Boeing Tanker Protest Sustained!!!!!

[Randy Haskin]

both the Airbus and Boeing are good airplanes, The USAF needs a new plane, quit screwing around and move on.

Preach.

[The Inspector]

enemyace,
Think Beverly, Belfast, Argosy, Noratlas, Atlantique, Hastings vs Hercules and get back to us willya-

[JDK]

There is the personal aspect in the equation. I'd not expect someone working for company 'B' to either criticise or discuss the company's buiness or products in a public environment. I'd also not expect them to have an impartial view of the marketplace - however well intentioned, cool or non-partisan they may be. There are different kinds and levels of bias, some based on knowledge and the belief systems behind it.

Randy, I dunno what you are trying to say, there - too brief. Care to elaborate?

To see the historical purchase of US kit by other countries as predicated on purchase of the best aircraft for the task is naive; and in a very few cases, such as the European use of the F-104, have everything to do with illegal kickbacks resulting an inappropriate aircraft for the task.

You can either buy nationally or buy in an open market. It's fine to do the former, but don't bu11sh1t it's free trade at the same time. Local protection is the most basic form of a closed market.

You can either chose on political criteria (including pork-barrel or local employment) or on best tool for the job. Unsurprisingly, they are in conflict and unless that's accepted, you'll be conflicted as this bizarre tender process is. Either choice criteria followed through would have resolved it.

The US is a notoriously hard market to sell into, for a number of reasons, some good and some less excusable. To believe that US product beats foreign on a merit alone basis in all cases is, again, naive.

IMHO, as a manager, the tanker contract is now in the risible 'you couldn't make it up' zone - if it were not a question of actually being something of importance, it would make a funny script. Certainly it is now be a case study of how not to do it.

All IMHO, of course,

[The Inspector]

JDK,
I've retired so my only stake in this game is whats it's been from the get go-Being an American, I'm naturally partial to U.S. products AND seeing some of my out of work for too long fellows in aviation become employed again on a project for the USAF hopefully built in the U.S. not 'completed' in the U.S. I absolutely understand smaller nations without a great industrial base or small budgets buying from outside their borders, but why can't a country the size and industrial base depth of the U.S. be capable of building an aircraft that continues the lineage that's been in place for 60+ years done by the people who know how to do it best??

I think I know what RH was getting @, unfortunately Randy it ain't up to us, it's in the hands of inept, corrupt, lazy, fumble brained, scheming politicos both in upper reaches of the armed forces, and the civilians who are their masters -none of whom gives a fart in a tornado about the average American, all of whom would crap in their pants if they went in the men's room and there were two open stalls coupled with weasel mouthed elected 'representatives' of my Government who are all playing 'King of the Hill' or "I'll filibuster that", so yelling @ the wall won't have any effect.

Unfortunately, we'd all be arrested for assault if we cornered these indecisive morons and gave them all a well deserved 'dope slap' and asked if they all rode the little bus with the ramp on the side to work each day.

And as a result, the replacement gets farther and farther into the future, and the great old 135 gets older and older.

I had a technique a few years ago that worked on City Council public meetings, I'd stand up during public comments and tell them all, "I see seven light bulbs that I helped to install, if any one of you so much as flickers, I'll bust my butt to get you replaced", that usually lead to several pretty quiet moments and muffled throat clearing in the meeting chambers, lets try it on bigger politicians!

[Randy Haskin]

Randy, I dunno what you are trying to say, there - too brief. Care to elaborate?

Just saying that while everyone is debating their own angles on the issue, the AF is still desperately in need of a tanker. My vote is that somebody just make SOME decision and stick with it instead of protesting and deciding and changing our mind indefinitely.

[bdk]

It's not to be aggressive, but Bdk really, you don't have any personnal opinion on the discussion to develop ?

Do you support the oppinion that equipment for the USAF could only be buy from US providers, or not ?

Certainly I have a personal opinion. I don't claim to be objective either, and I don't mind the question.

