Warbird Information Exchange

LMFAO

_________________
S.

If there is another protest of this contract... I'm going to freaking go insane. The folks flying need a plane that can be on station NOW, not in 50 years when everyone is going to be freaking happy about this stupid deal.

The plane that best fit the description of what the USAF wanted won. SIMPLE AS THAT. There are much more important things in life. If you guys want to bicker back and forth about this, that is your prerogative, but don't expect me to keep reading anymore. I think it is down right stupid that you all have to keep jabbing at each other. I have seen it happening more and more over recent months and recent threads. I don't know if its because of the stupid weather, changes in the tides, changes in the earth's freaking orbit or what. But you all need to realize that we are all on the same side of this, at least I hope we are. There is nothing left to do but start building the stupid planes so that the pilots who are in need of fuel can get it, END OF STORY. The whole idea that this whole situation was just a political debacle is true. But it is now over. I suggest that we declare it over on here as well. One thing you have to learn very quickly about debates, the debaters will almost never change their minds, even when faced with insurmountable evidence against their stance. For the sake of the health of the forum, sometimes people just need to walk away from their keyboards, get a cup of Starbucks, go for a walk, go watch Gu-11s flying by the beach... whatever it takes to cool off, just keep the stupidity off of here.

And now that my rant is over, I'm going to take my own advice. I'm headed to go get coffee so I can maybe make it through the rest of this weekend of trying to help my family get through yet another tragic loss.

I'M BEING GOOD ZANE!

_________________
"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."

DavidBray,

Thank you for giving me the ability to exit this nearly three year journey gracefully, I'm with you the contest is over and the winner selected. I am hopeful that my inputs when read as an entire body will show that my basic intent was to make sure we as a nation got the best product for the dollar invested. As I have said, if EADS had won I was OK with that, Boeing has apparently won, so I'm good with that.

I may continue to check in on this thread but officialy, I'm done. Those of you with whom I have sparred can do a victory lap around the block, go buy yourself a beer, pour the beer down the front of your pants, or in some other way celebrate the fact that I got tired of arguing with you. You eventually have to give up trying when it seems that you are yelling at the tide like King Harold.

I will leave you to your own thoughts in this matter, I am just glad it appears to finally be at an end.

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

The Inspector: it's your choice to give up and preffer not to answer to the argument presented....

Regards

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

I'm not aware that Boeng cheated. What happened is that a Boeing executive discussed the possibility of a job with a USAF executive after she retired in an e-mail. Basically the USAF executive and the Boeing executive violated ethics rules that Europe likely does not even have. I think the law is that a defense contractor cannot offer a job to a former USAF employee until at least a year has passed. There was never a suggestion that Boeing used the relationship between those two executives to influence any decisions. This was not corruption, it was a violation of an obscure ethics rule (not obscure any more due to this case).

Furthermore, if I have my facts straight (beware, that is coming from my highly faulty memory), Senator John McCain undid the deal because he didn't want the tanker contract terms to be a "lease to own." Boeing proposed this so that the USAF could achieve capability sooner, a common offering for commercial aircraft. The ethics scandal didn't break until after the USAF executive had already been retired for a year and was an employee of Boeing's.

Didn't EADS protest the first tanker award to Boeing (the lease deal) because they had not even been asked to participate? John McCain has always been very vocal (anti-Boeing) since this whole tanker deal started. Where is McCain now? I'm surprised he hasn't popped up to further his vendetta against Boeing and unravel things.

If Northrop had thought the Airbus tanker had a chance of being selected, based upon the merits of the Boeing protest, why did they drop out? Sounds like something unfair was perpetrated against Boeing, doesn't it?

Most of the press I read in the final days said that EADS was going to win. I was cautiously optimistic, but I didn't think that Boeing would be selected.

Also someone mentioned I think that the 787 was not being made in Washington state? There are two factories, one in Washington state and the other in Charleston, South Carolina. I will admit that a lot of people I knew laughed at Airbus over the A380 delays, but I was not one of them. I knew that the 787, being more technologically advanced, had a high risk of this as well. The complex supplier relationships has only added to the problem. We can draw many parallels here, including some of the difficulties with the A400M. The A400M seems to combine technical challenges with the political intrigue!

Sorry if my thoughts are a bit all over the map here...

Was she judged and sentenced ? yes or not ?


Free assertion. What do you know about Europe and our ethics ?


Do you think that could persuade us that this women was sentenced to 9 months of jails, to have simply break a rules, without any interesset ? Are you serious ?



Ok, so for you, if you break the rules, and don't be catch at this time, it's not a trouble.



The deal was break because the financial condition were so much in the Boeing interest that was clear that the deal was unfair and oriented.


Because no company in the world can afford to lose money during years and years. Northrop simply understand that the game is unfair and politics and decide to stop losing money.


Strange why so much people where sure that EADS product will have to win, if their product are so bad ?
Thank a lot to bring argument to prove that the deal was unfair, and piloted by local politics.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

Wow. Look at the venom coming from Europe when they loose.....

