Tanker Bid on Track, Says Boeing

Tanker Bid on Track, Says Boeing

Reports have been circulating that Boeing may not bid on the tanker program. Boeing’s IDS spokesman, Dan Beck, replied immediately on Monday evening to an email query from us.

Here’s what he said: “…we have not been talking about our internal deliberations and no decisions have been made.  We submitted our comments on the draft RFP yesterday and are meeting with the government at Wright-Patterson AFB tomorrow to discuss it.  Any speculation on Boeing’s future path at this time is very premature.  We’re still committed to providing the USAF with their next-generation tanker but we want to be sure that it’s a fair and open competition.”

Now there is some wriggle room there with that line about making sure it is a “fair and open competition” but Boeing is clearly still engaged in preparing a bid, spending money to do so and placing its corporate credibility on the line in doing so. While any company has the right to pull out of a competition until it signs a contract, Boeing has placed so much of its corporate blood on the line here that stepping away from the competition would be seen as an enormous defeat for the company and raise questions about its ability to judge risk and the needs of its single biggest customer. So I think it highly unlikely they would do so.

On the other hand, the company’s officers have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and if they make the judgment that they would be throwing good money after bad in placing a tanker bid that they are unlikely to win, it could happen.

A tip of the hat to my colleagues at Aviation Week for the original story that Boeing might not bid.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

Pure speculation:

If Boeing knows it faces greater future competition from Airbus and that a U.S. presence in Mobile is inevitable, then don’t bid and use this contract award to NG/EADS as a bargaining chip against the unions. Point to numerous foreign manufacturers successfully producing cars in the U.S. to illustrate that the same fate could await Boeing if they continue to demand more money than the industry can support.

A former co-worker managed at a Boeing plant and complained that it was a miserable experience. A friend of the family went from a non-union garment manufacturing job to a unionized aircraft maintenance position and was essentially threatened by a co-worker for working too hard. It is stories/attitudes like this that have doomed so many current heavily-unionized American industries. Aerospace could be next unless unions are brought under control. Competition may be one means to do it.

Nothing like a healthy dose of competition to straighten up some attitudes. What a powerful thing. However, I just can’t get past the thought of Boeing letting the competition into their back yard (it’s different). I think in this case company and profits come first then the unions. But what do I know… i’m an arm chair analyst at best on this subject.

Translation: if the RFP isn’t written in such a way that it’s a slam dunk for Boeing, we’re going to take our ball and go home.

Or “We’ll trumpet how the competition is ‘fair and open’ until the day after we lose”.

BTW… Boeing must not have told Pfcem what to say yet since he hasn’t commented yet.

Can’t find the article, but believe it was EADS CEO Louis Gallois or the Airbus CEO who indicated the desire to build in Mobile regardless of the competition’s outcome. EADS wants into the U.S. military market because of the huge sales potential. They also want to sell us A400Ms…which would be competition for Lockheed as well. Two birds for the price of one U.S. plant. ;)

This is funny. The Air Force was going to re-open the bid on the 8 points the GAO said may not have resulted in a fair winner. Boein was happey that they won the protest but now that the re-bid will focus on those 8 points, Boeing is crying Foul. Just can not make Boeing happy. If Boeing pulls out they are hoping that congress will tell them not to or give them the contract. 

The other plant in Mobile was to build Freighters for now.

Sorry for the delay in posting, very hard to see the screen with tears in your eyes! Also having trouble typing while rolling on the floor laughing, over the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium statement, “…placing its corporate credibility on the line…”. News flash Mr. Beck:
1) The Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium lost the KC-45 competition.
2) The Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium lost all credibility crying about loss #1. 

Beck continues with, “…raise questions about its ability to judge risk and the needs of its single biggest customer.”

Another Flash for ya Beck, Telling your “single biggest customer” he is incompetent is a really, really risky future sales move! 

Today’s Non-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

The real question is, does the US Military really want a sometimes unfriendly country (FR)building a major military aircraft for us? Also consider they would be able to sell this valuable asset to any other country in the world,complete with our latest techology,that could come back and bite us in the butt. They have done so in the past.
B/W/Do I Know..

I have had the same questions, and it is one more reason that the Boeing/Aeronovali/JADC Consortium should not be handed the contract. Their Chinese supplier is not sometimes, but has always, been unfriendly so we need to stick with our allies when we need to buy parts! 

After seeing the doctored opening ceremony videos and the 10 year olds competing for China with fake documents in the Olympics, I can understand Boeings partnerships with China.
China likes to Boinginate also!

Today’s Non-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

Today news, Boeing wants 6 months to come up with a new aircraft or they will go home. Well Boeing, you knew what was in the proposal, but you stupidly did not to submit the right aircraft. Now that you finally woke up and realized what the Air Force wants your now asking for 6 months to get it right this time. You had 100 days to work on a different aircraft. Instead you wasted that time in a verbal war of misinformation. So one word Comply or go home. If Northrop Grumman beats you again are you going to cry again to the GAO and your congress people. Your making yourselves look like a big cry baby.

Oldest391,

Sorry but this is a NEW proposal with significant changes which Boeing askes for a significantly different aircraft. The KC-767AT was PERFECTLY tailored to the 2007 RFP.

How many days has it been since the new RFP was released & how many days has it been since Boeing was briefed on it? Hell the new RFP hasn’t even been finalized. We may not even be as far along now with the new proposal as we were in December of 2006 with the previous proposal.

And of course these latest changes were made by the DOD, not the USAF…

No significant changes…we’ve already proven the language WRT fuel offload was just about the same between the original solicitation and the amendment. 

AF got a taste of a more capable aircraft, announced their desires for the more capable Aircraft by awarding to the winning bidder, now Boeing’s trying to one-up by requesting more time to write a completely new proposal? Absurd! Monkey Business.

Yep and the SOD has said the proposal will be issued soon. Now he could be a nice guy and say OK whiners you can have 4 months, but then you have to ask the question, Why didn’t you just offered up the 767–300 or –400 as your tanker. Guess what even if they had used a –300 or –400 the MTOW runway length is still longer than the KC-45, so no matter what aircraft Boeing put up or delaying tactic they would have to use the 777 but guess what at MTOW it still takes more runway to take off than the KC-45.

mojojojo,

BS, it is a fundamental change from asking for a tanker with KC-135R level fuel offload vs radius with NO extra credit for exceeding requirements to “bigger is better” reguardless of the cost or detriment to REAL WORLD capability.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree