Home » Air » Donley Nomination Stalls; Boeing Friends At Work?

Donley Nomination Stalls; Boeing Friends At Work?

By Colin Clark Friday, August 1st, 2008 8:10 am
Posted in Air, Policy, Rumors

The tanker wars may have gotten much hotter, as I reported was possible in June, with the stalled nomination of Michael Donley to be Secretary of the Air Force.

Yesterday evening, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported out (that means approved) the nominations of Gen. Norton A. Schwartz for Air Force Chief of Staff, and Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, for head of Transportation Command. But not Donley’s nomination.

My colleague Megan Scully at Congress Daily reported this morning that Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., wrote a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates warning that she will place a hold on Donley’s nomination because Air Force and Defense Department officials “have not recognized the gravity of the flaws in the tanker acquisition process.”

I saw an Air Force email on the issue and it only noted that the Donley vote had not taken place. It also noted that Schwartz and McNabb were approved by a vote of 14–1. I hear from a well-placed source that Donley’s nomination may not have been placed on hold. Last night’s action was, according to this source, “just process.” We’ll see.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	Christian Lowe August 1st, 2008 at 9:03 am Who was the one dissenting vote on Schwartz and McNabb?
	pfcem August 1st, 2008 at 10:27 am It is sad that things like putting language into Defence Appropriations Bills making the release of funds dependant on following the GAO’s ruling & holding Donley’s nomination hostage are necessary to get these Air Force and Defense Department officials to “recognize the gravity of the flaws in the tanker acquisition process.”
	Arcane August 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am Who was the one dissenting vote on Schwartz and McNabb? From the AF Times: Schwartz was approved by a vote of 19–2 and McNabb was approved 19–1. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., voted against both nominees, and Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., voted against approval of Schwartz.
	LC August 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pm Business as usual for Congess. Fiddling while Rome burns.…
	tom mauzy August 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm “Fiddling”?? Our elitist and do-nothing congress sure doesn’t fiddle around when it comes time to take their “well earned vacations” so that they can go home and campaign for more terms in their do-nothing jobs , or travel around the world on taxpayer funded junkets in USAF VIP jets on what they term as “Fact Finding Tours”, hosted by special interest groups and lobbyists. How many facts can they find poolside or on golf courses? Mention term limits and they soil temselves!!
	Don Zweifel August 4th, 2008 at 9:18 am Well, let’s hold our horses here a minute. The initial acquisition process, IMHO… didn’t grant Boeing a fair shake and anyone in the know should acknowledge this as a fait accompli. Some of us have hitched rides in KC-135’s and 767’s and could certainly give you a heads-up.… In regards to the Airbus there’s no significant advantage that we can visualize over the Boeing version… the KC-45 is ready and rarin to go, tout suite… and we urgently require tankers now not years from now.… OSD as a consequence has pulled final acquisition from AF so what signal is this sending us, guys and gals?
	pvtrick August 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm why tankers? they need to keep the jets in the air for training, because they are NOT fighting any war, just training. boeing didn’t get the contract due to a mistake that only gives contracts to US firms that have paid bribes to the Air Force procurers
	BS_Buster August 5th, 2008 at 5:00 am Don says, “The initial acquisition process, IMHO…didn’t grant Boeing a fair shake and anyone in the know should acknowledge this…” Everyone is, “in the know” that the “initial acquisition process” resulted in an AF and two Boeing executives spending a well deserved paid vacation in prison courtesy of Uncle Sam for Bribery! The reason OSD pulled the acquisition from AF is a no brainer, “Paid Political Consultants”, sounds familiar doesn’t it? Boeing got caught last time at the AF level, they must figure if they move higher up the protection will be better. Today’s Ethics Word: Boinginate Pronunciation: \Bo-ing-i-nate\ Function: Verb Etymology: North Western US & Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium Date: 2008 Transitive verb : to habitually lie, cheat, bribe or steal if you really, really want to win
	Old391 August 6th, 2008 at 4:20 am Pfcem. Your tanker cry babies in congress will do anything and use anything to get Boeing the Tanker Deal. Holding up Donleys conformation over this Tanker proposal is stupid but then when congress approval rating is almost in the single digits and you adjourn when there are crisis that need to be solved makes you wonder what congress priorities are.
	AFVet August 7th, 2008 at 3:44 am “Failed AQ efforts” will continue until SOMEONE at OSD awards the contract to Boeing. There is NO competition.…merely a charade. And, it is tragic that one of the AF’s finest had his career and reputation trashed over a mil/indust complex mandate. BTW, Cantwell is from WA.…Obama is from IL…Boeing is headquartered in Chicago. Any questions?
	pfcem August 7th, 2008 at 10:36 pm BS_Buster, Your ability to rewrite history is simply amazing. Just TWO individuals went to jail, Darleen Druyun (USAF acquisition official) & Michael Sears (Boeing CFO) for illegally negotiating a job for Druyun at Boeing while negotiating the tanker lease. Also their respective bosses, Boeing CEO Phil Condit & Secretary of the USAF James Roche were forced to resign. Druyun recused herself from further negotiations with Boeing & retired from the USAF (to take a job at Boeing) in Nov 2002. EVERYTHING that Druyun & Sears had done had been essentially undone/renegotiated prior to the cancellation of the deal in Oct 2004 [23 MONTHS AFTER DRUYUN HAD LEFT THE USAF]. The lease was cancelled for three reasons as spelled out in the IR report. 1) The report argued that the officials declined to order the analysis of alternatives to determine what other methods of obtaining tanking capability might exist. This was done, in part, because, at the time, Boeing was the sole company offering a boom-type aerial tanker aircraft, the type used by the Air Force. 2) The officials were also faulted for treating the aircraft as a commercial, off-the-shelf item, when in fact the KC-767 was so heavily modified from its civilian configuration that it should have been deemed a military product. As such, it should have been subjected to a raft of tests, evaluations, and oversight of its construction—procedures the officials hoped to skip because they were expensive, time consuming, and, they believed, unnecessary. The 767, they reasoned, was a proven design, and even the tanker version was being acquired by foreign countries. 2) Finally, the IG said, the Air Force had not identified any “urgent need” to acquire the tankers prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and thereafter actually found, in an initial evaluation of its KC-135s, that these aircraft could last for several decades longer, so long as they had assiduous care. USAF subsequently determined that corrosion was causing far more damage to the oldest KC-135E aircraft than had previously been judged and that they could not safely continue without a massive remanufacturing effort. Note that several dozen KC-135Es have now been taken out of service due to age-related problems, including corrosion…yet we will not get any new tankers to replace them & the additional KC-135Es that will likely be taken out of service before we get any new tankers, until sometime around the middle of the next decade [even later than the pre-911 tanker recapitalization roadmap of 2012]. Not only that but under the lease agreement (assuming no major delays) after receiving the 4 SDD aircraft in 2006, we would have gotten 16 new KC-767 in 2007 [these 20 representing the 20 lease tanker under the 20/80 deal] and 20 more each year begining in 2008 [THAT’S THIS YEAR] yet under the KC-X program it is just 12–15 per year after the 4 SDD aircraft. And of course very few have ever complained about what the DOD did to get MRAPs without all the ususal red tape that slows acquisitions down so…
	LC August 8th, 2008 at 8:07 am There was as day when we could get a new aircraft out in the field in under five years. All this red tape and political BS in today’s environment is costing billions of dollars and delaying critical warfighting capability.
	Rmarch August 8th, 2008 at 12:36 pm I hope the tankers these replace are converted to fight forest fires. Seems to me they would be very strong.
	Oldest391 August 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm Guess Boeings congressional people will hold hostage the SoAF until they get what they, ops meant Boeing wants. They are holding up the civilian leader of the Air Force as a tactic to get Boeing the contract. So I guess the SOD will have to wear 2 hats for a while, that of the SOD and that of the SoAF. You know this country would do better if we elect a new congress and start all over with people who really care about the People of the United States not their political careers and what Special Interest Group they have to bow to.Interest Group they have to bow to.
	pfcem August 25th, 2008 at 9:10 pm Oldest391, No, some in Congress are (& it is unfortunate that they feel it needs to do so) “holding hostage” the SoAF until the DOD shows that it takes the GAO ruling seriously & will concuct the new solicitation consistent with the GAO decision. Congress has even included in the authorization bill language that funds for the KC-X will not be released unless the solicitation/selection is made in accordance with the GAO ruling.
	Oldest391 August 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm I do believe that the DOD will address the 8 points in this new RFP they will be issuing. So when will the female Senator from Washington, which happens to be Boeings Home State, release her hold on the new SoAF, which had nothing to do with the original problem.