| HeraldNet - Snohomish County's online news source |
 SUNDAY, MARCH 21, 2010 2:05 am |
||||||||||
 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
Business 
|
|||||||||
Boeing now favored to win tanker, experts say Everett-built KC-767 likely will be Air Force’s choice, aviation experts say LYNNWOOD — Three out of three analysts agree: The Boeing Co. likely will land the U.S. Air Force tanker contract.“Boeing will get the first round,” said Michel Merluzeau, managing partner with G2 Solutions. Boeing’s “767 is going to be the winner of a competition.” Merluzeau spoke Tuesday at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance annual conference in Lynnwood. Analysts Richard Aboulafia, with the Teal Group, and Scott Hamilton, with Issaquah-based Leeham Co., also agreed that Boeing is poised to win the roughly $35 billion tanker contest. Doing so would secure Boeing jobs on the 767 line here in Everett for years into the future. Boeing is competing against duo Northrop Grumman and EADS for the contract to replace the Air Force’s aging KC-135 aerial refueling tanker fleet. The Air Force said Monday that it won’t release its final requirements until Feb. 23 at the earliest. This is the Air Force’s third try at awarding the contract, and it’s the first in a series of three competitions the Pentagon plans to hold. Boeing’s chances at winning the tanker contract could get a significant boost if Washington’s Rep. Norm Dicks succeeds Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as chairman of a powerful House appropriations defense subcommittee. Murtha, who died Monday, had been a strong supporter of splitting the Air Force contract between Boeing and Northrop. Murtha’s death “was the tipping point,” the Teal Group’s Aboulafia said. “This is ... a slam dunk” for Boeing. Dicks is now the senior Democrat on the committee and is expected to be chosen by the House Democratic Caucus to succeed Murtha. He is a strong Boeing supporter and the company is atop the list of his campaign contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Northrop Grumman was also a major Dicks contributor, according to the nonpartisan organization. Boeing offered the Air Force a tanker based on its Everett-built 767 jet in the last contest. The Air Force, however, initially selected the larger KC-30 tanker, based on an Airbus A330 airplane, offered by Northrop and EADS. But the Pentagon halted the contract after government auditors found flaws in the contest. The Air Force released a fresh draft of requirements for the tanker last fall. Northrop’s chief executive Wes Bush has complained that the new rules favor Boeing’s smaller KC-767 aircraft. The company has threatened to drop out of the competition unless the Pentagon makes significant changes to the final requirements. Analyst Hamilton doesn’t think the Air Force will make those changes. He agrees with Northrop’s Bush that the Air Force seems to want Boeing’s KC-767 this time around. “I do think there is a high likelihood that Northrop will not bid,” he said. That would pave the way for a Boeing win. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told members of Congress last week that the contest will proceed even if Northrop and EADS drop out. Although Northrop looks to be on the losing end of this contest, don’t count the defense contractor or the KC-30 out of future contests, Merluzeau said. The Air Force showed a clear preference for the KC-30 in the previous round, he said. “I don’t think the KC-30 will go away,” he said. |
- Boeing may have to battle Russians, EADS for tanker contract
- Teen guilty of drunken driving, fleeing scene of wreck that injured officer
- Lynnwood finance director storms out of City Council meeting
- Washington, New Mexico hurt by East Coast bias?
