Home » Air » Dual Tanker Buy Could Save Billions: Murtha

Dual Tanker Buy Could Save Billions: Murtha

By Colin Clark Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 3:49 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

Rep. Jack Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said today that his plan to buy tankers from both Boeing and Northrop Grumman will save taxpayers billions of dollars, principally by retiring the aging tanker fleet more quickly.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and most DoD people dealing with the issue have said repeatedly they believe buying from both companies would be wasteful and greatly complicate the Pentagon’s logistics train. But Murtha told me and another reporter today that he thought the plan could save billion of dollars money by “retiring the old fleet” as quickly as possible, apparently by increasing the number of tankers bought each year. He acknowledged the reservations many have had about his plan, noting that even his “staff, at first they were hesitant about it.” He spoke with most of the staff standing next to him.

Murtha also said he “has the votes” on the HAC-D to pass his tanker plan, though he admitted it was not unanimous.

The Pennsylvania Democrat said he and the staff had found it very difficult to get technical and cost information about maintenance and related costs from the two companies but had gradually overcome the corporate resistance.

In other budget news, Murtha laid out a schedule for the coming supplemental and budget bills. He is expecting the supplemental to hit the Hill next Thursday. It will be considered in some detail during an April 22 House Appropriations Committee hearing with Central Command’s Gen. David Petraeus. Then the bill will be considered by the full committee on April 30. and should make it to the House floor on May 5, Murtha said. “We hope to have it done by Labor Day,” he said.

The full defense budget request for 2010 should make it to the Hill on May 4, he said. Word around the Pentagon and Capitol Hill is that the budget will only include fiscal 2010 numbers. There will be no Future Years Defense Plan with this budget. Several experts noted that when the recently departed President Bush took office his administration did the same thing. “There just isn’t the time to put together an entire FYDP. The administration is still getting into place,” noted one congressional staffer. The defense spending bill should be ready for markup on May 30. However, Murtha acknowledged this may be pushing things, noting it is “a very ambitious schedule.“

Share |

Join the Conversation

	pfcem April 1st, 2009 at 5:18 pm What? Procuring more tankers sooner SAVES money by retiring old tanker sooner…isn’t that the same argument the USAF & DOD made during tanker lease YEARS AGO. Of course what is truly WRONG with Murtha’s plan (aside from that Congress won’t agree to the increased procurement funding needed) is that you DON’T have to procure both types in order to procure more tankers faster. Boeing could EASILY build more KC-767AT each year than Congress would ever dream of procuring & the new NG/EADS plant could no doubt do the same.
	bob April 2nd, 2009 at 1:26 am Boeing has been pulling the American jobloss card way too much latley… Simple fact is Northrup/Eads came up with a better price/performance ratio for the AF needs. They will create jobs in alabama where they will be equipped at the plant they plan to build, so its not like we are totally outsourcing this thing. They can even pump out more tankers sooner.… Boeing has had the goverment by the balls for too long. They overcharge for an inferior product design. Its time Boeing shuts up and competes rather than playing on company loyalties… After the whole tanker lease program schenanigans you would think that boeing would have shaped up! Seems like politics always gets involved in military procurements… there are too many challenges that end up driving up cost… (everyday we wait on this tanker deal… the prices go up!) To add to the duel tanker idea… its going to cost more.… Why does the AF want to support 2 different platforms?… that just means it has to do double the trainning($$$), and buy parts for both planes (repairs). The AF want uniformity because its simple and straight forward… there is no reason to make this complicated. Procurements are a competition… the better product wins! Jus because Boeing bitches doesnt mean they get half the contract… you dont see the yf23 flying around…Something needs to change w/the whole protest system… its rediculous and takes too long to resolve… Whatever they do, they need to stop dragging this out! Make a decision and go with it.. our tankers are falling apart.. Drop the politics and make this happen.
	oldgoat49 April 2nd, 2009 at 2:59 am The problem I see is that one of the planes probably isn’t going to be what is really needed since there are plenty of differences between the two. Also it would then require the AF to have parts and training on two different types of planes which will increase costs over the long run. Decide which model of plane is the best replacement for the KC135 and order it and be done with it.