I think it is reasonable for the US to buy from a foreign source.

My personal opinion:

Had the original lease deal not been ruined by John McCain, we would already have had tankers far less expensively than we will now. John McCain has a vendetta against Boeing for whatever reason.

I would like the tanker to be built in the US, not only for reasons related to my own employment, but out of patriotism for the design and manufacturing skills in my country (and at my company). I will say that this contract has a direct affect on my employees and co-workers.

I see most European countries as socialist with some businesses far more (directly) subsidized than (indirectly) in the US. I don't want my countrymen to lose out on a contract that is not decided on an equal basis. If a US company takes their military profits and uses them to further their commercial business, I am OK with that. It is a business decision. Maybe a European subsidy would actually hurt many Europeans besides Americans for the benefit of a few European aerospace workers- for what, prestige?

I also am not comfortable with the computer flight control logic used by Airbus. I would still fly on an Airbus aircraft (and have many times). I think they are safe enough, but I would prefer to let the pilot make the final decision rather than the machine. I have a distrust of the Airbus system.

P.S. I just saw an article saying that the competition would be decided on time, not delayed again.

[262crew]

[/quote]Had the original lease deal not been ruined by John McCain, we would already have had tankers far less expensively than we will now. John McCain has a vendetta against Boeing for whatever reason.

P.S. I just saw an article saying that the competition would be decided on time, not delayed again.[/quote]




McCain's presidential advisers (some not all) were former Airbus executives, so that may have had something to do with his bias?


No further delay for U.S. Air Force tanker
United Press International 08/05/2010




WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 (UPI) -- The U.S. Air Force won't further delay the award date for its $40 billion air tanker contract, a U.S. official said.

Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, said he would be "very, very surprised" if the contract award date would be postponed beyond the current mid-November deadline, Defensenews.com reports.


http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Securi ... 281024870/

Main Story
* DoD Pledges Fall Tanker Award, U.S. Aerospace-Antonov Team Disqualified<http://newsclips.web.boeing.com/newsclips/story.cfm?story_id=3929708> - Defense Daily 08/06/2010

[JDK]

Randy, I dunno what you are trying to say, there - too brief. Care to elaborate?

Just saying that while everyone is debating their own angles on the issue, the AF is still desperately in need of a tanker. My vote is that somebody just make SOME decision and stick with it instead of protesting and deciding and changing our mind indefinitely.

Oh, indeed, Randy. It's a disgrace, and apart from fixing the problem, you'd hope that some fixes to a broken system would happen, but we won't hold our breath on that one. I'm just grateful I'm only involved as an observer offering an unqualified, probably unwanted and certainly irrelevant opinion. For what's it's worth, as a serving airman, you have my sympathy.

I've retired so my only stake in this game is whats it's been from the get go-Being an American, I'm naturally partial to U.S. products AND seeing some of my out of work for too long fellows in aviation become employed again on a project for the USAF hopefully built in the U.S. not 'completed' in the U.S. I absolutely understand smaller nations without a great industrial base or small budgets buying from outside their borders, but why can't a country the size and industrial base depth of the U.S. be capable of building an aircraft that continues the lineage that's been in place for 60+ years done by the people who know how to do it best??

Mmmm. Probably best to take the late, great Sir Sydney Camm's quote relating to the TSR-2 on that: "All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right." The political management aspect of aviation projects goes right back to the start of aviation; for instance the Wrights aggressive litigation crippling US aviation development after a remarkable start.

Secondly it's important to remember that the best stuff may well come from elsewhere. One thing places like Australia and Canada - big industrial countries without that size production - are well aware of is that choosing between UK or European versus US products isn't always in favour of one or other - and if that's the case, you've got to decide how much weight to give to domestic production or other factors in your purchasing decisions, which is straight up (almost always) a compromise on quality.