- Silvertips rally, score OT win in playoff opener
- Lynnwood man arrested for alleged groping
- Police look for suspect in shooting of man in groin
- Supporters, foes of various tax increases fight to be heard in Olympia
- Sex offender who fled Arlington halfway house sentenced to 5 years
- Hatloe resigns as Everett city council VP
- Lynnwood finance director storms out of City Council meeting
(11) - Boeing may have to battle Russians, EADS for tanker contract (11)
- Teen guilty of drunken driving, fleeing scene of wreck that injured officer (11)
- Racist epithets fly at tea party health protest (10)
- Help revitalize Reiter Foothills (6)
- Supporters, foes of various tax increases fight to be heard in Olympia (3)
- State House votes to boost cigarette taxes by $1 a pack (3)
- State Senate trims sales tax increase in proposal (3)
- 15 arrested for drunken driving on St. Patrick's Day (2)
- Monroe girl guilty of murder in Sultan gang slaying (2)
- Archbishop Murphy graduate happy to be in San Jose
- Troupe improv-ment
- Best finish ever for Mavs
- Local businesses clean for a reason
- Edmonds Art Walk opens 9th year March 18
- Lynnwood girls wrap up at state
- Lynnwood wants outsider to review budget
- SKCC presents premiere of Jenkins’ composition
- Boeing to Offer NewGen Tanker to US Air Force
- New CEO at Valley General Hospital
- Dan Koffman's ‘TopSpin' marketing astounds, inspires, motivates, produces — just for starters
- Economic forecasts for Snohomish County, Everett, Marysville offer some bright moments
- Government officials influencing home prices
- Massive EPA energy regulations meet challenge
- Washington state healthcare reforms also needed
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
| TODAY'S TOP JOBS |
| View All Top Jobs |
| Top Cars |
|
| Top Homes |
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
|
|
|Contact Us
|Advertiser Services
|Home Delivery
|Newsstand Locations
|Classifieds
|Feedback
|About the Company
|Work@the Herald
|Site Map |
|
COMMENTS
Log in or register to post a new comment.
To read other terms and conditions, click here
Ever since the last announcement, moments before the economy tanked, everything has changed.
It is no more about what the airforce wants, but it is ALL about saving jobs within the USA. Makes sense to me. i doubt any President, REB-or-DEM is going to shift Jobs overseas as happily as Bush wanted done.
However, no doubt this will also secure thousands of Union Jobs at Boeing & promote hundreds of others into even higher paying management positions ---because God knows (& so does Boeing) you can't have enough management (AKA: Republicans) at $200,000/yr to make sure the job gets done.
cme everett | Feb 10, 2010 2:49 am | 1 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Hey, Ms CME, do you have a life?????
Omar Bradley | Feb 12, 2010 5:03 am | Request removal
a the Lazy B at it again. hey, gimme some money!!
Omar Bradley | Feb 12, 2010 5:01 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Compare and contrast:
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20100205.htm?T
[refer to link for actual graph]
Chart of the Day
Today, the Labor Department reported that nonfarm payrolls (jobs) decreased by 20,000 in January. Today's chart puts that decline into perspective by comparing job losses following the beginning of the current economic recession (solid red line) to that of the last recession (dashed gold line) and the average recession from 1950-1999 (dashed blue line). As today's chart illustrates, the current job market has suffered losses that are more than triple as much as what occurs at the lows of the average recession/job loss cycle. It is also worth noting that 25 months after an average recession/job loss cycle began during the second half of the 20th century, the job market recouped all losses and was already in process of adding new jobs. At the same 25 month mark during the 21st century, the job market was still suffering losses.
Mark Nagel | Feb 11, 2010 5:13 pm | 1 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Sorry, this was meant for
Jobless claims figures raise hopes for recovery
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100211/BIZ/702119860/1005#Jobless.claims.figures.raise.hopes.for.recovery
NOTE: There appears to be a bug with the Herald's posting mechanism whereby if you have multiple pages up and then log in it gets confused.
I now return you to your discussion that's totally disconnected from reality. Have fun beating on one-another while the MICFC (Military Industrial Congressional Finance Complex) further enslaves you...
Mark Nagel | Feb 11, 2010 5:19 pm | Request removal
The first competition was open, fair, and transparent. Both bidders were allowed to choose their best offering for the Air Force. (Who believes that Boeing really didn't know what the USAF was looking for?) Boeing offered their 767, while NG/EADS offered the KC-30. The USAF recognized the advantages of the KC-30 and was allowed to give extra credit to those advantages. The USAF had to make the very difficult and unpopular decision of awarding the project to a mostly non-domestic joint venture, based solely on technical and commercial factors.
