Boeing Tanker Protest Sustained!!!!!

[Iclo]

At the end, perhaps the Tanker contract would have bring work in the US ?

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,

Hum, the first deal was broken after two top managers of Boeing went to jailed. You cannot simply hide this fact...

[The Inspector]

ICLO,

That horse is long dead so stop flogging it will you? I SAID AFTER everything was settled AFTER the Condit/Druyen thing was settled to everyones satisfaction, along comes Mr. Flip Flop to stir up things again -The guy changes positions and stances like I change socks!
And absolutely NO ONE is trying to hide anything or forget anything, you just keep going in smaller and smaller circles parroting the same three or four things over and over, sometimes I equate you to an old phonograph record (to you kids, thats a 12 inch black vinyl CD) and you are stuck on the same line and need a 'bump'.

[bdk]

At the end, perhaps the Tanker contract would have bring work in the US ?

Well, Airbus' master plan has been revealed! Let the US subsidize the factory so Airbus can sell A330 freighters! I guess since Airbus can't get the WTC to agree that US military programs subsidize Boeing's commercial programs, they decided to enter into that kind of business themselves. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

[262crew]

Reuters News 09/07/2010
Authors: Jim Wolf and Tim Hepher
© Reuters Limited 2010.




(Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) left open the possibility of trimming its current bid to build 179 new U.S. refueling aircraft in its continuing drive to deny the deal to Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA), its European rival.

The U.S. Air Force is weighing competing bids on the contract, valued at $25 billion to $50 billion, that were due on July 9 and is asking the bidders follow-up questions.

The current competition marks the third time the Air Force has sought to start replacing its Boeing-built KC-135 tanker aircraft, which on average are about 50 years old. The purchase has long been listed as the Air Force's top acquisition priority.

The government typically seeks a final proposal revision and if asked, "we'll respond to that," Dennis Muilenburg, the head of Boeing's weapons-building arm, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense summit in Washington on Tuesday.

"Our intent is to continue to offer a winning offer," he said when pressed on whether the company might lower its bid for competitive reasons. "Beyond that I can't comment until we get specific requests from the customer."

He said the tanker is a "national priority, and Boeing is prepared to respond with that kind of priority."

The Air Force says it will award a contract this fall, which could mean as late as December 20.

Muilenburg said Chicago-based Boeing must balance its responsibilities to all stakeholders as it weighs any such bid revision. "We're going to make decisions here that are financially responsible," he said.

The initial Air Force tanker-acquisition effort, a would-be lease-purchase with Boeing, collapsed in 2004 amid a scandal that sent the Air Force's former second-ranking arms buyer and Boeing's ex-chief financial officer to prison for conflict-of-interest violations.

The Pentagon in 2008 awarded a 179-plane deal to a team made up of Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N) and EADS, only to have it overturned on appeal from Boeing. The U.S. Government Accountability Office found the Air Force had made enough errors in judging the contest to have changed its outcome.

Muilenburg declined to describe the 767 variant Boeing is offering this time but said it is an existing airframe with "in-line modifications," such as an all-new digital cockpit of the type used in the 787 Dreamliner.

Boeing's catalog has three different sizes of the passenger version of the 767, built to carry 181 to 245 people between 5,600 and 6,600 statute miles.

In an effort to deny information to its competitor, Boeing has not said publicly which airframe it would use; but Muilenburg's comments appeared to rule out a hybrid version that EADS contends would be risky to produce.

(Editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

[Mike]

I see that the WTO has upheld the EU's protest that the US Government is providing illegal subsidies to Boeing via NASA and Pentagon research contracts, and tax breaks from the State of Washington.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11312819

I'm sure this one will run and run............

[rreis]

I see that the WTO has upheld the EU's protest that the US Government is providing illegal subsidies to Boeing via NASA and Pentagon research contracts, and tax breaks from the State of Washington.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11312819

I'm sure this one will run and run............

How can it be any other way? I mean, Airbus, Boeing, Lockheed, Antonov, all those big enough companies... how can any it be possible for them to live without any touch of goverment money programs in one way or other? Aren't we humans? To a larger or lesser degree they all got their hands soiled one way or the other. Let's stop being naive...

[bdk]

So Airbus/EADS is much more worser than Boeing according to the WTO?

Boeing responds to public reports about WTO interim decision

CHICAGO, Sept. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) today released the following statement, responding to public reports indicating that the WTO panel examining European Union allegations of U.S. government assistance to Boeing has issued a confidential interim ruling rejecting the vast majority of Europe's claims:

"If today's reports are accurate that some $3 billion of the EU's claims were upheld by the WTO, excluding the claims that relate to past programs long ago remedied by Congress, then the ruling amounts to a massive rejection of the EU case and confirms that European launch aid to Airbus stands as the single largest and most flagrant illegal subsidy in the aerospace industry.