	delexnkt April 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 am This is perhaps one of the deepest loads of BS to come out of a Congressman in quite some time and that is saying a LOT! Common sense tells you it is more expensive to maintain two fleets of two different aircraft types to do the exact same job. Now, if there were two different tanker jobs out there and each did one tanker job better than the other, I might be persuaded (might), but that’s not the case here. Nope, this is total wasted spending. I wonder how much Grumman is contributing to Murtha’s campaign?
	derbytims April 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 am If you want to purchase Tanker X and Tanker Y at the same time will the Air Force allow Boeing to bid a larger 767 or 777 for the Tanker Y? The real savings of having 2 tankers KC-135 and KC-10 replacements would be from having a single type certificate for pilot training and major commonality between the two aircraft maintenance parts not continuing the 2 part streams like the KC-135 and KC-10 have today. Boeing can go larger as it has shown before. Modding into a military space aircraft hasnt been demonstrated by EADS.
	jim April 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am Larger is not what the AF wants… or boeing would have bid the 777 in the first place… Prob w/the 777 anyways is it has run into delay after delay.. and will not be ready anytime soon. The thing is.. i dont care who really wins the bid as long as the platform can get the job done and is what the AF wants, and can be built relativley soon… Too much politics in this… AF had a requirement… One company had a better deal and the AF took it… Should be as simple as that… I understand some protests.. but seriously just because you lost doesnt mean you get to have a hissy fit and delay the whole tanker program for 2yrs… There has to be another way..
	Tim April 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am Bob is more right then any other article I have read. I totally agree with everything he said. Give it to the best value and tell Boeing to restructure and stop making fools of themselves and the system.
	Tim April 2nd, 2009 at 9:11 am And by the way, the EADS tanker is flying and refueling European fighters. Has Boeings tanker even left the production line? No, it has not even left paper.
	keith April 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 am you all forget the C5 good plane? The plane the engine take off before the aircraft. or one brake down and the one that come in with the parts brakes down so in come a C141 with the parts and all go home. Having one tanker type is bad. Grounds one type of aircraft the AF is with out a tanker???
	Sgt JFK April 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am I’m ready to pay Lockheed to get back into the wide body business and come up with a proposal for this out of my own pocket. Boeing Management sucks and apparently NG doesn’t have enough stroke to get this done.
	Aurora April 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 am Tim, the eurotanker is not operational. The KC-30 has yet to pass fuel. The ones for the RAAF have been delayed.
	Steve April 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm Tim, The Boeing 767 tanker is already flying in Japan and Italy.
	bob April 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 pm What was trying to be said… is they have been built… its not just a pure concept… its off the drawing boards… and they are flying. Boeing has a drawup… Thats it..
	Jimmy April 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm I guess lawyers know better than 4 star generals. I am not saying the defense department is good at buying equipment, but how do these morons in the Government decide what is best for the military when even the military doesn’t want it. Whats even better is when these idiots push equipment on the military that it doesn’t want, the military gets blamed for wasting money. Perhaps the government should try to do whats best for the country and the military, and not what is best for the people who fund their campaigns. Also, the logistics of maintaining two different airframes vice one will cost more. Twice the training, tools, and parts. I guess that will all just get outsourced to civilians though. I can’t wait to go back to sea and have my CO be a GS employee.
	Torch April 2nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm Where this loon thinks he’s saving money, only creates a headache for Air Force training, as they come on-line. It is two different operating systems and will require two different tech school programs to graduate to operation, defeating the purpose of eliminating waste.
	pfcem April 2nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm bob, NO, the simple fact is that the KC-30 is the WRONG tanker for the US. The USAF & the DOD (when they were in control) chose the KC-767 & REJECTED the KC-30 for NOT meeting its requirements. Then everybody & their mother (who had NO CLUE what the USAF’s tanker needs are) got involved. Ultimately resulting in the GAO exposing ‘flaws’ in the KC-30 ‘selecton’ buy the politically controlled KC-X Source Selection Team. Stop blaiming Boeing for what TWO PEOPLE (one in the DOD & one in Boeing) did to screw up the tanker lease! MORE jobs would be lost at Being (& other US companies) than created at NG/EADS (& other US companies) with the KC-30. To the tone of ~$9.5–10.8 BILLION dollars in US workshare vs the KC-767AT. No, NG/EADS can NOT pump out more tankers sooner. If Boeing had the government by the balls we would ALREADY HAVE KC-767s in service! Boeing products are SUPERIOR to Airbus/EADS products & for the needs of the USAF the KC-767AT is SUPERIOR to the too big, too heavy (bigger & heavier than the KC-10 but less capable than the KC-135R at doing what the KC-135R does AND less capable than the KC-10 at doing what the KC-10 does) & too expensive KC-30 (the KC-X Source Selection Team HAD to admit that even with its flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation that it was MORE expensive than the KC-767AT).