Funny, I don't remember us complaining and having this much vitriol when Australia picked the MRTT. Nor when the Brits did or the Indians. Hell, I think most people said "good for them".

Now, EADS looses the competition fair and square and all we get is vitriol.

Let's go through a few things -

1) Boeing did not "cheat" on the first competition. If they had, they lost anyway. See #3

2) Boeing did not "cheat" in the first issuance of the KC-X contract (there was no competition, it was non-competitively awarded as a single-source contract, just as has been done for several other projects for the Air Force and Navy - the last 3 carriers have been awarded by this method), Congress overruled the USAF's decision when they did not fund the program (which they are legally allowed to do), and then later on (over a year) an ethics issue is found, 2 people go to jail, another person is fired, and Congress mandates that a competition be held for the KC-X.

3) The USAF posted a Request for Proposals (RPF) for the KC-X. That RFP said that they wanted an aircraft of a certain size, certain offload, and certain performance based on the KC-135. Initially, only Boeing bid on it because between the US acquisition rules over foreign companies because EADS didn't believe they could make any money on an A300 MRTT. After Congress threatened to invalidate any award that was given to Boeing because no one else competed, the USAF told Airbus that they could indeed submit their A330 and be given a fair shake in the competition. However, the USAF failed to tell Boeing this information. They also told Airbus that they'd get bonus points for exceeding the specifications in the RFP, something the acquisition rules and the RFP specifically said the USAF was not to do.

4) The USAF awards the contract to EADS. After the debriefing, Boeing submits a challenge to the award with the GAO on the basis that the EADS submission was given extra points for exceeding the specifications and that was in violation of the rules. In addition, Boeing contests that EADS was told in writing that they could exceed the specifications and get bonus points for such by the USAF and such instructions were not transmitted to Boeing at the same time, also a violation of the rules. Interestingly enough, just a few months earlier - Boeing had a contract award removed for the EXACT SAME THING when the CSAR-X award was reversed by the GAO because the USAF had given extra points to Boeing for their HH-47G which was twice the size specified in the RFP, flew twice as far as the RFP required, and carried twice the payload of the other submissions.

5) The USAF re-bids the KC-X project. This time, they change the specifications some, but not substantially, simply reinforcing the statement that no additional points will be given for exceeding the requirements. Northrop-Grumman chooses to not bid because they don't think they can win if the USAF sticks to its scoring rules this time and they are having other financial issues that make such a re-bid questionable. EADS North America asks for and receives permission to enter as its own contractor. Boeing doesn't complain. EADS and Boeing both submit their bids on time, even with the issue of EADS opening data not intended for them even after they knew it wasn't for them, a major breach of protocol and ethics.

Until the full award statements are released on Monday, we won't know why Boeing won, but unless there are major failures in the scoring process, EADS isn't going to have anything to stand on and the GAO has already proven several times they don't care who protests a win, they're not going to bow to political pressure. They upheld the awarding of the VH-X (Presidential Helicopter) to the Lockheed/EADS team for the US-101 (even though it later got canceled after the project became unfeasible when the decision was to make it a flying communications bunker) and has upheld the wins for other "joint ventures" that have been listed before that were also protested because of their "foreign involvement".

Very basic assertion.



These deals where unfair ? If they are fair, you have no reason to complain.


Don't wait positive comment when you cheat...



The first deal was so in favour in Boeing, that as your say, the Congress block the deal to avoid to spent much money than needed in a unfair deal.
The real fact of the cheat were discovered later: without these internal deal "provide me a job when I left the army and I will make pressure to insure that you receive the contract." Boeing had never received the first deal. It's simple...
That you continue to said that Boeing didn't cheat on this first deal, is stupid. You recognised the fact that 3 peoples where charged to cheat but in the same time, don't agree that there is a cheat. Very, very funny.


The description of the plane needed, was so based on the Boeing product, that was impossible to other company to come and win the contract.
With a good control of the requirements writing, you are sure to win.



And in what it's the fault of EADS if the USAF doesn't follow its own rules.
By the way, it's very strange to refuse product better than expected.


Good strategy from Boeing. As already said: when you know that the opponents has a better product, you simply insure that the requirements match the specification of your product.


If a financial fight: the first company who could no afford to continue loosing money loose.
It was a very bad Day for Boeing when they discover that EADS continue on its own, without Northrop.


And why they could have complaining ? hum ? It's not to be fait, simply that there was no legal issue about that.


About what do you speak ? Could you explain to us... ?


Yes, no political pressure at all, no Congress man creating website to explain that they will make everything they want to protect Boeing market and US worker.


Same tradition: when a foreing contractor wins a bid, find a solution to cancel the bid.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

I think the US should reverse its decision and give the contract to Airbus because they are such a groovy company and Europe is so much more politically superior and less racist than the US. And people in Europe never cheat.

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

And how do you come about "knowing" before even the full findings are released that the KC-X decision wasn't fair?



Assertion by you, not by facts in record or testimony on the issue. Congress never said it was an "unfair" deal, they said they didn't want it to be a lease-to-own and that they wanted a competition, not single-source selection.