Then again, both the US and the UK have learned the hard way that assumptions that 'the people who know how to do it best' are domestic isn't the case, and sometimes others take your market by trying harder. I'm thinking car production in the US and motorbikes in the UK. Whatever the winge and noise by the redundant domestic manufacturers, they lost the battles (by assuming their domestic market would remain loyal to increasingly outmoded and poor quality stuff) as much as the others beat them, and there's no such thing as a level playing field in business, so it's just loser talk to point to unfairness in the competition.

Regards,

[JDK]

Interesting discussion, so here's some more. bdk's rare opinion piece caused me a bit of mulling over it, so here's some responses:

Had the original lease deal not been ruined by John McCain, we would already have had tankers far less expensively than we will now. John McCain has a vendetta against Boeing for whatever reason.

Can't comment on that, as I don't know, but let the record show that McCain is on the right, not the left, and that he is unlike most leaders today, both someone who has military experience (hot!) and that he's well aware of the cost of equipment failures and losing wars. Were he a left-winger with no military background, I'm sure those points would be mentioned. The fact it's the other way should provoke thought as to why.

It seems to me that his Vietnam experience shows a young man of some significant integrity, and my limited knowledge of him more recently shows he doesn't stink by having being bought - like Duke Cunningham, say. His anti-torture stance was also interesting showing someone whose personal experience and standards drove an independent, not party or pork-barrel line. So why is a potential friend not on side? Is it as simple as Airbus men directing him? Without quantification, that seems pat, and unlikely to be the whole story. I dunno.

I would like the tanker to be built in the US, not only for reasons related to my own employment, but out of patriotism for the design and manufacturing skills in my country (and at my company). I will say that this contract has a direct affect on my employees and co-workers.

Most people would agree, substituting their country. Point is, do you also want to trade internationally, and accept the open market, or not? Too often trade into the US shows a one-way 'free trade' deal, just ask the Canadians about lumber.

No, you can't have it both ways. Everyone tries, but it's not free trade, and it's not capitalism and it's not 'fair' competition to bias toward home production in any way.

I'm not interested in US complaints about European fixes or subsidies or tricks. Or vice versa. When you enter a free trade agreement, you can hope the other guy will play by the rules and adhere to your way of doing things. Generally they don't, and so you have to toughen up about it, or go to the teacher to complain. If you want to play with others, others ways come with the deal. (Or if you can deal with Stalin from 1942-5 or Franco from the 1940s to the 1970s and the Emperor from 1945, or the Chinese today - you can deal with anyone.)

Australia's finding that with trying to refuse New Zealand apples. Without gunboats, trade's a two way street, and that appears to be hard to handle for most of us. Sure I'd like to by local, but it's easier thinking globally, and I won't accept the second rate because it's got a 'made here' sticker.

I see most European countries as socialist with some businesses far more (directly) subsidized than (indirectly) in the US. I don't want my countrymen to lose out on a contract that is not decided on an equal basis. If a US company takes their military profits and uses them to further their commercial business, I am OK with that. It is a business decision. Maybe a European subsidy would actually hurt many Europeans besides Americans for the benefit of a few European aerospace workers- for what, prestige?

Want to watch those boogieman terms. Whether 'socialist' 'commie' 'neo-con' or whatever, they're usually inaccurate (as here) and a handy way of avoiding thinking. bdk, I've more respect for you than that, but if you put that in your political theory 101, you'd get zero. Certainly each time I read an American writing one of these terms as though it explains everything (political theories never do, they're just basic concept - not implementation) I'd like to expand Godwin's Law to cover such knee-jerking.

I don't think the US support for the last Fascist dictator through to the 1970s, Franco in Spain, was a better alternative, although it sold lots of aircraft to him. (F'rinstance.) I understand you are dealing with China, currently. Calling them Communists or Capitalists isn't accurate, however much some may like to fly the flag over normal, human opportunistic shenanigans. Whatever they are you have to deal with it, not use ill-fitting labels!

Getting hung on the colour or bias or even type of government misses the point that it's the civil service, administration or political system that's the problem. Companies will manipulate the opportunity as far as they can (mostly inside legislation or trade agreements) including buying politicians. The problem is not in Europe.

The problem isn't in Europe, or even to do with the colour of government, but to do with a manipulated and failed system in the US administration (evidence being that the US' government's color isn't an issue itself as we've gone from a mildly right to a mildly left government with no notable direct effect on the process - it's time and rounds not political bias driving this).

Proper worthwhile capitalism requires there to be competition, not a monopoly. Given it appears the US can't sustain two major aircraft builders of this type, then the competition is going to come from overseas. Certainly I watch the general Boeing / Airbus arguments here with interest, as without the other the remaining company would be much happier - and not operating in a capitalist, competitive system (however flawed). Different stuff's made different to different concept philosophies, which can be used for blame games rather than accepting that diverse options fulfil answers more often than one-size-fits all. Which leads to:

I also am not comfortable with the computer flight control logic used by Airbus. I would still fly on an Airbus aircraft (and have many times). I think they are safe enough, but I would prefer to let the pilot make the final decision rather than the machine. I have a distrust of the Airbus system.

I don't often get the chance to tell an aircraft designer he's being a luddite, so here it is! That's a reactionary and over-cautious point of view, bdk. Be told.

Certainly the pros and cons of control systems vary from one to another, but the days of pulling the string and the flappy thing responding directly are long gone. Modern combat aircraft use computers - famously the current generation of fighters can't be flown by humans without computer intervention. The problems from the Airbus control system have been costly, and the bugs need/ed working out; but the idea is no more radical and no more a calculated risk than building the current Boeing out of pencil leads.

We've been here before - in 1910 pilots wouldn't wear seatbelts because they 'knew' they were better able to jump from the crash and avoid being killed. The facts state otherwise, and we had pilots being thrown from aircraft to their deaths into the 1930s at least. In the 1950s airline pilots resisted systems training and procedures because they 'knew' they were skilled seat-of-the pants wartime heavy pilots, and their skill was better than some geeky system. Fact remains that procedures did (and do) save lives and often seat of the pants flying was either contributory or not good enough.

You'll be able to go fly by wires you pull to the surfaces in your Cub or T-6 for a long while yet, but all military and airline aircraft are going to be computer controlled eventually - sooner rather than later. The difference between Boeing and Airbus here is first entrant to the market, advantage or not, and if Airbus' system isn't 'good enough' - on which I can't comment.

The Hudson river landing is over used as an example, but it was a (no fault double-birdstrike) Airbus (and a Boeing may have done better, was unlikely to do worse, but a test isn't getting a long volunteer list) and was a triumph for planning, practice and systems, not testosterone or attitude when the chips went down.

None of it help anything any, just I'd hope clear thinking... Who knows?

Regards,

[RyanShort1]

JDK,

Just for the record, a lot of us "right wingers" didn't and wouldn't vote for McCain. He's far from a true right person. More of a slightly left centrist who managed to fool some of the people some of the time.

Ryan - who's not trying to start anything political, merely to correct something.

[Enemy Ace]

On a weekly basis I see wounded being loaded into cramped, inefficent KC-135's to be evacuated to landstul hospital in Germany. The 135 is really too small for the mission. They need a widebody and they need it now. Pulling C-17's off essential Cargo duty is wasteful and only hurts down the line unless they just happen to be headed back west empty.
they need another plane, they need to assign it to the Guard and Reserve (who are doing the Aeromed evacs right now)
and they need to do it ASAP. And quite a few of the injured/sick going on the plane are French, German, British troops. So who gives a rat's pootie who makes it. Whoever loses is gonna cry foul regardless. Flip a coin and roll on. Hasn't anyone heard there's a war on? I know it, and so did the young Marine who came home on my last flight out in a C-17, in a box.

[JDK]

He's far from a true right person.

Here's a thought. I don't care where someone is - in any sense - integrity and actions counts for me rather than carrying any club card. I'd be very careful of preferring someone on their association rather than their ethics.