	Hank April 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm pfcem: When exactly did they reject the KC-30 for not meeting requirements? Last I knew, the found flaws in process, not the aircraft (Oh, and I think it’s refered to as the KC-45 now).….
	DensityDuck April 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm jim: Boeing bid the KC-767 because they want the US taxpayers to fund the development of a new 767 dash number. This new dash number will be sold to commercial customers as a sort of “Widebody Gapfiller System”, to cover the increasing delays in Dreamliner.
	Aurora April 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm Hank, KC-45 is the USAF’s designation for their next tanker. NG has been using it on their web site, but the euro plane is not a KC-anything until the USAF selectes it. The A330 tanker is not yet operational with any air force.
	Hank April 2nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm Aurora: No question, the MRTT and the UK A330 tankers aren’t yet part of anyone’s fleet. I thought, though, that the USAF had selected it, designated it KC-45, and then canceled the award after capitulating to the GAO. I don’t recall that they rescinded the designation. By the way, does anyone have any thoughts on the GAO being politically motivated? For a government funded organization that both gets its funding from, and reports directly to the Congress, I find it rather unlikely that they aren’t having their strings pulled, too.
	Taxpayer April 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm PFCEM, the first Tanker Lease deal that Boeing was awarded Darlene determined that only Boeing met the requirements. Subsequently we know why she was motivated to say that. The NG KC-45 meets and exceeds all the Tanker requirements and is by far the best value for the AF and us taxpayers. Jobs, PFCEM tell Boeing to stop outsourcing jobs to Italy, Japan and China. Hank, your probably right, the GAO was probably politically influenced to uphold Boeing’s protest. Someday a “deep throat” may come forward and blow the whistle. Politics should stay out of this, but I am sad to say it will not.
	Anthony April 2nd, 2009 at 5:42 pm Boeing products are SUPERIOR to Airbus/EADS products & for the needs of the USAF the KC-767AT is SUPERIOR to the too big, too heavy (bigger & heavier than the KC-10 but less capable than the KC-135R at doing what the KC-135R does AND less capable than the KC-10 at doing what the KC-10 does) & too expensive KC-30 (the KC-X Source Selection Team HAD to admit that even with its flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation that it was MORE expensive than the KC-767AT). pfcem; If Boeing was that much superior as you make them out to be then they would’ve won outright. This whole process is screwed up. I think buying the 2 planes is the ONLY way this will work (i’m not saying it’s the RIGHT way). If they request new proposals and Northrop wins then Boeing will once again protest and if they awarded the contract to Boeing then vice versa, the Air Force will never get the plane.Sadly this is the only way. And no Murtha does not have his hands in Northrops pockets, if you anything about Murtha he has always been a Boeing ball washer.
	Aurora April 2nd, 2009 at 6:09 pm Hank, WRT the GAO being politically motivated, the short answer–in my opinion–is ‘no’. But then again, I never thought the Justice Department would play politics with prosecutions, which may have just happened in the case of former Senator Stevens.
