course was falling to the domain of Boeing... It have been on the books for years, everyone who have folloed this show, have known the outcome well in advance... The A330RT never had a chance, even if the Airbus was been build in US to be the next tanker contract...

I guess, they could have said it from the start, that Boeing would win the game and stop wasting billions of tax payers money. How many dollars wasted on this show is unknown.. But it is not few bucks, wastet on both sides of the Atlantic, when everyone know who would get the tanker deal before the first try out was filed a couple of years ago...

Wel, I supose Airbus and EADS have to try sell the tanker deal to other nations then, as USAF would be bussy getting their "new" B767-XXX the next decade or so.. (In fact in many ways, the A330 would have been a more modern aircraft than the B767.. )

Diclotican

[pnwmom]

19. The A330 isn't more "modern" in its fuel costs.

The Boeing plane's smaller size will allow it to be more fuel efficient and land in more airports.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

22. but it can't take-off from more airports

The A330 has better take-off performance than the 767, to operate from smaller airfields the 767 will have to take-off with little fuel and itself refuel before going on-station.

The A330 is a larger and far more capable aircraft, the airlines of the world don't seem to mind the tradeoff as they scrap their 767's for the A330.

[Diclotican]

32. pnwmom

pnwmom

It have been CLAIMED that the B767 is smaller, and therefore more capable in more airports, and it is also claimed that in some ways, the A330 is to large for the current need of the USAF.. But again, the 767 is bigger than the current KC, who are the size of B707... But no one is claiming that the infrastructe all over the place would be needed to be build differnt anyway... In fact many claim that the current 767 (who is a vide-body, different from the single isle B707 model) would fit well into the airports who are in case.. As not an Airbus would fit in wel in most airports on the face of the earth:sarcasm: I guess that all the companies who have A330 in their fleet, have some techical problems after all, as most airports is sized to the smaller 767.. (DO i need another Sarcasm tag here?)

But the whole case was indeed a show, and it was sure as hell, that no other than Boeing would be able to produce the new tanker for the USAF.. Even tho they had to make on the road the show, where EADS first won the contest, suprisingly for everyone - and then lost it, as boeing and many suporters of the KC767 claimed the contest void, becouse of techical claims of wrongdoing.. In the end, as we now know it, the KC-767 was the winner (who was no suprising at all) and wel, the show is over and the fat lady is singing to let everyone know to get home...

But it was indeed a waste of lot of resourses, why can't US government just say it as it is.. No forreign Aircraft manufacturs have a chance in hell to produce vital parts, as the tanker to the USAF, so we can stop wasting a lot of ressorses and money on something that wil never be.. Im for one is so dam tired about this "clownshows" the governments are playing, when everyone KNOW that in the end USA would shoose Boeing over an Airbus... It is for many who have great interst in made the KC-767 the new tanker, to let it be build by EADS.. Even tho EADS was willing to build a whole new plant in US, to build every one of the Tankers on US soil, and to use exclusively american workers on every level.. Oh wel I guess this "french" aircraft have to find other customers then. (many americans belive the Airbus is an French company, even tho 25 nations in Europe are in on the production of every single of the Airbus, from the Baby A318, to the gigant A380.. But becouse the roll out is mostly in Toulose France, then most americans belive it to be a french aircraft.

Oh wel, I guess, when Airbus military arm is starting to assemble real military aircraft, as an europe counterpart to F35 (or something similar) then US would not cry wolf, when many european nations are bying that type of fighter jets to protect the skies over Europe?... Oh yes, they WIL cry wolf, and they do it now, even when the F35 program is spiraling out of controll, and have been a horrible waste of ressourses as it is.. To close some of the gap in founding, they even had to shutle the PW and RR engines, who was planed for the USAF and Royal Air Force... And my guess, it is not the last time "other" partners have to discover that they "tools of the trade" are been closed out, for protecting US interst in the program.. I guess The JAS was not a bad bargin after all for Norway... Even tho the Stealt part was not part of the pacage at first.. Oh wel, we can allways buy some new F16 block XXX when the final nail in the whole affair is ready... Lockeed wil get their money even if the F35 program wil burn to the ground.. It dosen't look to positive for the program this days.. It looks more and more like the whole F35 program wil end up as an extremely costly Turky in the end.. (and that is bad, as the program in itself, is an amazing feat of leap, a dam advanced aircraft who have abilityes few, if any are able to do in the same frame. Even tho, its sheaper than the F22, it is still an expensive aircraft!)

Diclotican

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

33. EADS knew the fix was in,

EADS had originally said they wouldn't bother re-bidding because they knew corrupt forces in Washington would deliver the order to Boeing and their clunker no matter what the technical merits. But it still earns them goodwill with the Pentagon to bring down the price from what Boeing would have charged sole-sourced.

Ultimately it is positioning EADS for the sale of the A400 transport for which there is simply no US competitor between the C-130 and C-17.

Although the Boeing thumb (and other extremity) suckers will still raise hell, even then.

[Diclotican]

34. Sen. Walter Sobchak

Sen. Walter Sobchak

THe fix was in, all from the start of the orginal bid for the tanker deal.. Everyone know it, Boeing and EADS know it both, that in the end, Boeing would win the deal, and that EADS would end up loosing that deal..

