Warbird Information Exchange

Analyst: Boeing's hopes fading for tanker win
Seattle Times 12/07/2010
Author: Dominic Gates
Copyright 2010, The Seattle Times Company All Rights Reserved. Distributed by NewsBank Inc.



Following an inadvertent peek at Defense Department data, Boeing executives believe the Air Force is likely to award the long-awaited tanker contract to Airbus parent company EADS, according to a leading defense analyst with close ties to Boeing.

That view of the feeling inside Boeing is confirmed by two congressional sources familiar with the $40 billion tanker competition.

Citing conversations with several unnamed senior Boeing officials, Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute said Monday the company's hopes faded when Air Force analyses of the two contending airplanes were accidentally leaked to both sides earlier this month.

Those analyses confirmed Boeing's worst fears, Thompson said. They showed the Airbus A330 tanker scoring well ahead of the Boeing 767 tanker in a mission-effectiveness rating.

"The conclusion you come to is that probably Boeing is going to lose this," said Thompson, who has written papers supporting the Boeing bid.

The effectiveness rating is one of three measures used by the Air Force to adjust the bid price for the airplanes. The two others are assumed to favor Boeing's smaller aircraft — military infrastructure construction costs and fuel burn over the entire life-cycle of the program.

But Thompson, backed again by the congressional sources, said the way the Air Force measured those criteria gave Boeing very little advantage over its rival.

"Boeing has told me many times over the last year that the way the Air Force was calculating the cost of fuel and infrastructure had the effect of minimizing the life-cycle costs of the larger plane" from EADS, Thompson said. "They are not very happy with the way in which those things have been calculated."

A congressional source said Boeing believes the Air Force has underestimated the projected cost of jet fuel in the future, thereby lowering the life-cycle fuel costs. And it has chosen 10 airfields for the military infrastructure analysis that Boeing considers unrepresentative of typical space constraints, lowering projected construction costs also.

Much therefore depends on the mission-effectiveness rating, a score derived from a computer model known as IFARA (for Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment) that simulates operational tanker missions.

IFARA rates each airplane's capabilities as a tanker: how much fuel it delivers, how far it flies, how long it can stay on station. It was always clear that the larger A330 would score better than the 767 by this measure.

Earlier this month the Air Force mixed up two computer disks and sent the two companies the IFARA outcome for the other airplane.

EADS opened the IFARA data on the Boeing tanker. While Boeing realized the mistake sooner and sent back the disk without opening the file, the Air Force afterward decided to level the playing field by providing both sides the IFARA data on the other side's plane.

"When (Boeing officials) saw the ratings for the two planes, I think they became downright alarmed," said Thompson.

A congressional source who spoke on condition of anonymity said the data reinforced a growing pessimism among Boeing executives as to the outcome.

"The confirmation of where they stood on IFARA pushes it over the top," said the congressional source.

Another congressional source said that some Boeing supporters are pushing to have the IFARA measure discounted altogether because of the disk mix-up that revealed the data to both sides.

However, this seems very unlikely and would certainly draw a formal protest from EADS.

Boeing's supporters in Congress have also tried to insist that the Air Force add billions of dollars to the EADS bid price in response to a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that Airbus had benefited from illegal government subsidies, including money that directly funded development of the A330.

But the consequences of the subsidies ruling must ultimately be worked out in a WTO process likely to last years, and the Defense Department has repeatedly said that it cannot legally penalize EADS in the interim.

Absent a financial penalty in the tanker competition, EADS will likely underbid Boeing, according to the second congressional source.

Thompson's position was first reported over the weekend by the Press-Register in Mobile, Ala., which is where Airbus plans to build a final assembly facility if it wins the tanker contract.

Both Boeing and EADS declined to comment Monday.

_________________
" excuse me stewardess I speak jive"

On something like this, the "what happened" is usually pretty clear although it's not unusual to hear that it's "not clear" from the PR guys while "damage control" is formulated. It will be interesting to see what caused the failure. Their claim about "1500 hookups and a million pounds of fuel transferred" is all well and good, but I'm not aware of a single failure of this type from the Boeing Jet Boom or the KC-10 Advanced Boom in their entire history and to have a failure of this type (whether failed disconnect or failed stop) on a boom with 1500 connections to its history is kinda scary to me no matter what the cause.

playing games with national defense. I mean, is ANYBODY clean in this whole fiasco?

_________________
"I knew the jig was up when I saw the P-51D-20-NA Mustang blue-nosed bastards from Bodney, and by the way the blue was more of a royal blue than an indigo and the inner landing gear interiors were NOT green, over Berlin."

Just announced- Boeing selected to build next gen tanker-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Wow, I'm actually shocked. But I'm also pleased. The experiences I had fueling UPS A300's really turned me against Airbus (fairly or not is up to you guys.) Don't screw it up Boeing! Get to work and get the fuel flowin!