	Jetmech April 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 pm I’m an Aircraft Maintenance Technician by trade and NAVY Vet. I have worked for United Airlines on their full Boeing fleet and Airbus 319/320s. I can say that I’d rather see us with Boeing jets any day of the week. Now I can only speak for the A-319/320 models that Airbus produces. The 727,737,747,757,767 and 777′ s that I worked on were almost indestructible. Note that I receive no compensation from anyone for stating this. Look how old the KC-135’s and B-52’s are. They do require lots of maintenance but they still fly. You can’t say that about a lot of aircraft. I do believe we should produce this aircraft in country and bring jobs home. Both Boeing and NG/EADS are currently exporting work while we have a large amount of unemployed Aircraft mechanics out of work. Just my 2 cents.….….…
	pfcem April 3rd, 2009 at 1:17 am Hank, The KC-30 (then proposed by Airbus/EADS as the KC-330) was rejected by the USAF/DOD in the 2002 competition for the tanker lease. The USAF had all-but made its selction BEFORE that competition (some time BEFORE 9/11/01 even) — it had after all been working on a KC-135 replacement since 1996…But with the events of 9/11/01 the USAF/DOD sought to accelerate its tanker recapitalization (due in no small part to increased operations tempo) through leasing tankers (to be delivered beginning in 2006) rather than the previous plan to start delivery of procured tankers in 2012. And yes, as I said the later (politically motivated) selection was flawed & the GAO confirmed it INCLUDING that NG/EADS & the KC-X Source Selection Team failed to adequitely justify that the KC-30 met certian requirements. No the next USAF tanker is referred to as the KC-45 what ever it ends up being which right now STILL is NOT the KC-30. The USAF DID NOT select the KC-30, the (politically motivated) KC-X Source Selection Team did & it was found to have been unfairly biased toward the KC-30 & MAJORLY flawed in its selection — INCLUDING failing to “assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation”. * DensityDuck, No, Boeing bid the KC-767 because of the platforms it produces the 767–200 (more specifically the 767-200ER or 767-200LRF) BEST fits the requirements of the USAF tanker requirements. In fact it EXCEEDS them. * Taxpayer, No, Darlene Druyun had NOTHING to do with the selection of the KC-767 during the tanker lease. Her job was to negotiate the DETAILS of the program AFTER the KC-767 had been selected by the USAF/DOD. Ms. Druyun proved to be corrupt & had used her position in the USAF/DOD for her own personal gain on a number of occations with a number of companies. Actually, the GAO ruled that NG/EADS & the KC-X source selection team failed to adequitely justify that the KC-30 met certian requirements. And even the KC-X Source Selection Team (coincidentally just days before the GOA ruling) that it had errored in its calculation & that the Boeing offer was in fact LESS expensive. The GOA “suggested” that the cost eveluaion be SERIOUSLY looked into as it was significantly flawed (like evaluating the life cycle cost of a tanker intended to remain in service for 40 year for ONLY 25 years & not adequitely accounting for infrastructure improvement costs). Only 15% of the KC-767AT workshare would be outsourced overseas vs 42% for the KC-30. The GAO is a non-political entity. I know the truth hurts but stop the BS conspiracies. *** Anthony, When the USAF was in control of the process rather than the politicians Boeing DID win the competition outright. But Druyun & Sears got caught in unethical/illegal actions when negotiating the DETAILS of the program AFTER the KC-767 had been selected by the USAF which then prompted investigation into the ENTIRE program which showed that in its rush to get the KC-767, the USAF/DOD skipped steps in the process. Note that in ALL the investigations into the tanker lease NOWHERE was it found that the KC-767 was not the right tanker…
	LockMartSkunk April 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am As someone who works for Lockheed, when it comes down to it, Northrop had the better product. If our company was in this competition I’d sure as hell be fighting tooth and nail for the win, but I would back it up with a solid product, which Boeing simply doesn’t have here. So quit drinking the kool-aid you Boeing fanatics… you lost… end of story.
	UKair April 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am pfcem, The allegation was that when Boeing was battling to secure the tanker deal, Druyun improperly gave Boeing details of a competing bid. And it is not the first time Boeing obtained details of a competing bid. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031125-boeing-scandal.htm =================== ‘Other e-mails indicate that Druyun had given Boeing information on an Airbus offer to supply tankers to the Air Force at several million dollars less per plane. Divulging such an offer to another contractor is a violation of government regulations.’ ‘Air Force officials were pushing the deal despite the fact that the plan did not even meet requirements for tankers that the Air Force itself had specified. At one point, a document listing these requirements was modified at Boeing’s request in order to meet the capabilities of the 767. “The Air Force agreed to drop a demand that the new tankers match or exceed the capabilities of the old ones,” according to the Post.’ As the negotiations developed in 2002, Druyun functioned essentially as Boeing’s agent inside the Air Force. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/boeg-d17.shtml That, in short, is how the original deal was won.