"Nothing in today's public reports on the European case against the U.S. even begins to compare to the $20 billion in illegal subsidies that the WTO found last June that Airbus/EADS has received (comprised of $15 billion in launch aid, $2.2 billion in equity infusions, $1.7 billion in infrastructure, and roughly $1.5 billion in targeted research support).

"Nor are there seemingly any violations requiring remedy approaching the scale of remedy required of Airbus/EADS as a result of the WTO's June ruling that European governments must withdraw and remedy the $4 billion in still outstanding illegal launch aid subsidies that Airbus/EADS received for the development of its A380. Billions must be repaid or restructured on proven commercial terms. And, equally, they must remedy the adverse effects of the other $16 billion in illegal subsidies, too.

"Neither do the public reports suggest that Boeing's traditional market based approach to financing new aircraft development will need to change; a distinct contrast to the requirement that Airbus/EADS abandon its plans for financing development of new models such as the A350 through launch aid subsidies.

"Given the shape of today's opinion, as it has been reported, the WTO findings against the US are likely to require few changes in U.S. policies and practices. One of the two principal matters that the WTO is reported to have cited as inconsistent with its rules was long ago remedied by the Congress: general US export tax policy embodied in FSC/ETI. That was litigated at the WTO and remedied last decade. As to the second principal matter – NASA research – we are heartened to read that, contrary to statements earlier today from European sources, three-quarters of the subsidies at issue were found to be wholly compliant with WTO rules.

"Today's ruling underscores our confidence in the WTO processes and dispute-resolution procedures. We applaud the body for its work and continue to look to Airbus/EADS and the EU to recognize that in today's global market, it is essential that everyone play by the rules and abide by the WTO requirements. Playing by the rules, for Airbus/EADS, means withdrawing their still-outstanding A380 prohibited launch aid subsidy and financing the A350 on commercial terms."

SOURCE Boeing

Anyhow, I think this really points out this differences in European governments vs. the US government than it points out differences between Airbus/EADS and Boeing.

[The Inspector]

See what I meant about getting them their own flag?
Now in later on-line articles this guy Kodlick is poo-poo-ing the effect "no, never mind the smoke and flames over there, just listen to the lyre music"

I apologize for the earlier posting from last night but that's the way it was presented on local news, that this had been done a couple of months ago and just now copped to, and it's the Air Force who screwed the pooch, not the DoD.

If you're flying this coming Wednesday, think about showing up @ the airport wearing a kilt commando style-

[JDK]

You couldn't make it up, could you?

[CAPFlyer]

The only possible saving grace is that the bids were tendered in June, before this little gaff. So all the DoD has to do is not issue a "last best" offer or put very stringent guidelines on what they can change in that offer. As it is, if they want to issue this contract anytime soon, they need to just take these offers "as is" and award the contract.

[The Inspector]

JDK,
If you pitched this whole deal to some movie or TV producer, they'd NEVER produce it because it would be "way too 'out there' for the audience to believe". It makes 'AIRPLANE' and 'Blazing Saddles' come across as true to life-

If they fail to complete the contract process as issued including 'last best' then everyone is off to the courts for breech of contract and the replacement tanker will be built in 15 or 20 years..by the Chinese.

[6trn4brn]

Greatgooglymoogly...I just sat here and read all 19 pages of this thinking how intriguing this all was...until this last page (19).

Brings to mind the movie "Law Abiding Citizen"...thought provoking until the final 20 minutes or so...upon seeing the ending I thought "WTF???"

All in all...I have to agree with Randy on this whole stupid thing...knock it off and get the plane to the people who need it so badly.

Money is not the root of all evil...the love of money is- unknown author

[The Inspector]

6trn4brn,

Keep in mind Mel Brooks' line as 'The Gov' in Blazing Saddles' where he told Harvey Korman and Clevon Little that 'the affairs of state take precedent over the affairs of state...'
it all makes sense to us because none of us in an entrenched, self serving politico who would bet against themselves if it meant possibly scoring what they would term a victory.

[bdk]

So Boeing didn't even open the disc, but EADS did and BACKED THE DISC UP and then returned it?

Air Force Acts to Fix Error in Tanker Bid
New York Times 12/01/2010
Author: Christopher Drew
c. 2010 New York Times Company

The Air Force on Tuesday said it had tried to rectify a mixup over a $35 billion tanker contract by deliberately providing two rivals data about each other’s bid.

