Replies

>Yes, but that’s standard operating procedure, Boeing has just as much tried to influence the RFP in their favor.<<

Correct. Pre-RFP release, as did EADS. POSTS RFP, now, that is a different story as the whining of EADS proves.

>> And do you really believe that Boeing had nothing to do with overturning the previous decision for Northrop/EADS?<<

Yes, that was GAO, not the Air force, not the Congress, not the president. Boeing filed a legal protest, the first time in 10-years, and the GAO conducted an independent analysis. . .not congress.

>>The first thing they did was certainly to call their congressmen. In the end it always comes to playing politics.<<

Calling your congressman post selection is a risky deal unless you are confident an independent analysis can prove ineptness, grievous error or just plain mistake was done. Congress can only bluster and perhaps withhold funding (wasn’t done in this case). Congress can support the call for GAO analysis, but the congressman is at risk because, as you proved quite clearly, any interest will be seen as partisan and not motivated by the public interest.

It is hard to overturn a decision the customer made. . .unless it was done badly, and GAO recommended, not directed, the selection be set-aside. GAO had no power to throw out the selection, it was the Air Force and OSD that did that (once a closer look was done).

>>You have to keep in mind that the USAF already agreed to lease Boeing tankers - at criminally overpriced rates. Only after Boeing’s bribery became public was the deal nixed.<<

Let’s see, Darlene Druyan had no role to play in that? She was the most corrupt SAF/AQ in the history of the Air Force and went to prison for it, as did a Boeing executive. . .and one paid hefty fines. Oh, by the way, it wasn’t the government that cried foul and turned in the CEO and COO, it was Boeing personnel and the crime was limited to TWO people in the company and the company turned them in.

So, the CEO and the COO were found to be guilty and yet you tar the entire company, the honest people, for something that was done nearly a decade ago, and with none of the guilty players still in the company?

Curious your thoughts; given the recent WTO ruling that EADS received subsidies and these subsidies were never factored into the RDT&E, procurement and O&M estimated costs submitted by EADS in their proposal to the Air Force, is that somehow fair? Boeing had to factor in those costs. . .why shouldn’t EADS?

I am waiting to read about the WTO and the sanctions EADS has to pony-up. . .like adding past subsidies to current prices (as is WTO history of assessing and collecting fines). In that case, it would be a monumental over-inflated price to pay for an EADS tanker, as the fine/penalties would have to be added to the tanker price, and those costs would be pushed to the American taxpayer. . .is that fair, for Americans to pay the European fines of a European company? Curious again, how fair is that, to punish the American taxpayer for EADS/European crimes?

>>Then they agreed to buy the planes from Northrop/EADS, but that was also overturned due to political pressure alledging a sloppy selection process.<<

GAO succumbing to political pressure? Interesting. . . .”alleged sloppy” selection process that was fully and factually documented in the GAO ruling. You have read the GAO ruling, right? Point by point factual refutation of the “alleged” sloppiness, please.

>>This isn’t the first round, we’ve been here twice before! And blaming the other guy for trying to get a competitive advantage when you yourself resorted to bribery the first time, well, that’s chuzpa.<<

The lease was nearly a decade ago and Boeing’s first proposal did nothing of the kind (bribery and such). Boeing KNEW they were under a microscope and took pains to keep it clean and upfront.

For the European and EADS to threaten to take their ball and go home if the entire USAF doesn’t bend to their will, to change the requirement POST RFP RELEASE is chutzpa to the extreme.

Let the RFP fly as it is, as Gates signed off on it, as the Air Force vetted it through OSD/ATL all the way to Gates.

Besides, as one of the talking heads on Good Morning Briton said on the day of the first announcement, “This will give Europeans power to influence Americans if they try and do something silly like Iraq again.” Then the conversation briefly said just stop deliveries and parts to make the “Americans behave.” (I was there, leaving my hotel on Piccadilly, when that statement was made. heard it myself.)

Which is why strategic American military assets should come from an American supplier. And while I understand that said supplier can and do contract out to foreign suppliers for parts, they can if need be, pull those back "in-house" so to speak.

Which is kinda hard to do when your primary airframe is being designed AND built overseas by a foreign company, controlled by foreign governments.

Correct. Pre-RFP release, as did EADS. POSTS RFP, now, that is a different story as the whining of EADS proves.

While Boeing whined after EADS got the deal the last time - and succeeded. In the end one side will always call it whining while the other calls it "legitimate concerns".

So, the CEO and the COO were found to be guilty and yet you tar the entire company, the honest people, for something that was done nearly a decade ago, and with none of the guilty players still in the company?

I'm not tarring the whole company, I'm just pointing out the histrionics of some commentators. This isn't kindergarten, of course both sides will try to do everything to get the deal, so just the conspiracy angle is ridiculous. And as to "only the CEO and COO were guilty": A CEO and COO can also run a company into the ground and all the honest folks still lose their jobs, so you can't seperate company from leadership a 100% (in general, not only at Boeing).

Curious your thoughts; given the recent WTO ruling that EADS received subsidies and these subsidies were never factored into the RDT&E, procurement and O&M estimated costs submitted by EADS in their proposal to the Air Force, is that somehow fair? Boeing had to factor in those costs. . .why shouldn’t EADS?

Take a look at my link above. It's just the first ruling of two cases, one against Airbus/EADS and one against Boeing. You'd have to wait for the second ruling and factor that in as well.

Curious again, how fair is that, to punish the American taxpayer for EADS/European crimes?

Expect both Airbus and Boeing to be fined. Both sides could have gotten away with it, if they had stayed silent, but they needed to take it to the WTO. We'll have to see, but I expect buyers to be punished either way.

Let the RFP fly as it is, as Gates signed off on it, as the Air Force vetted it through OSD/ATL all the way to Gates.

Look: Boeing should be able to win this one easily. The production line for the smaller, less complex 767 is all payed for and written off. Factor in the expensive Euro for the European made EADS parts, Boeing should be able to deliver at 15-20% lower prices. The fact that they don't and rather maximize profits from the old 767 line speaks for itself.

McDonnell-Douglas is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing. . .just to be clear.

I know. As you said, there isn't a third player in the mix, it EADS/Airbus or Boeing.

GAO succumbing to political pressure? Interesting. . . .”alleged sloppy” selection process that was fully and factually documented in the GAO ruling. You have read the GAO ruling, right?

Have you? Out of 100 Boeing complaints the GAO rejected 92 and agreed with 8. Yet instead of fixing those 8 the new RFP among other things now mandates Boeing's style of writing manuals and values toilet water delivery capacity over fuel delivery capacity. The GAO ruling is one thing, but the new RFP is the result of intense lobbying and political shenanigans.