Boeing Bribes Better

[Carnos Jax]

Grace, if you're in the Wichita Kansas area, perhaps you can come across some tanker pilots. I'd be curious to know more of their opinions. As I've said, the few I know all preferred the Airbus.

[Grace62]

Carnos Jax wrote:
Grace, if you're in the Wichita Kansas area, perhaps you can come across some tanker pilots. I'd be curious to know more of their opinions. As I've said, the few I know all preferred the Airbus.

No plans to visit Wichita.

The only tanker the USAF has ever used is the Boeing. When they say "they prefer Airbus" which plane are they referring to since they would have never flown the EADS KC-45, or what's the basis for that opinion?

[Uncle Wig]

Grace, I think the Secretary of the Air Force acting in an official capacity and stating that the EADS/Northrop tanker was the better performer is about as definitive as you're going to get. As you know this entire tanker bid process was ridiculously convoluted and tainted with improprieties. When EADS won the contract in 2008, Boeing complained that the process was rigged. Besides that, there was intense political pressure on the AF to not choose a semi-foreign aircraft. As with the C-17 and F-35, the Pentagon knows what it wants and needs, but Congress determines what they're gonna get.

Here, for lack of time and energy to dig into this much deeper, is the Wiki article which provides a pretty good summary of the process and provides a good side-by-side comparison of the Boeing and EADS designs. There's no disputing that the A330-based tanker is a more modern airframe and is more capable than the Boeing. But as with a lot of military procurements, "more capable" does not always win the day. Cost/benefit makes a clear choice more difficult to pin down. Is it worth the extra millions to buy a tanker that carries more stuff? A simple side-by-side comparison shows the EADS to be the better of the two tankers. But the Boeing is cheaper and is American, so that's what we will have.

[Grace62]

Sorry, there is really no new information there.

Which "Secretary of the Air Force" said they preferred the EADS product of the Boeing tanker? The current one? Can you provide a link to that? I'm really curious. This is what Secretary Donley said this week:

"The Department of the Air Force has announced the award of an engineering and manufacturing development contract valued at more than $35 billion for the KC-46A aerial refueler to Boeing Co. of Seattle, Washington.

The Air Force-led selection effort included experts from the larger Department of Defense community, including the office of the Defense Secretary's staff and independent review teams during each step of the process.

"Many factors were evaluated during the tanker selection process," said Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley.

Selection "took into account mission effectiveness in wartime and life cycle costs as embodied in fuel efficiency and military construction costs," said Donley, emphasizing that both offerors met all the mandatory requirements.

"The thorough and transparent selection process was marked by continual dialogue with offerors to ensure the Air Force had a clear understanding of their proposals and the companies clearly understood the service's analysis of their offers," said Donley.

"Gen. Schwartz and I are confident in the fact that when our young pilots, boom operators and maintainers receive this aircraft, they will have the tools they need to be successful at what we ask them to do," Donley said. "

http://www.newsonnews.net/politics/7640-...award.html

[Uncle Wig]

Grace, here's the link to the article in which Wynne made that comment about the EADS tanker:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/bu...ker05.html

[Grace62]

Well that clears it up somewhat. Wynne's quote is from March 2008 and refers to the proposals offered in that bidding cycle.

The current bidding cycle had new and different requirements for the manufacturers, and the proposals offered were revised by each company.

In any event, who is to say that Wynne's comment in 2008 was not politically motivated? But that of Michael Donley in 2011 IS politically motivated?
Can't have it both ways.

[Uncle Wig]

Unfortunately there's no way to divorce politics from procurement.

I'm actually not arguing that Boeing should not have won the contract. All I'm saying is that in terms of specifications, the EADS airplane is more capable and so it it interesting to me that it did not win. It may be that the numbers (cost vs. performance vs. lifespan etc.) do make more sense for the Air Force. But to suggest that political pressure did not sway the outcome of this deal is silly. After 2008, there was pretty much no way in Hell that Boeing wasn't going to win this.

I've been interested in this kind of stuff for a long time: which aircraft got production contracts and which didn't, and of the ones that did, which ones have proven to be a good value for the taxpayers (e.g. A-10) and which have turn out to be money-wasting turds (e.g. B-1).

[Grace62]

Yes, I think we're in agreement about the political influence. Boeing spends $18m a year on lobbying, much more than EADS, but both companies join forces and end up lobbying Congress for the same bills, especially where military spending is concerned.

[Carnos Jax]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Carnos Jax]
Grace, if you're in the Wichita Kansas area, perhaps you can come across some tanker pilots. I'd be curious to know more of their opinions. As I've said, the few I know all preferred the Airbus.

No plans to visit Wichita.

The only tanker the USAF has ever used is the Boeing. When they say "they prefer Airbus" which plane are they referring to since they would have never flown the EADS KC-45, or what's the basis for that opinion?
They're talking about the A330 versus the 767. Two I know are 767 pilots. In their crowd, they have lots of chances to rub shoulders with pilots who fly all sorts of aircraft, since most are airline pilots. I would think they're opinion carries a lot more weight than yours (and somewhat more than mine). Sorry about the Wichita reference, I thought for some reason you were from there.

BTW, you ain't kidding about the B-1. I had friends who were gung ho about flying it after pilot training. Everyone has since left that platform. They think it's a piece of crap and dangerous.

[Grace62]

Carnos Jax wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=Carnos Jax]
Grace, if you're in the Wichita Kansas area, perhaps you can come across some tanker pilots. I'd be curious to know more of their opinions. As I've said, the few I know all preferred the Airbus.

No plans to visit Wichita.

The only tanker the USAF has ever used is the Boeing. When they say "they prefer Airbus" which plane are they referring to since they would have never flown the EADS KC-45, or what's the basis for that opinion?
They're talking about the A330 versus the 767. Two I know are 767 pilots. In their crowd, they have lots of chances to rub shoulders with pilots who fly all sorts of aircraft, since most are airline pilots. I would think they're opinion carries a lot more weight than yours (and somewhat more than mine). Sorry about the Wichita reference, I thought for some reason you were from there.

BTW, you ain't kidding about the B-1. I had friends who were gung ho about flying it after pilot training. Everyone has since left that platform. They think it's a piece of crap and dangerous.
I was looking for real references to helpful information, but thanks anyway.