Protests very very rarely work, but then theres always hope.
I was wondering if the tanker contract deal had anything to do with the firings and suspected it did but this is the first piece I’ve read on it. I believe Gaffney lays out a good case for it.
If it’s not Boeing, then it’s not flowing.
The tanker deal was a political payoff to france. Pure and simple.
That decision was one of the biggest stinkers of all time. Kudos to Gates and finally somewhere down the line to Bush for hiring him.
Bush’s decisions have gotten much better since that jackass Rummy left.
Anyone working acquisition knows the SAFE route was for the USAF to pick Boeing. That they didn’t is a strong indication the process was clean - they had to CLEARLY believe EADS built the better tanker, or they wouldn’t have invited all this trouble for themselves.
I don’t believe for a moment the acquisition folks said, “Let’s throw ourselves on a buzzsaw for fun!”
I remember seeing somewhere that EADS has delivered operational tankers to Australia at least.
I was involved in a GAO protest several years ago. We actually won the protest, but the GAO stuff was not public until their decision.
How can anyone speculate on what is wrong or right?
Four more are currently being built for Italy.
Gaffney fails to disclose how many years behind schedule Boeing is in making those deliveries.
Its American manufacturing line is well-established.
Gaffney also fails to disclose that Boeing had to move tanker production from its "well-established" line at Aeronavali in Italy back to Wichita because of their inability to meet said schedule.
Somebody needs to see if Gaffney is getting paid over or under the table by Boeing to plead their case.