The dreaded Europeans can even put a remote boom on a "Boeing" aircraft.
Look no window bay
Posted on 07/09/2008 12:15:52 PM PDT by jazusamo
You just proved that you havn’t got a clue as to what the RFP stated.
“GAO SAYS OTHERWISE.”
GAO was pressured by members of congress namely murtha and dicks
Prove your facts. GAO was not. FACT the RFP was FLAWED, illegally awarded. GAO read found and made the discovery.
COST IS ALWAYS A FACTOR IN DOD CONTRACTS
You just proved that you havn’t got a clue as to what the RFP stated.
How many USAF contracts have you delt with. rest my case.
Push comes to shove it will be shown that boeing knew their entry was INFERIOR and intentionally withheld information about cost, performance, etc so they could pull the BS stunt they’re pulling now.
The KC-767 MEET ALL Requiremnets for the RFP and exceeded in SURVIVABILITY. EADS failed from the get go no 2 year depot, Could not perform emergency breakaway. RIGHT IN TH GAO VERDICT>
THERE ARE NO KC-30’s FLYING with A WORKING BOOM PASSING FUEL.”
Yes there is.
WHERE RAAF’s on not passing fuel thru a BOOM. the 2 greens are not. the only Airbust tanker is a A310 and that is not NOT A KC-30.
Wrong, there is only 1 KC-767 delivered (2 years late), and that was to Japan back in Feb. That plane is currently sitting on the ground awaiting certification by the JASDF.
The ones for Italy which are 4 years late still havn’t left the ground.
2 KC-767J’s delivered and flying.IN SERVICE 4 kc-767a ( italy) flying over the CORN field of KANSAS passing fuel.ready to be delivered.
Looks like its the otherway around..EADS has not repaid loans receives MORE in subsidies.”
More unsubstansiated BS by boeing and their paid hacks.
Hardly. The EADS unpayed loans FACT read wallstreet, Forbes, and the links above from last post. PROVES EADS IS SUBSIDIZED. lying cheating company that they are.
How many years USAF tanker experiance do you have.
How many years Tanker tactics do you have
I use to have respect for NG but lost it all when they sided with EADS and started spewing flot out B.S.
Planning executing a real USAF tanker traning or real world mission is another. and only a few on here have that experiance and knowledge.
EADS/NG has NO real world Tanker experiance for the USAF.
How many KC-x briefing have you attended for planning and implementation of new aircraft. I attended 2. 1 Boeing 1 NG/EADS. we got to see all of there facts and figures except bidding.
I read the GAO report many times. I read the original RFP guess what someone lied wasn’t Boeing. GAO even said that. EADS lied USAF proccurment LIED.
And you calling a fellow patriot a burgerking worker in uniform was uncalled for unpatriotic and WRONG. He is a veteran someone who served his country. Some of us have spent 25 plus years defending the USA. not bashing it and selling it out to a foreign company who wants to destroy our aircraft manufacturing ability. SHAME on YOU. Army should have taught you better values than that.
I’d love to see the boeing bootlickers try and spin that one.
That was for the ORIGINAL LEASE DEAL THAT GOT KILLED.
different version of the KC-767. dead deal. people got caught. different RFP. LOOK AT THE DAT OF THE LINK> READ THE STORY> ITS OLD NEWS>
March 31, 2004
[Have an opinion about this article? Visit the Joe Galloway discussion forum.]
WASHINGTON - The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100 aerial refueling tankers so that the company’s 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal, according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/KC-X-GAO-Sustains-Boeing-Protest-04936/
The GAO recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with the GAO’s decision. The agency also made a number of other recommendations including that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the Air Force should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors; that if Boeing’s proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman; and that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.”
Michael R. Golden, the GAO’s managing associate general counsel for procurement law:
“Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. We therefore sustained Boeing’s protest…. We also denied a number of Boeing’s challenges… because we found that the record did not provide us with a basis to conclude that the agency had violated the legal requirements with respect to those challenges.”
The GAO Release
From the official June 18/08 release:
“The GAO decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms’ respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. The GAO bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements. Specifically, GAO sustained the protest for the following reasons:
1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical “requirements” as possible.
2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”
3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.
4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.
5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within two years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.
6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.
7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.
Oh NOW you admit that it’s a different version of the KC-767.
I did look at the date, and you say it’s old news, well so isn’t the articles from 2005 you’ve been posting.
Boeing withheld information about costs forcing the Air Force to come up with it’s own figures.
That’s for A319’s and A320’s NOT the A330.
Really?
Really. Your Boeing Derangement Syndrome makes it clear that you put this wierd (for an American) hatred...of the ONLY U.S. manufacturer of commercial large jets...before your alleged concerns for the war-fighter.
You dis the higher cost of the EADs plane, and the extreme likelihood that it will be forcibly repriced once the EU goes further through the price ceilings the G8 and various sovereign financial institutions have set.
Nor are you truly concerned about U.S. infrastructure.
Nor are you concerned about U.S. dependence upon foreign sources.
