Boeing to challenge U.S. Air Force tanker decision

Source: Reuters

Boeing to challenge U.S. Air Force tanker decision
Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:46pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Boeing Co said on Monday it would
formally challenge a decision by the U.S. Air Force to award
a $35 billion aerial tanker program to a team led by Northrop
Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS.

"This is an extraordinary step rarely taken by our company,
and one we take very seriously," said Jim McNerney, Boeing
chairman, president and chief executive officer, in a
statement.

Boeing said it would ask the Government Accountability Office,
the investigative arm of Congress, on Tuesday to review the
February 29 decision that has triggered outrage from some
lawmakers sympathetic to Boeing and unhappy that a European
company was selected over an American one.

-snip-

"We look forward to the GAO's review of the decision," he said.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1050063320080310

are complete idiots to hand them the contract.
They're going to find out that in will soon be broke...and won't afford a huge military machine the BANKSTERS were hoping for.

In light of the 767 tanker leasing fiasco, giving Boeing this contract would have sent the message to corporate America that it is okay to defraud the taxpayer just have some assholes ready to throw under the bus and all is forgiven.

How much money did Boeing take without the "assistance" of the GAO?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

does it really make sense to offshore this project?

Part of their contract deal is to build two plants in the US, one to assemble the new tankers, and one to assemble a new line of civilian aircraft. The smaller supply based companies will be almost exclusively American.

Boeing is still hiring at it's Everett plant because they are so backlogged with orders for their civilian aircraft.

Plus, Boeing's design was garbage compared to the NG/EADS design, which the Air Force was more interested in to begin with. This is hardly treason (as the above poster states) and will probably create more jobs than the Boeing contract would.

There was an earlier post that explained why the Airbus was chosen. They built a $100 million dollar refueling boom on spec that apparently was very impressive. Boeing apparently just assumed they had the contract and offered nothing new. I also agree that after the lease deal that they had offered a few years ago, they don't really deserve a contract.


Here is the link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3218513

was, in the Air Force's words, better in every way. Which leads me to believe this was a political decision.

Given the location of Boeing's main assembly lines, I'd be surprised if the Seattle Times didn't decry the EADS tanker as the devil incarnate..

Don't forget the Airbus is desperate to get a factory going in the US at the moment, due to the exchange rate being heavily against them (Their planes being sold in dollars & all their expenses being in Euros). They've even hinted at starting more assembly lines in the US to work on the A320-series and, perhaps, the A350XWB-series when that goes into production.

Is there anyway you can get a link to that, I'd like to read it. Thanks in advance.

Considering this is what was said as the press conference when the decision was made public:

Q And just to follow, did size matter in this issue? I mean, the KC-30 is twice as large as the 767. Did that play into cost savings, and was that an issue in this decision?

GEN. LICHTE: Well, I -- from a warfighter's perspective, and I know the team looked at a whole number of things, but from my perspective, I can sum it up in one word: more.

More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability. And so from my aspect, the team did tremendous work and now we will take that and put it into the fight.

It's quite an interesting read: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088862

You're right on all of the above. The 767s are really an inferior product compared to the competition.

.. and you can add various politicians (on both side of the floor, sadly) to that. You can really tell it's an election year, with the McCain bashing taking off, despite him not having anything to do with the selection (apart from exposion the original corrupt deal).

According to lobbying records filed with the Senate, Loeffler Group lobbyists on the project included Loeffler and Susan Nelson, who left the firm and is now the campaign's finance director. Ogilvy lobbyist John Green, who was assigned the EADS work, recently took a leave of absence to volunteer for McCain as the campaign's congressional liaison.

"The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group. "Boeing advocates are going to use this as ammunition."

McCain, a longtime critic of influence peddling and special interest politics, has come under increased scrutiny as a presidential candidate, particularly because he has surrounded himself with advisers who are veteran Washington lobbyists. He has defended his inner circle and has emphatically denied reports last month in The New York Times and The Washington Post that suggested he helped the client of a lobbyist friend nine years ago.

http://tinyurl.com/2lh9gm