And you can prove this? Again - this information is not from facts on record. Nothing that has been released to the public in court documents, Congressional testimony, and otherwise shows any verifiable link between the ethics violation and the original lease deal.



Umm... Airbus still has the A300 which I've said again and again, had Airbus actually wanted to compete by the rules laid out, they would have offered an A300-based tanker and not an A330-based one as they did.



Because, in legal terms, the award was "fruit of the poisonous tree". In other words, because the award was gained from the USAF breaking its own rules, the award itself is invalid. Just as you buying a car someone else stole still means you loose the car, you don't get to keep a contract that was improperly awarded.



"Better" is a subjective term. Bigger isn't always better. In this case, the need isn't for the biggest tanker available, it's for one that is the right size for the job. By your logic, the USAF should buy nothing but B-52's because "bigger" is "better" and thus there's not a need for all those expensive little fighters and multirole attack aircraft. In fact, why in the world is the Navy buying all these Destroyers when all they need is a fleet of carriers able to carry a fleet of B-52s?


Good strategy from Boeing. As already said: when you know that the opponents has a better product, you simply insure that the requirements match the specification of your product.[/quote]

Again, you're using "better" in a very subjective way. By the specification in all of the RFP's released, the A-330 was simply "bigger", not necessarily "better" because the USAF itself said that it wasn't "better" for certain items in the specification being exceeded.



They could have complained that even though EADS North America meets the basic requirements, it's still controlled by a foreign entity and thus should be excluded. But the politics of the situation and Boeing's own feeling that their offer was better meant that they didn't.



From EADS North America's own mouth. They opened and looked at the data, even if it was just the first page. This occurred even though the files were named in such a way that Boeing was apparently able to recognize it wasn't the right information and the USAF had already informed EADS of the error after Boeing alerted the USAF of the error.



Congressmen can do whatever they want to lobby for a position. That's their privilege. But the GAO is not part of Congress, and they've proven in the past to not be swayed by Congress or the services by their repeated reversal of incorrect bidding awards and supporting of correct ones and always having good evidence and reason behind the decisions.



You're really that naive and petty? Really? I guess then the WTO and UN are pro-America too? You really show that you have no interest in the truth by that last statement because you ignore the multiple statements by those of us on this forum and multiple factual references we give on cases where foreign companies successfully bid on contracts and give that kind of bull.

Good day, I'm done as well.

The reality is really simple: you don't want the good product, you want an US product.
Point at the line...

Be honest and assume this fact...

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

One more time: Boeing cheated on the first deal, if the deal have to be fair, the complete company would be excluded on the complete deal. Finishe, Bye bye.
It's so simple to say that was this individual who was corrupted, fire him, and restart the whole thing. With this kind of rule, you can try to cheat infinitly, until that finishe by working.


Using the illegal internal contact, Boeing try to win a bid, without full fill the need of the USAF. Call that cheat, bad bid, or what you want. It was not a good deal.
Boeing achieved to charge individuals to escape the trouble. It's your problem, if you are enough naive to think that the Boeing company is not behind these illegal contact...


One more time, why these people went to jail ? to have plan holliday with some folks from Boeing ? If the details were not available to the public, It's simply because the whole story smells really bad for Boeing: charge the people to protect the company.


Good try, if EADS have come with an A300 based solution, you have surely said: "Holly craps, these stupid Europeans try to sell to us outdated product".





First Bid: Boeing cheated
Second Bid, USAF didn't follow the rules.
When EADS has cheatted, please ?


It's funny, but in normal country, when your car is stolen before the delivery, it's not your trouble, but the problem of the supplier. If the second bid didn't follow the rules, It was not the responsability of EADS.




In this case, why people in charge of the evaluation have try to retain bonus for these "inexistant" better capabilities ?


Yes, you can put rules saying that USAF can only buy product from US company. It's could be the choice of your countries. But don't complain when the others countries will play with the same rules. Are you sure that our military company could survive with only selling their products in the USA ? Good luck with that.
I have the feeling that in coming decade the US will have more difficulties to sell their planes in Europe. Stupid game ? Sure, but USA started it...



One more time, it'was an USAF error, not EADS, so why this fact will have to play in defavour of EADS ?


If it's legal to politics to do things to disturbe a deal, how could you say the deal is fair ?
How could you demonstrate that political actions didn't affect the deal ?
If we following you, it's legal to make pressure, assuming that pressure have no impact...
Very funny....


From where come the complain about this deals ?
What were the declaration of the US competitors who lost the deal ?

EADS wins the bid, and politics came to say that bid have to be cancelled because the winner is not US.
One more time: put in your rules that only US company can bid, and we play the same rules...

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

The whole issue boils down to the fact that the A330 (KC-45) fails to meet all of the requirements of the proposal, and that you feel that the Americans should relax those requirements to give the A330 (KC-45) an unfair edge. Did I get that right?

_________________
If God had wanted man to fly behind a flat motor, Pratt Whitney would've built one.