I put the warfighter first
Amazing how you have ignored each and every warfighter's disputes against the EADs plane then. No, you manifestly don't. Otherwise you would be listening to and acquiescing in the superior information and judgment of Frank Gaffney, General Handey, Jed Babbin etc.
Instead it is you who are trivializing the warfighter. The overwhelming majority of whom, by all anecdotal evidence, are leery of the EADs plane.
... unlike you arrogant boeing bootlickers who try and dictate to the military what the needs of the military are.
Hey, I would gladly apply the Sherman Antitrust Act against Boeing...FORCING MD to be severed out again. And btw, the Sherman Anti-trust act also is applicable against FOREIGN MONOPOLIES, such as subsidized and tariff-protected state-entities such as EADs/Airbus. The appropriate Sherman act sanction against the monopolistic practices of EADs is...criminal prosecution of its domestic agents...and banning the corporation from further business.
And anyone concerned about the warfighter would be very much concerned about the fact that your plane flunks five of the eight survivability criteria...which were then POLITICALLY overridden within DOD...how did that HAPPEN? Who is licking whose boots?
Can we say that there just might be some serious corruption...or perhaps also foreign coercion with Merkel, Sarkowzi, and Jones falling all over themselves to interfere with America's national security spending on this and likely other items?
“You tell me...would it be criminal for a foreign enemy operation such as EADs to bribe and steal and then have knowing disinformation operatives lie to cover up their despicable conduct??”
You don't agree?
Funny how you slam EADS for the very same things that boeing does.
Funny, it isn't just ME slamming them so much as the CIA, and you haven't shown a single comparable incident of CASH bribery against Boeing, have you? And then 2002 job offer to Druyun, while definitely corrupt, and bad corporate conduct, was FAR less serious or egregious, or DANGEROUS than the culture of corruption that CASH BRIBERY imbues...which is the EADs modus operandi. And Boeing's top officers did time. And they are gone. Since then dedicating itself to across the board integrity. You haven't found a single case of foreign bribery by Boeing, nor cash bribery, nor anything underhanded even recent attributable to Boeing since.
EADS on the other hand has been bribing merrily along, long after being busted by Woolsey, and signing the OECD prohibitions back in 2001...and stealing U.S. technology with French secret service collusion... CIA Director R. James Woolsey was absolutely right.
Your precious little boeing bribes, extorts, lies and steals whenever it doesn’t get it’s way.
BDS.
Hell they intentionally withheld infomation pertaining to costs and other factors in relation to their OBSOLETE KC-767 that they offered the Air Force.
Actually they fully tendered all of the commercial costs schedules that the USAF was supposed to use for commercial conversions.
“Overdue penalties for Chinese, Russian..blah, blah, blah.” That would kill off half of boeing’s workforce since they use russian and chinese labor to build our military aircraft.
Half? Doubt it. Particularly on the military stuff. And the penalties would be against the foreign state actors. Boeing's own employees would not represent those "foreign state actors." You have a real problem seeing distinctions clearly.
Just like they shipped other military contract jobs overseas.
So you say. So the solution is to enforce the U.S. content requirements, and not wink at them, and also to increase them. Let alone make it worse with EADs shell games.
Look at the hell there was from Bush and Donald Rumsfeld when Duncan Hunter attempted to increase those from 50% U.S. content requirements to 75%. But I bet you were against that measure as well...
Zero competition means that there is ZERO incentive for boeing to even offer a quality product. That's why they're trying to saddle the Air Force with an already OBSOLETE airframe. That's why they (not the Air Force) they wrote the RFP back in the '04 competition striking 19 of 28 mandated capabilities the Air Force wanted.
Zero competition means that boeing can price their crap however they want it and just like Lockheed Martin is notorious for doing, Boeing wants the contract to be cost plus, so they can screw all of us for a few billion dollars more.
The higher cost of the EADS plane is irrelevant because the RFP stated CLEARLY that the bid could go to the higher of the two bidders.
"The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and it is reasonably determined that the proposed approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.
It's right there in PLAIN ENGLISH that even a 5th grader could read.
You are not concerned about U.S. infrastructure either since the bulk of the 767 is made of foreign parts manufactured in china, russia, japan, italy, and the U.K.
Not to mention boeing's willingness to immediately outsource U.S. military contracts to foreign companies like they did when they cut American workers off at the knees and sent the jobs to south korea.
Funny, how I posted a list of all the equipment that was designed and or manufactured overseas and not a single feigned peep of outrage from you and the other bootlicking boeing cheerleaders. But OMG an American company teamed up with a foreign one to build a tanker and all of you are running around like Chicken Little screeching that the sky is falling.
Overwhelming majority are leery? HA! cdr whatever his name is keeps saying that's it's on the blogs, but has yet to offer a single link to back his claim. So nice that you bought into his fantasy.
The fact is, your claims are a myth. The ONLY gripe I've seen in relation to the EADS jet is the remote boom, but the same gripe applies to boeings garbage scow since their flying swizzle stick is remotely operated too.