Regards,

[The Inspector]

Go back in this thread a bunch of pages and you'll find a posting about how the first tanker boondoggle was all combed out and everyone was happy and satisfied over the perpetrators of the jobs for planes deal had been dealt with, and all of a sudden here comes McCain with his little fork to stir everything, and everyone up again. McCain hates Boeing (don't know why, he was flying an A4 when he got blown out of the sky) but deeper, he hates aviation in general and rarely has anything good to say about any part of aviation as a whole.
And if you think using A-320's during his campaign was because some airline cut him a deal, think again several of his close advisors are EADS guys.

[bdk]

Wow! Lots to respond to...

...but let the record show that McCain is on the right, not the left, and that he is unlike most leaders today, both someone who has military experience (hot!) and that he's well aware of the cost of equipment failures and losing wars. Were he a left-winger with no military background, I'm sure those points would be mentioned. The fact it's the other way should provoke thought as to why.

He's also been in government a very long time. Longer than he was a military hero many times over. Many Republicans/conservatives call him a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

It seems to me that his Vietnam experience shows a young man of some significant integrity, and my limited knowledge of him more recently shows he doesn't stink by having being bought - like Duke Cunningham, say. His anti-torture stance was also interesting showing someone whose personal experience and standards drove an independent, not party or pork-barrel line.

He may have been right on that issue, but he may be very wrong on this issue. He also has a history of changing his mind (flip flopping).

Too often trade into the US shows a one-way 'free trade' deal, just ask the Canadians about lumber.

Not familiar with Canadian lumber, but America has a large trade imbalance with most every country, don't we? Perhaps aviation is one of the few places where we are on a nearly equal footing (with all of Europe combined since Airbus is a consortium).

I'm not interested in US complaints about European fixes or subsidies or tricks. Or vice versa.

Seems that Airbus is. They filed a complaint with the WTO as well, so at least they are interested.

Sure I'd like to by local, but it's easier thinking globally, and I won't accept the second rate because it's got a 'made here' sticker.

I don't think that any reasonable person considers aircraft from either manufacturer as second rate.

Whether 'socialist' 'commie' 'neo-con' or whatever, they're usually inaccurate (as here) and a handy way of avoiding thinking. bdk, I've more respect for you than that, but if you put that in your political theory 101, you'd get zero.

I was asked for my opinion. I didn't say that it was entirely rational and well thought out. BTW, there's pleny of Socialists over here already: http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/20 ... ir-caucus/

Socialism is a matter of degree. I am very unhappy about the socialization of America. I think it has led to lower expectations from our citizenry- if in fact there is a significant percentage of citizens remaining the way things are going here in California.

Proper worthwhile capitalism requires there to be competition, not a monopoly.

Yikes! What is worthwhile capitalism? If that is your way of looking at it, what would you do with all the patent attorneys? Capitalism is about finding a better mousetrap and exploiting it.

I don't often get the chance to tell an aircraft designer he's being a luddite, so here it is!

Well, I think you have misinterpreted me. Boeing aircraft are now fly-by-wire as well with computer enhanced stability. In addition the C-17 uses a supercritical wing and was one of the first transport category aircraft to be designed from the outset with winglets. My argument has to do with the computer logic, not the advisability of using a computer. To take your example to the extreme, would you be comfortable driving a car whose steering was completely computer controlled using Microsoft Windows 98? We've also encountered incidents here in the US with Toyotas having stuck fly by wire throttles.

The Hudson river landing is over used as an example, but it was a (no fault double-birdstrike) Airbus (and a Boeing may have done better, was unlikely to do worse, but a test isn't getting a long volunteer list) and was a triumph for planning, practice and systems, not testosterone or attitude when the chips went down.

Ah yes, but there is solid theory in that incident that the computer shut off both engines due to bird goo clogging some pressure ports in the inlet, something that never would have occurred in a Boeing aircraft.