	JB April 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am pfcem, Do you live in Seattle? Because you have many of the facts arranged in Boeing-speak. I have kept track of the tanker competition from the beginning because it hits close to home in my job and the original Boeing offering of the KC-767 at a much lower cost was refused. Then 9/11 happened and Congress inserted the tanker lease into the budget with direction to go to Boeing. Politically-motivated, obviously. I love the KC-135 and applaud it’s longevity, but Boeing’s latest offering is still on paper because it differs considerably from what is being produced for Italy/Japan. The NG/EADS offering is sitting on the tarmac waiting for us to accept it for testing. Personally, I’d rather see a smaller tanker (737-sized) used for CONUS missions and a larger tanker (KC-10/KC-30) used for OCONUS missions because of the increased fuel capacity and cargo capabilities to augment our C-5/C-17 fleet. By the way, the KC-135 actually LOST the original tanker competition, but the first ones were bought because Boeing was ready to produce and Lockheed still needed to get theirs off the drawing board.
	Taxpayer April 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm pfcem, Not sure where you are getting your info from but your wrong. UKair is correct about the Boeing Tanker Lease. Darlene was working under the table and slanting data so the contract would be given to Boeing Sole Source. In addition, Us taxpayers were going to get taken for over $7B from Boeing, if Senator McCain did not step in and stop it. Northrop was $3B cheaper than Boeing in last years competition (According to Mr. Young from DoD) for a product with more capability, and far less delivery risk than Boeing. GAO did say the Air Force did not explain themselves and that was a major reason for their finding. If you start out looking for a reason to overturn something you will find it and the GAO did. So GAO, how could have Boeing won if the AF did not make those 8 errors out of over 100 Boeing (High Paid Lawyers) claimed errors? What could they have proposed the 767–400 or 777? That would have meant higher costs & risks and longer delivery schedule. Some day the truth will come out, it usually does.
	loggie20 April 3rd, 2009 at 8:29 pm Taxpayer, The 8 errors were pretty telling. How can an aerospace vehicle which is 25% heavier be cheaper? Especially an Airbus with its supply and maintenance costs? And the airplanes built in Toulose, disassembled and reassembled in Mobile, with no existing workforce? GAO held back, I propose.
	loggie20 April 3rd, 2009 at 8:34 pm Tanker mission vary. No one thought of extending the MATS air bridge with tankers. Nor extending fighters design for European mission for SEA ranges. The KC 135 is proven for the fighter and bomber missions. I do not think you can deliver an FCS brigade if the airlifters need refueled along the way. What kind of loigistics would be at destination? Aside from that the cycles and flying hours on the KC 135 fleet mean it is maintainable for another 25 years.
	UKair April 4th, 2009 at 3:11 am loggie20, ’Especially an Airbus with its supply and maintenance costs?’ Can you please give the details of the costs and show how they compare to Boeing? ‘..the airplanes built in Toulose, disassembled and reassembled in Mobile, with no existing workforce?’ Clearly you are not aware of the details of the NG/EADS proposal.
	loggie20 April 4th, 2009 at 7:52 am UKair, DO you have details? Anecdotally USAir is going broke running an all Airbus fleet. The quote on disassembling and reassembling is the Northrop plan. Specially rigged ships are being planned to move whole sections assembled in Toulouse. Again provide better data.
	UKair April 4th, 2009 at 8:19 am loggie20, ’DO you have details?’ I don’t but I am not the one implying that: ’…25% heavier Airbus’ has higher ‘supply and maintenance costs’. Hence I asked you about the figures. Since you obviously have none, then I guess you are simply repeating the well established Boeing propaganda. Perhaps the answer to your original question ‘How can an aerospace vehicle which is 25% heavier be cheaper?’ lies with Boeing and you could ask them why they had set out to over charge the US Government, twice. The Airbus logistics are very well run and their operations of shipping the sub assemblies to China for the A32X and Toulouse for the A380 has given it the necessary experience to repeat the operation for the Mobile FAL. As far as the ‘no existing workforce’ is concerned, I think they have proved that training is extensively covered by their experience of setting up FALs in Hamburg and China. Jetmech, ’The 727,737,747,757,767 and 777′ s that I worked on were almost indestructible.‘ You mean like if somebody plants a bomb under the plane they will remain intact? Or ‘Wolverine’ like indestructible? All types of planes are designed to the same set of FAA and EASA requirements, to which they are subsequently certified. I wasn’t aware that ‘indestructibility’ of one of the requirements.