A spokesman for the Air Force, Col. Les A. Kodlick, said the agency took that unusual step after it realized that one firm, the European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company, had opened a computer file containing some of the data but that its rival, Boeing, had not.

The mixup, which started when the Air Force inadvertently sent each company the wrong data in November, has thrown the long-running effort to replace its aging aerial refueling tankers into turmoil again.

The difference in how the companies handled the data, which emerged from interviews on Tuesday, has stoked Boeing’s concern about whether the process might be tainted. It hinted that it might file a formal protest.

“Until we’re satisfied we have a complete picture, we’re keeping our options open for how we go forward,” said Daniel C. Beck, a Boeing spokesman.

The Air Force said last week that it had reassigned two officials who mistakenly sent compact discs to the companies that contained government assessments of the refueling capacities of their rival’s planes.

At the time, the Air Force said both companies had promptly reported the error and returned the discs and said it saw no reason to halt the bidding.

Colonel Kodlick said Tuesday that forensic investigators had inspected computers at both companies. He said the inspections confirmed that Boeing’s employees had not opened a folder with the data about its competitor’s plane, while an EADS worker had “inadvertently opened” a file containing part of the government’s scoring of Boeing’s bid.

The Air Force then sought to neutralize the difference by resending each firm the other’s data and inviting them to examine it, Colonel Kodlick said.

The Air Force created formulas to compare the planes’ refueling capacities and costs.

Mr. Beck, the Boeing spokesman, said that when two Boeing employees had initially inserted the disc into a laptop, they saw that the name of the folder referred to the EADS tanker.

Mr. Beck said the employees “immediately removed the disc and locked it in a tamper-proof safe without opening any files or viewing any data on the disc.”

Sean O’Keefe, the chief executive of EADS North America, told reporters last week that none of his workers had read documents containing information about Boeing’s bid.

Mr. O’Keefe said Tuesday his worker had stopped at the first page. “As soon as we realized what we had, the disc was backed up and returned to the Air Force,” he said.

Two earlier efforts to award the contract were nullified by accusations of corruption and questions about the bid evaluations.

[bdk]

Do analyst comments portend possible Boeing tanker protest?
Blog: Seattle Post-Intelligencer 11/30/2010
Author: Aubrey Cohen

Defense analyst Loren Thompson leveled some charged allegations Monday in the U.S. Air Force's aerial refueling tanker competition.

Thompson, who has received funding from Boeing, has very publicly backed that company's position in the competition. So his column is interesting not only for its allegations but also to the extent that it might reflect Boeing's thinking.

Thompson focused in on the Air Force's accidental sending of data to Boeing and EADS North America about each other's bids.

"(L)ook a little closer at how the service responded to its mistake, and something more serious begins to emerge: the latest instance in a subtle pattern of bias against the Boeing team," Thompson wrote.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz stated that the two companies had reacted similarly to receipt of the sensitive information, and no proprietary data were disclosed. Both statements were wrong. The EADS recipient had viewed the information, whereas the Boeing recipient had not. Furthermore, the Boeing mission-capable rates reflected in the tables viewed by the EADS employee were indeed based on proprietary data.

Gen. Schwartz may have thought his formulation of what transpired was necessary to keep the tanker competition on track for an award early next year, but when that behavior is just the latest instance in a continuous pattern that always favors one side, the foundation for a legal protest is created. So far in the current competition, the Air Force has: delayed a deadline to help EADS complete its proposal; modified the request for proposals to eliminate secure communications requirements EADS could not meet; permitted EADS to deliver late responses to engineering questions posed by evaluators; employed modeling scenarios that enable the EADS plane to use basing options not available to the Boeing plane; and now mischaracterized the significant competitive advantage EADS received through the improper release of sensitive information.

Thompson also roped in the Pentagon's refusal to consider illegal subsidies to plane makers in the tanker competition as part of what he called "a pattern of bias that stretches all the way back to the beginning of the first tanker competition in 2007, when the service modified its request for proposals in response to a threat by the Northrop-EADS team to withdraw."

I haven't heard back from EADS North America or the Air Force on this yet, but EADS spokesman Guy Hicks told analyst Scott Hamilton: "The moment we recognized that information was sent to us in error we properly secured it and reported to the Air Force."

Hamilton said he pressed Hicks on whether EADS read the document and is awaiting a response.

Commenting on Thompson's piece Tuesday, Hamilton wrote: "In what is a wholly transparent move, Boeing is beginning to lay the groundwork for an appeal in the event EADS wins the KC-X contract.

"Thompson, effectively a Boeing surrogate on all matters KC-X, of course does not list examples of USAF bias toward Boeing as asserted by EADS and the clear record of such bias in the original tanker deal. But that's neither here nor there."