Enter the factor of politics. The focus became how can we get this project awarded to the domestic company but appear to have a competition, knowing that the 767 can't beat the KC-30 head to head in an open competition? Two choices; rewrite the specs so that they favor the 777 or water down the specs so that no credit is given to the KC-30. The 777 is too risky because the lack of prior design and operation. So they went with choice number two; water down the specs so that the 767 looks like it just fits the bill and that KC-30 is just a bit too much. And don't allow extra credit where an offering exceeds the requirements.
Funny sticking point, though. How was it that the smaller less capable 767 ended up being more expensive than the more capable KC-30? How is it that magically the 767 will end up being less expensive on the second go-round? (And we aren't just talking about the fact that Boeing was able to get NG/EADS prior pricing, but the same accommodation was not provided to NG/EADS. Please don't mention the BS that the law allows the loser to see the winners bid. That applies to awards that are not going to be rebid. Once the rebid was announced, both bidders should have been treated the same, since there was no winner and no loser.)
American Taxpayer | Feb 11, 2010 7:08 am | 6 replies | Request removal
Post reply
If you think politics wasn't involved in the last selection you are fooling yourself. On more than one occassion EADS threatended to pull out of the competition unless the Air Force changed it's requirements. The Air Force would then change it's requirements after being leaned on heavily by Senator McCain and others.
Why do you think they got that extra credit for the extra fueling, cargo, and passenger capacity?!?! Why do you think the award was later overturned?!?!?!??!
It's low information voters like you that are bringing this country down. Do some investigation before you make a post full of made up facts.
John Harsey | Feb 11, 2010 8:56 am | Request removal
"Why do you think they got that extra credit for the extra fueling, cargo, and passenger capacity?!?!"¯
Why not give extra credit for things that are superior? That is what we do in the real world. (You are aware of the real world, aren't you?)
"Why do you think the award was later overturned?!?!?!??!"¯
Simple: P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.
American Taxpayer | Feb 11, 2010 9:09 am | Request removal
"Why not give extra credit for things that are superior? That is what we do in the real world. (You are aware of the real world, aren't you?)"
You really are stupid. The original RFP specifically stated that extra credit would not be given and yet after EADS whined about it and threatened to not bid the Air Force changed course and gave them the extra credit.
This is precisely why EADS is threatening to not bid now. The RFP as written does not favor them so they want the Air Force to "substantially change" the RFP again just like they did last time or they won't bid.
One of the primary factors for the GAO ruling in Boeing's favor was due to the extra credit being given when it was specifically stated it would not.
You are just a shill for the Euro's and are spouting known falsehoods.
John Harsey | Feb 11, 2010 12:31 pm | Request removal
I think I see why you are having such difficulty grasping this. You're hung up on how to manipulate the RFP to favor a particular supplier. Let's focus on the final product.
Let me simplify it for you.
Let's say you want to purchase vehicles to haul softball players and equipment to games. You ask two companies to bid, and they go to a lot of time and expense in preparing a proposal for you. You get a bid for a hatchback and for a mini-van. The hatchback meets all of your requirements (as would expect it to since you tailored your specs to the hatchback), but so does the mini-van. You then notice that the proposed mini-van also has lots of features that exceed your minimum requirements and are not found on the hatchback. In addition, it carries more players and more gear which will allow you to purchase fewer vehicles or make fewer trips. Now, would you still purchase the hatchback if it cost the same (or more) than the mini-van? If the mini-van costs more, you would have to make what we call a "value judgment"¯. Is the increase in cost worth the extra features? Ignoring best value is not a good way to make important purchases. Would you force yourself to buy the hatchback because you had originally planned to buy a hatchback, even though you know that the mini-van is a better value?