This is all for fun, so I don't take the discussion too seriously. I do take the need for a tanker seriously, and the politicians in this country have made this competition a no-win situation politically. Maybe they should just throw a pair of dice. That would at least make a fair decision...

[bdk]

Let me get this straight, Airbus was waiting on the tanker contract to go through to build an A-330 manufacturing plant in the US so they could sell commercial freighters?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4747560&c=AME&s=AIR

Indian Exec: Firm May Sue Airbus Over Delayed A330s
By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI
Published: 16 Aug 2010 16:30

NEW DELHI - A senior executive of Flyington Freighters, trying to establish itself as India's only long-haul cargo airline, said the delay in the U.S. Air Force aerial tanker contest is to blame in the late delivery of 12 A330-200 cargo aircraft his company ordered from Airbus.

The Hyderabad-based airline is threatening to sue Airbus for the delay, which has caused financial hardships, the executive said. The A330-200 deliveries were expected to begin in July 2008, but now, he said, Flyington fears the slippage will spill over into 2011.

"I believe Airbus intended to deliver the 12 A330-200 aircraft to Flyington only if successful in winning the U.S. Air Force contract and able to build these aircraft in Mobile, Ala.," where Airbus has pledged to build the U.S. aircraft if it wins that deal, he said. "My impression is that Airbus has only limited capacity in Toulouse and may be unable to build our 12 A330-200 aircraft [there]."

In France, however, an Airbus spokesman said, "We jointly agreed to postpone deliveries of aircraft. We are in ongoing dialogue with the customer."

There is clearly disagreement over the reasons for the delay in deliveries.

Flyington's planned commercial operations from India to destinations throughout Europe, West Asia and Africa now face uncertainty because of the delayed deliveries, the executive said.

An industry source said an agreement was reached to postpone deliveries of the A330 cargo aircraft after Flyington Freighters failed to launch operations with used aircraft as planned, which made it difficult for the company to make the pre-delivery payments for the Airbus aircraft. Such deposit payments are normally paid before production begins.

Airbus delivered Aug. 9 the first new-build A330 freighter aircraft to Etihad, the national airline of the United Arab Emirates, the Airbus spokesman said. Airbus expects to deliver four to five A330 freighters this year. The company estimates the total market for new-build mid-sized freighter aircraft at 340 units over the next 20 years, and a total 1,600 mid-sized cargo aircraft including conversions.

Airbus has sold 64 A330 freighters to 10 airlines worldwide. The aircraft company currently produces 8.5 aircraft a month on its final assembly line for the A330, in passenger and freighter versions, and the A340 airliner.

Airbus is examining the possibility of raising production of the A330. "There is upside potential, but no decision has been taken," the Airbus spokesman said. In September 2008, before the financial crisis broke out, Airbus had plans to build 10 A330 aircraft a month.

EADS North America is pitching the KC-30 converted tanker/freighter, a version of the A330-200 passenger aircraft, in the U.S. Air Force contest. Rival Boeing is offering the KC-767 Advanced Tanker, a modified version of its 767-200 long-range freighter.

Airbus, the Flyington executive said, wanted orders for the A330-200 to prove its viability to the U.S. Air Force.

"In hindsight, Airbus' aggressive pursuit of Flyington appears to have been driven by Airbus' strong interest in securing an A330-200 launch customer to unlock European Union launch air support and demonstrate to the U.S. Air Force that Airbus had a viable commercial variant for its proposed tanker," he said.

Flyington Freighters initially entered discussions with Boeing for the purchase of freighter aircraft, but it later switched to Airbus and in March 2007 ordered six A330-200s, which were scheduled for delivery beginning in July 2008.

"We held preliminary talks with Boeing, but opted for an Airbus fleet of freighters because the A330-200F offers low operating costs and significant operational benefits," the Flyington executive said. "The aircraft gives Flyington Freighters a solid springboard for success in the rapidly expanding Indian freighter market."

Pierre Tran contributed to this report from Paris.