Naturally the EADS folks will get a knot in their beret and probably try to stir the pot, but I believe the statements just given @ the announcement press conference pretty much translates as 'we're through messing with this'. So I'm certain the Big B will do their part, but of course EADS could sue or pull some sort of rabbit from under their coat, but apparently EADS pretty much offering to give the airplanes away didn't figure in the mix.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

They'll try to find something, but looking at the RFP, the only way there was going to be any complaint was if Boeing lost. Sorry EADS, maybe the KC-45 will get the "KC-Y" contract when it comes up in a few years, but it's just not the plane that the USAF asked for over a decade ago when the KC-X project started.

I have to say that I'm utterly shocked that Boeing won! But there is still time for EADS to protest, perhaps they will? Or they may lay low until the KC-Y & Z come up? Who knows? I wont believe any of it until I start seeing Prats rolling into my shop!

_________________
" excuse me stewardess I speak jive"

Was it a news that the local US politics will achieve they goal by making pressure to make the deal unfair, to protect job in their circonscription ? not really...

The USA want to decide that all their military provider have to be US, right that in the rules. Other countries will plays with the sames rules and we will see who have more to lost playing like that.

Boeing failed by cheating the dealing on the first round after two of their peoples involved went to jail, Fortunatly, the politics where there to save the deal for Boeing.

By the way, when I read this new, I known that on this thread I will found the always same racist comment with stupid assertion about French, European, etc

Just a question, how many time do you travel in Europe, to judge others countries like that ? hum ?

Perhaps, I will open a thread to speak about the trouble of the Dreamliner ? hum, No
It will be stupid and I prefer to let this kind of game to some others.


.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

Last time I "czeched," French or European was not a race, and Boeing built great tankers to last. Its seems to me that Boeing helped liberate Europe from Nazi rule and helped keep the Cold War cold....thus enabling EADS to even exist.

"These are the facts of the case, they are undisputed"

No sore losers.

_________________
Cessna 195

Iclo,
I'm sorry you have taken this position once again, it was a long, arduous campaign fought by both sides like a really top notch tennis match with the finish in suspense right up to the final point. I was under the impression that you were a bigger man than you've shown to be. If EADS had won I would have been gracious in defeat and wished them the best.

As far as trashing the DREAMLINER, it's mistakes, issues, stupid decisions, and substantial numbers of goof ups and booted opportunities, those issues have already been well documented in this general forum. Having personally been so close to getting the first few airplanes on their feet and out the door, I can tell you with certainty that the majority of the physical issues with the 787 revolve around two distinct separate issues the first issue is with one of the selected engines so that problem belongs to Rolls Royce and the folks @ Crewe sucked it up and are busting their fannies to re design and correct the engine's issues. Structural and design issues as well as lackluster and shoddy and slipshod manufacturing issues land squarely on the shoulders of the 'I don't care, I have a job for life' "partners" in Europe who reminded me every day of why FIATS were no longer sold in the U.S.

If you intend to try to pound on the 787 because of problems and design issues remember, the only input Boeing had in the design of the parts owned, designed, engineered, and made by the world wide partners amounted to 'it needs to be this big by this long, it needs to fit into that part, how you get there is up to you'. Boeing is starting to realize that they've made a huge mistake by not maintaining control over the design and contracting out the assembly of those parts and assemblies (as they traditionally have done in the past clear back to the 707) by going 'all in' on one world manufacturing and by listening to the surplussed Long Beach bean counters (sorry BDK) who sold the idea like time share condominiums or junk bonds to bankers,or pitchmen @ the State Fair selling miracle knives that will slice a brick and a tomato, now they aren't able to buy the rights back because they don't own them, they will never reach a mutually agreeable price to buy the production from the 'partner' because the new price will always be two Drachma or three Euros more than the preliminary agreement was. So Boeing will have to live with third rate sub assemblies that will take years or decades to get better as far as quality, or gear up and start producing a separate line of parts and assemblies (and building new facilities in the U.S.). One major fuselage assembly from the supplier in Europe was crushed and disposed of in South Carolina because it's quality was so poor there was no economical way to make it work.

They've already said 'this won't happen on the next airplane'.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Dear Sir or ma'am

I have yet to see any racist comments in this thread! Please understand most Americans are very aware and are cognizant of racism and all things dealing with race! While it may not be known world wide we (Americans) have tried very hard to make race a non issue! Please refer to our current president! So I as an American I take offense to your assertion that this thread is based on racist views!

–noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Use racist in a Sentence
See images of racist
Search racist on the Web
Origin:
1865–70; < French racisme. See race2 , -ism



Please do! I dont think there will be many people that will argue with you about the train wreck the 787 has been! There have been other cutting edge aircraft that have had their problems (Comet, A380). The main problem with the 787 is that Boeing entrusted its suppliers to develop and build parts and components that are of quality with minimum and maximum tolerances.


So please sir or ma'ma tread lightly when you say racist to an American!

_________________
" excuse me stewardess I speak jive"

You're not aware? Oh, that means it's never happened? Why don't you do some research first before posting? There's plenty of failures of Boeing jet boom systems out there.