Of course, everything I wrote is true. I am aware that the RFP is being geared to favor the Boeing plane; I think everybody is aware of that. I am talking about getting the best plane for the war fighter. If the two planes had equal domestic content and were both considered "American"¯, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Assembly of the KC-30 would have already started in the Alabama. If the USAF had a choice between these two planes without regard to price, unions, and nationality; they would choose the KC-30 in a millisecond. In fact, they already did.
American Taxpayer | Feb 11, 2010 1:57 pm | Request removal
Your analogy is horseshit. The Air Force put forth a set of requirements against which to judge the competitors bids. From the very beginning both sides were told that that extra credit would not given if your bid went above and beyond the stated requirement. The requirements last time were aimed for an equivalent replacement to the existing tanker which is smaller than both the 767 and the A330. Boeing hence bid a 767 which was larger than the existing tanker but still met all of the requirements. Your A330 was much larger and does have the side benefits that you laid out BUT THE AIR FORCE SAID NO EXTRA CREDIT WOULD BE GIVEN FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course we all know by now that EADS whined because they wanted to sell their A330 to the Air Force and not one of their smaller planes that actually fit the requirements. They whined and complained and threatened to not bid and when the POLITICIANS leaned heavily on the Air Force to keep it a 2 bid competition, the Air Force caved and allowed the extra credit.
The A330 only got selected because of the extra credit allowed. Extra credit that was not a part of the initial ground rules. This is why the GAO overturned the A330 selection.
The current RFP once again calls for a smaller airplane. Boeing could bid a 777 or a 767 but since the Air Force wants a smaller airplane Boeing will most likely go with a 767. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PREVENTING EADS FROM BIDDING A SMALLER AIRPLANE AS WELL! The A330 isn't the only plane they sell afterall.
If you still can't see logic then go ahead and post another idiotic comment and you can have the final say on the matter.
John Harsey | Feb 11, 2010 2:33 pm | Request removal
Like I said you need to get past manipulating the RFP and look at which offering is better. Remember, better is better. And if better is at the same price or close to it, then the prudent person chooses better.
I say let the USAF choose better. Why not, it's the plane they chose and it's the plane they want.
American Taxpayer | Feb 11, 2010 3:14 pm | Request removal
Frankly, there never should be a question as to how taxpayer money will be spent on American equipment made by American workers. Boeing has "gone global" that's for sure, but allowing Airbus/EADS to have access to military information and technology is foolish at the very least and dangerous to our military.
CC At the Big B | Feb 10, 2010 6:39 am | 1 replies | Request removal
Post reply
"Frankly, there never should be a question as to how taxpayer money will be spent on American equipment made by American workers."
WHAT?
I should have NO input as to how MY tax dollars are spent?
You're lobbying for extortion, that of the return to pre-revolutionary days...
Please define what "American equipment" means. Most companies are integrators, assemblers. Most of the pieces that go into the things that we think are "American equipment" are comprised of stuff from all over the globe. And then there's the issue of the raw materials that go into any manufacture of the based components (or the energy)- much is imported: all the self-sufficiency energy folks will be a bit disheartened to know that China possesses most of the world's rare earth materials. Oh, and what about the Japanese manufacturers manufacturing in the US? AND, conversely, what about US factories operating all over the globe, in OTHER people's countries?
You see, going "protectionist" leads to some troubling pathways...
You're all flogging at the branches, completely missing the root of the issues (because if you actually went to the root you'd see that what you're asking for is impossible).
Mark Nagel | Feb 11, 2010 2:07 am | Request removal
It's like Easter Island. Instead of carving meaningless phallic-like statues (meaningless in the picture of sustaining life), we're building flying phallic-like statues.
The real terror is from the congressional-military-industrial-prison complex. When our laws are all eroded and we're completely whiped out financially (thanks to the last couple of administrations), then what?
The War On Terror has been no more than a smokescreen to shield the rich of Wall Street from their plundering- they took the loot and the jobs. (but in a way they did us a favor, as declining energy was going to do us [our grow-or-die way of life] in).