Even tho A330 IS A FAR MORE MODERN AIRCRAFT than the B767, and also more capable in many missions.. But hell, the the USAF get their KC-767 and then down the line discover that the KC-767 maybe was not what they wanted...

But then, EADS would be able to sell more A400 transports aircraft.. Even tho I seriousy doubt that US would buy A400 anytime soon. They wil rather have either to small a aircraft, the C130, or to large an Aircraft, the C17...

If the A400 really got off the ground, then many nations would get the aircraft, maybe traditional US customers... The A400 is rather advanced compared to, at least the C130... Even the newest model

Diclotican

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

4. Great news, if your interest is perpetuating fraud against the taxpayer without consequences

Boeing should have been banned from the tanker competition before the LAST round of bidding, Boeing's decade long track record for unmitigated incompetence in all areas should have been enough to knock them out of the running even without their fraudulent conduct in the earlier leasing scandal.

The 767 tanker has lost EVERY. SINGLE. COMPETITION. against the A330 based tanker, including the previous USAF competition - anyone ever think there might be a reason for that?

[bossy22]

6. simple

the A330 is bigger. Thats it. Bigger, more capacity. The thing is, that matters to countries who will only purchase a half dozen- size of the individual aircraft makes less of a impact if you are going to be purchasing more than 170. In fact when you are purchasing that many, bigger can be actually worse. Now you have to build bigger hangers, longer runways, and bigger support facilities.

the 767 was the better choice- the USAF did not need 180 mammoth A330's. I would agree with you if we were replacing the KC-10s

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. Interesting theory, except both are red herrings

Last go around the USAF decided the A330 being larger was a net positive.

The take-off performance of the A330 based tanker is superior to the 767 - so runways are more likely to be an issue for the 767 and you could probably replace ever single affected substandard hangar for less than half the cost of a single aircraft.

This was a political decision, the airforce realized that they would never get the aircraft they want so just pick the one that will keep the assholes off their backs.

[ProSense]

9. More

here.

[Citizen Worker]

10. Could it be that this is a taxpayer bailout to offset the $12-$18 billion in cost overruns on the 7

late 7? I think so.

[pnwmom]

14. This has been in the works since 2001, so, no -- not unless they

had a crystal ball.

[Citizen Worker]

29. Strange how it worked out the way that it did. An opportune time to insure cash flow for years to

come, while at the same time cushioning the financial blow of the 7 late 7 cost overruns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. This certainly did not go the way everyone was betting

Be interesting to hear what gets said about it and by whom

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. Seeing as they have bought into a completely discredited platform

So yeah, there will be some people with strong opinions, but at the end of the day political forces never would have allowed them to buy the A330 so it became a matter of buying the 767 and hoping Boeing doesn't fuck up as badly as they did with the Italian and Japanese tankers or do with the KC-135's another fifty years.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. The prior proposal was a Frankenplane...not enough details out about this one yet

[Blue_Tires]

26. Now if Boeing could get back to work on the 787...

[Hulk]

31. USA....we're #1 at making weapons of mass destruction!

It's all we produce anymore. It's our "bread and butter". We make and sell weapons, jet fighters, re-fueling jets, rockets, land mines, poisonous gas, guns, bullets, etc, etc, etc. It's the ONLY thing we export any longer.

Yes, we're #1. Sorta makes you proud, doesn't it? I wonder what percentage of our "aid to foreign countries" is actually in these products?? I'll bet Israel and Egypt aren't getting any wheat. What do you think?

[classysassy]

48. Screw Health Care,we need those Weapons to defend us against

the fake enemies created by war profiteers.

[KDLarsen]

49. Hardly a surprise

It was pretty much a done deal when Northrop Grumman pulled out of the joint EADS bid. EADS probably only stayed in to save face and hope for a shoe in the door, once the USAF decides they need something along the lines of the A400. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing could then repackage the 737 and win that bid too... :eyes:

Props to McCain for getting the original deal cancelled. Just about the only good thing he's done (apart from exposing Dubya for being a scumbag back in 2000).

[Jennicut]

55. Mixed feelings on this. My family works for Pratt and Whitney, which will supply the engines.

Part of living in CT, we get a lot of govt. contracts. Is it a good thing to rely on the govt. for these jobs? Probably not. Do I want my mother in law and brother in law to keep their jobs? Yeah, I do. But it has always been an issue here, with the Groton subs and whatnot. CT has made things for the military for a long, long time.

[OhioChick]

56. Boeing cutting 1,100 jobs from U.S. plants

hursday, January 20, 2011, 10:52 AM

LONG BEACH, Calif. -- Dwindling domestic demand for C-17 cargo planes will force Boeing Co. to slash 1,100 jobs at its U.S. plants, most of them in Long Beach where the aerospace giant has cut 13,000 jobs since the 1990s, the company said Thursday.

The 900 jobs in Long Beach and 200 jobs at plants in Mesa, Ariz., Macon, Ga., and St. Louis will be cut by the end of next year.

The cuts include accountants, midlevel management, engineering, research and assembly line workers. Affected workers will receive 60-day notices beginning Friday, with layoffs staggered monthly through 2012.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/01/boeing_cutting_1100_jobs_from.html