	Aurora April 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am Despite the rosy pronouncements in press releases about the Germans and French supporting Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, behind the scenes they are reportedly balking at more troops. Der Spiegel calls it a reversion to “check book” diplomacy, where they will offer humanitarian aid and “logistic” support, and the U.S., UK, and Canada (and the Netherlands, Norway, and a few other countries) will continue to shoulder most of the combat role. How will this play in Obams’s private circle and will this factor in to the tanker equation? I see that yesterday, the two senators from Alabama put a hold on the nomination of Ashton Carter to be John Young’s successor as Asst Secretary of Defense for Acquisition. Not a way to win hearts and minds in the new administration. Either of these aircraft will do the job. The debate comes down to cost (acquisition and life cycle) and politics. If the USAF realistically wants a tanker before 2020, the only way forward I see it is to sole source the first hundred or so to Boeing. Airbus and its supporters in Congress simply don’t have the votes. The attendant acrimony, controversy, and sheer ill will generated by another “competition” will divert resources and energy from other pressing matters. There will be a lot of hurt feelings, but it is the only way I see to get a majority of Congress to support funding a new tanker. By the way, see the latest (un)employment numbers? Want to hear Congressmen Tihart and Dicks rail about the “stimulus package for France”? Think that wouldn’t play in the press?
	UKair April 4th, 2009 at 10:50 am Aurora, The USAF realistically wanted the tanker in flight test in 2011. If the time line had shifted to 2020 then I am sure Boeing could manage that, provided the 767 line doesn’t shut by then.
	Spanky April 4th, 2009 at 12:02 pm Folks, I’m not privvy to which aircraft is better, but I have been involved in Air Force Acquisition Logistics for a few years. The real arguement should be against this crazy idea of buying two different tankers. I guarantee this will more than triple the cost of this program. Not only do you have to buy two sets of everything (support equipment, technical data, spare parts) but you lose out big time on price reductions for “economies of scale” (buying in bulk). This is where the american taxpayer will really take it in the shorts.
	pfcem April 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm UKair, Why is it that people like you ignore that anything happened with the USAF’s tanker recapitalization plans PROPR to 9/11/01? Druyun was in charge of negotiating the DETAILS of the tanker lease AFTER the KC-767 had already been chosen. Druyun had ZELTCH ZERO NADA to do with the KC-767 being chosen. * JB, No I do not live in Seattle. I am NOT wrong. The PRIOR to 9/11/01 Boeing offer of the KC-767 was refused because the USAF wasn’t planning to begin receiving new tankers until 2012. Then AFTER 9/11/01 the US USAF sought to “jump-start” its tanker recapitalization due to a (then) recent study into the KC-135E & the higher than normal operations tempo of post-9/11 operations. If you ready through the documents from 2001 (BOTH before & after 9/11) it is CLEAR that the USAF had already all-but chose the KC-767 having worked towards replacing the KC-135 since 1996. IT WAS THE USAF (October 9, 2001) WHICH ASKED CONGRESS TO INCLUDE “NEDED SUPPORTING LANGUAGE” IN THE 2001 APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR ITS PLAN TO LEASE KC-767s! And despite the “language” including the KC-767 in it, THERE WAS STILL A COMPETITION FOR THE LEASE IN 2002! The Airbus/EADS KC-330 proposal was rejected becasue it DID NOT FIT the requirements, was too expensive & too risky. No the NG/EADS offering IS NOT sitting on the tarmac. The NG/EADS KC-30 IS NOT IDENTICAL THE OTHER KC-30’s! If it were it would have ZERO SDD costs. * Taxpayer, No the KC-X Source Selection Team admitted (coincidentally just days before the GOA ruling) that it had errored in its calculation & that the Boeing offer was in fact LESS expensive. And lest get ANOTHER thing straight. Senator McCain’s concern was with the higher overall cost of the lease vs a straight purchase & that that higher cost was not CONTINUED WITH LATER PROCURED TANKERS. Sorry but BOTH offers recieved the same risk rating. The GAO DID NOT GO OUT LOOKING to overturn the selection. QUITE THE opposite in fact. THERE ARE VERY STRICK guidelines as to what the GOA can & can not overturn a decision over. That is whay, for example, the GAO included a number of ADDITIONAL concerns over the selection that it did not directly site as a point of sustainment of the protest. AND the GAO was specifically asked about the 8 sustainment points vs the 100 points of protest & it explained NOT ONLY its limited authority but that IT does not look at protest in such as way BUT for those who whish to look at it that way the 8 points the protest WAS sustained over encompass MANY points of contention in the protest. OF course the point that you seem to be incapable of realizing is that JUST AS THE GAO said, if not for the error BOEING COULD HAVE WON but the unfairness of the selection made it such that it could not!