More money to the banksters. More money to the energy cartel. More money to the mob, er a, the "Defense" industry. Welcome to slavery, debt slavery, get used to it...
Mark Nagel | Feb 11, 2010 1:56 am | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
This is about how many Congressmen and Senators were paid off!
Disgusting!
Kelly Nichols | Feb 10, 2010 8:10 pm | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
He is a strong Boeing supporter and the company is atop the list of his campaign contributors.
Enough said.
Grumpa | Feb 10, 2010 8:02 pm | 0 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Folks, how can you be suggesting that it’s imperative that we allow foreign companies to bid for the AF Tanker contract so that Boeing et al (US companies) will be allowed to bid on foreign contracts?! Are you not aware of the A400M program? It was handed to EADS/Airbus; no “foreign” bidders were allowed. The EU is actively doing exactly what you’re saying the US shouldn’t do! I’m all for the EU finally stepping up to the plate and carrying their fair share of the load of world defense spending; something they have never been willing to do in the past, instead leaving the US with the bulk of that load (in both treasure and blood, by the way). The EU has no right to use US tax moneys to build up their military industrial complex (mostly EADS now).
Why do you think it’s OK for the EU to keep their defense dollars in the EU, but it’s not OK for the US to do that (or were you just not aware of that)? Yes, the EU buys US weapons but that’s because they have to if they want the best; the US produces the most sophisticated military equipment because the US has outspent the EU on defense for many years.
Oh, and by the way, analysts thought Boeing was a slam dunk the last time around. Why, because the AF RFP SPECS favored the smaller B767 over the A330. That’s the reason the GAO “overturned” the award; the Air Force ignored their own RPF SPECS! It appears the “new” RFP is similar to the original, which favored the B767. After the last fiasco, I expect the AF will not dare ignore their own RFP SPECS again. But then there are still all those lobbyists and politicians in the mix; who knows; logic hasn’t applied to this sorry saga in the past!
GarryGR BoeingRetiree | Feb 10, 2010 1:15 pm | 2 replies | Request removal
Post reply
The two main tanker A/C in the USAF's inventory are the KC-135 and the KC-10. This procurement is for a replacement for the KC-135, the smaller of the 2 A/C. As noted elsewhere, if the RFP called for a KC-10 replacement, Boeing would bid the 777. AirBus doesn't have a plane to fit the requirements of the smaller KC-135 replacement, so they cry that the RFP is biased against them. Go away and come back when the KC-10 is replaced. (And then lose that procurement to the vastly more superior 777!)
Mel Johnson | Feb 10, 2010 3:56 pm | Request removal
This has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. The way I look at it is that I don't want to pay a billion more in taxes to build and operate a new airplane plant in Alabama when there is a production line already putting out tankers in Seattle. Let's support the Alabama economy some other way that is more efficient.
Larry Schultz | Feb 10, 2010 4:14 pm | Request removal
How can any U.S. Business demand to be allowed to compete on contracts globally if foreign businesses, even when they meet the requirements to compete in the U.S., the playing field is still tilted that they are excluded from competing, in this case to the point that it is not worth competing?
It is nice to say you are protecting jobs or curating jobs now but at the same time you have to be able to maintain those jobs in the long run! Before the contract to the U.S. Government runs out Boeing will eventually have to be able to sell this product outside the U.S. like most of the products its sells now?
What will be the answer then if Boeing is excluded in the same way globally?
James Jenson | Feb 10, 2010 7:12 am | 1 replies | Request removal
Post reply
Northrop/EADS is not excluded. The only product they are willing to enter into the competition doesn't fit the requirements. Boeing opened the possibility of offering the 777, that is if the RFP favored a larger tanker. Northrop/EADS is asking the USAF to change what it requires to what they are offering. That makes sense?
michael palmer | Feb 10, 2010 1:24 pm | Request removal