Boeing: More Time Or Else - Tanker deal

[SUBMAN1]

This explains why Boeing is threatening to no bid the tanker deal:

-S


Pentagon efforts to award that big 'ol contract for a new Air Force refueling tanker keep getting buffeted by events.

Now Boeing says it may bail out of the tanker re-competition -- which had appeared to be a great coup for the aircraft maker, which lost the earlier $40 billion deal, which was overturned by the GAO as a bungled procurement -- if it can't have more time to develop a new proposal.

Government Inc. is catching its breath. This may all seem like a farce. But it matters.

Anyway, our colleague Dana Hedgpeth wrote this story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082104018.html)Friday, spelling out the latest trouble.

"Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company needs six months to put together a new bid because it thinks the Air Force has changed the requirements and is now asking for a plane that can carry more fuel. Beck said the four additional months are needed to do further price analysis and engineering work to propose a different plane.

"If the Pentagon doesn't grant more time, Beck said 'one of the options we would seriously consider is that we would possibly' not bid at all."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/government-inc/2008/08/boeing_more_time_or_else.html

[Thomen]

This explains why Boeing is threatening to no bid the tanker deal:

-S


Pentagon efforts to award that big 'ol contract for a new Air Force refueling tanker keep getting buffeted by events.

Now Boeing says it may bail out of the tanker re-competition -- which had appeared to be a great coup for the aircraft maker, which lost the earlier $40 billion deal, which was overturned by the GAO as a bungled procurement -- if it can't have more time to develop a new proposal.

Government Inc. is catching its breath. This may all seem like a farce. But it matters.

Anyway, our colleague Dana Hedgpeth wrote this story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082104018.html)Friday, spelling out the latest trouble.

"Boeing spokesman Dan Beck said the company needs six months to put together a new bid because it thinks the Air Force has changed the requirements and is now asking for a plane that can carry more fuel. Beck said the four additional months are needed to do further price analysis and engineering work to propose a different plane.

"If the Pentagon doesn't grant more time, Beck said 'one of the options we would seriously consider is that we would possibly' not bid at all."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/government-inc/2008/08/boeing_more_time_or_else.html

Who cares about Boeing? Gruman and EADS had the deal allready in the pocket, after Boeing got busted for bribery.

Sorry, but that is just ridiculous that they are still allowed to be 'in the deal'.

[SUBMAN1]

Who cares about Boeing? Gruman and EADS had the deal allready in the pocket, after Boeing got busted for bribery.

Sorry, but that is just ridiculous that they are still allowed to be 'in the deal'.They are allowed because the second time around, the Air Force got busted for unfair bid practices - it was even uglier than the bribery thing in 2003. Gruman and EADS probably will not get the deal now because of it - they were on the inside of that deal, or that is what is suspected.

Now we have an equal playing field and everyone is back at square one.

Boeing can sue for the time if they want because of the previous unfair bidding. On top of that, no one over here wants our largest contract ever going into anothers economy. This isn't a couple fighters we are talking about here. This is the biggest contract ever awarded in military history.

-S

[Skybird]

Who cares about Boeing? Gruman and EADS had the deal allready in the pocket, after Boeing got busted for bribery.

Sorry, but that is just ridiculous that they are still allowed to be 'in the deal'.
First their offer was inferior to that of the competitor, so they started to cry wolf to get a second chance started. Then they realise their offer still cannot compete and that they need more time to close the gap to their rival - which again shows their bid is inferior.

I already wonder who is defining the competition's demands: the Pentagon, or Boeing.

[Thomen]

Who cares about Boeing? Gruman and EADS had the deal allready in the pocket, after Boeing got busted for bribery.

Sorry, but that is just ridiculous that they are still allowed to be 'in the deal'.They are allowed because the second time around, the Air Force got busted for unfair bid practices - it was even uglier than the bribery thing in 2003. Gruman and EADS probably will not get the deal now because of it - they were on the inside of that deal, or that is what is suspected.

Now we have an equal playing field and everyone is back at square one.

Boeing can sue for the time if they want because of the previous unfair bidding. On top of that, no one over here wants our largest contract ever going into anothers economy. This isn't a couple fighters we are talking about here. This is the biggest contract ever awarded in military history.

-S

The majority of the contracted work would be done in the US anyways. What difference would it make?

[SUBMAN1]

The majority of the contracted work would be done in the US anyways. What difference would it make?Not really, since the profits leave our shores.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

First their offer was inferior to that of the competitor, so they started to cry wolf to get a second chance started. Then they realise their offer still cannot compete and that they need more time to close the gap to their rival - which again shows their bid is inferior.

I already wonder who is defining the competition's demands: the Pentagon, or Boeing.The Boeing plane was superior in almost every regard. The only thing the EADS version had was more fuel. Go back and read the competition for the real facts and quick letting your feelings get in the way.

I expect a 777 tanker proposal which will out-do the A330 proposed by EADS.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Just so we remember why the tanker deal was rejected with Northrup/EADS:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=138559

-S

[CptSimFreak]

First their offer was inferior to that of the competitor, so they started to cry wolf to get a second chance started. Then they realise their offer still cannot compete and that they need more time to close the gap to their rival - which again shows their bid is inferior.

I already wonder who is defining the competition's demands: the Pentagon, or Boeing.The Boeing plane was superior in almost every regard. The only thing the EADS version had was more fuel. Go back and read the competition for the real facts and quick letting your feelings get in the way.

I expect a 777 tanker proposal which will out-do the A330 proposed by EADS.

-S
Really!?!?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/kcx tanker2.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Really!?!?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/kcx%20tanker2.jpg
That is not what the Air Force came up with. Being perfectly rounded like that, it must be Airbus propaganda. The Air Force assesment gave being greater pallet size/load (which is how I spotted the propaganda to start with), and the capability to work from much smaller fields, and gave it survivability (including surviving missile shots and working in high EM environments) way beyond the EADS design. The Air Force gave the Boeing plane 2 negatives - lower fuel capability and lesser range.

Not sure where you dug up that diagram from.

-S