Funny how you cheerleaders keep harping about EADS and the subsidies when boeing benefits from government subsidies as much if not more. The real reason why the U.S. pulled out of the agreement restricting LCA subsidies was because your precious little boeing needed more government funding than what was allowed under the agreement.
For the 787 alone boeing has recieved around $14 Billion dollars in government subsidies and $10 Billion of it was prohibited under the agreement.
Airbus on the other hand only recieved $8 Billion in government loans that was allowable under the agreement for the A380 that they are required to pay back.
You and the other cheerleader keep making claims about the EADS plane flunking, yet offer no proof.
boeing and integrity? ROFLMAO!!! Oh stop it! You should go on and replace letterman.
boeing has less integrity than a soup sandwich. boeing withheld info from the Air Force pertaining to their bid. boeing has gone as far as writing the RFP to suit themselves. boeing has paid off senators, congressmen, and DOD officials. But they've got integrity!
boeing DID NOT tender any cost schedules.
You have a problem wit hseeing the fact that boeing's flying edsels are made in china, russia, italy, etc and then slapped together with tape, bailing wire and bubble gum at their America hating union dominated glue and screw factories.
And the inspectors who are supposed to be doing QC checks just rubber stamp everything......I wonder why 747's are blowing up and 737's are having parts fall off of them?
So I say? boeing shipped the contract for the A-10 wings to korea. But oh I forgot that boeing can do no wrong as long as you're wearing your boeing issued rose colored glasses with the attached blinders.
The dreaded Europeans can even put a remote boom on a "Boeing" aircraft.
Look no window bay
You and the other cheerleader keep making claims about the EADS plane flunking, yet offer no proof
NG/EADS plane was NON COMPLIANT. Did not meet the BASIC requiremets to compete. No 2 year depot as required, Could not perform emergency breakaway proceedures, Was not as SURVIVORBLE EMP. EVEN A 3RD GRADEER CAN READ THAT. oh wait its not in Comic book form.
You are not concerned about U.S. infrastructure either since the bulk of the 767 is made of foreign parts manufactured in china, russia, japan, italy, and the U.K.
What a Load of bull 85% bulit right here. see airframers.
list of sub contractors . MAJORITY OF THE AIRFRAME IS MADE RIGHT HERE IN THE USA. VERSES over 50% of A-330 being made elswhere like FRANCE UK CHINA RUSSIA AND GERMANY.
For the 787 alone boeing has recieved around $14 Billion dollars in government subsidies and $10 Billion of it was prohibited under the agreement.
MORE EADS B.S.
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF>..
So I say? boeing shipped the contract for the A-10 wings to korea. But oh I forgot that boeing can do no wrong as long as you’re wearing your boeing issued rose colored glasses with the attached blinders.
DON”T THINK SO SLIM.. Last I saw Seattle and Long Island are still in WA and NY and still Part of the USA.
http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcpi025749120jul02,0,442464.story
seems UPS cancelled there orders with AIRBUS and went BOEING.
Boeing offered a price to keep the B767 production line open
No they bought the B-777 Freighters.
Fed Ex also canceled there AIRBUST orders.
You are not concerned about U.S. infrastructure either since the bulk of the 767 is made of foreign parts manufactured in china, russia, japan, italy, and the U.K.
better read the next two links as it shows both the 767 and A330 subcontractors who they are and exactly what they build.
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=B767#Airframe%20Assemblies
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=A330_A340
All the Fuselage For Boeing is MADE RIHGT HERE. sub components ie skin peices may not all be. Cannot say the Same for AIRBUS.
That’s one of the KDC-10’s that the Dutch use isn’t it?
Yes
“NG/EADS plane was NON COMPLIANT.”
That’s what YOU claim but offer no proof.
“Did not meet the BASIC requiremets to compete.”
That’s what YOU claim but offer no proof.
“No 2 year depot as required,”
That’s what YOU claim but offer no proof.
“Could not perform emergency breakaway proceedures,”
That’s what YOU claim but offer no proof.
“Was not as SURVIVORBLE EMP”
That’s what YOU claim but offer no proof.
“EVEN A 3RD GRADEER CAN READ THAT.”
Then what’s your problem then?
“oh wait its not in Comic book form”
Yeah I forgot that I need to keep it simple when dealing with wing wipers.
“What a Load of bull 85% bulit right here.”
That’s what YOU claim but offer no proof.
Those lists are irrelevant since 1/2 of Airbus’ suppliers for the COMMERCIAL A330 are American.
In fact Airbus has more American suppliers than they have European, and a vast majority of those American companies also happen to supply your precious boeing.
The Military KC-45 will have even more American suppliers because the production line is moving here.
Where is YOUR proof?
I know it’s wood, but what kind of wood?
Those tax breaks are in violation of the agreement that boeing is whining about Airbus violating.
So sorry so sad the FAA has no authority over japanese civil aviation, nor do they have authority over the JASDF.
Oh, it’s true because boeing says so? If that’s the case then everything in the NY Slimes is true too.
Uh no, the same CAN NOT be said of boeing.
It will be reported?
Funny how you have no problem with your buddy calling me a traitor, communist, anti-American, etc.
And then you taking a swipe at my service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.