	UKair April 4th, 2009 at 5:39 pm pfcem, ’people like you’ Huh? I had pointed out that you are wrong that Druyun had ‘ZELTCH ZERO NADA to do with the KC-767 being chosen’. You had clearly not read the link I provided. She played a key role BEFORE and DURING the selection. What happened AFTER the selection, was just a ‘thank you’ from Boeing for what happened BEFORE and DURING. Please read a digest the article. Here are a few extracts. According to an October 27 Washington Post article, Boeing executives met with Darleen Druyun, a senior Air Force acquisitions officer, on September 25, 2001, to discuss how the company could sell the tankers even though the Air Force did not have the funds to cover the deal. “Druyun agreed at the meeting, according to notes taken by Boeing, not only to promote the leasing idea on Capitol Hill but also to find needed money by cutting back a comparatively inexpensive modernization program for existing tankers’. ——– “She also said ‘work placement could help’ [promote the deal], meaning that Boeing should ensure that subcontracts were awarded in the districts of key Congress members, according to the notes.” ——– As the negotiations developed in 2002, Druyun functioned essentially as Boeing’s agent inside the Air Force. This is clear from internal company e-mails obtained by Senate Commerce Committee chairman John McCain, an opponent of the contract. ——– In a June 2002 e-mail, Bob Gower, Boeing’s vice president for tankers, wrote: “[The] meeting today on price was very good. Darleen spent most of the time bringing the [US Air Force] price up to our number… It was a good day!” ——– Other e-mails indicate that Druyun had given Boeing information on an Airbus offer to supply tankers to the Air Force at several million dollars less per plane. Divulging such an offer to another contractor is a violation of government regulations. ——– In October 2002, Druyun took her role in the Air Force negotiations to its logical conclusion, entering into employment discussions with Boeing’s then chief financial officer Michael Sears.
	loggie20 April 4th, 2009 at 7:53 pm UKair, I am not repeating Boeing propaganda. There is a thing an English fellow named Newton observed in the 17th century, called garvity. Gravity drives a law of cost: that being; the heavier thing you put in the air the more the things costs to buy and the more it costs to supply with fuel, supply things as well as maintain it. Something to do with mass (m) times gravity (g). As to Airbus costing more per flight do you hold stcok in USAir? How are you doing? Like Spanky I have been around US DoD acquisition for some time say a quater century. Mass is directly proportional to all costs related to aerospace vehicles. So, when the 25 % heavier Airbus 330 design was claimed to be equal cost, I had to conclude that something was very awry with the USAF Aeronautical System Center calculations.
	loggie20 April 4th, 2009 at 8:07 pm Aurora, Before, I left honest employment to do 25 years in acquisition I worked around SAC, and MAC (AMC). I know a little about supporting the tanker and airlift missions, neither are done well by hybrid airplanes like either of the choices. Or the KC 10. The USAF may want a new tanker/cargo plane, I will refer to as a canker, McCain wants an Airbus canker for his Northrop and former Sen Lott ties, and many want a Boeing canker for jobs in the US. However, there is no need for either canker to replace the KC 135 tanker for at least twenty years. The measures of durability on heavy airframes has nothing to do with years, they are cycles and flight hours. Qantas is flying a 707 airframe with well over 80,000 hours and there are airframes flying with 3 times the cycles that the average KC 135 has done. The new airplanes are cankerous ‘desires’ to send US taxpayer money needed elsewhere to McCain and Murtha’s PACs. They need to be bought quickly before the reasons for their existence are proven false and the Reaper et. al. eliminate the need for manned attack aircraft. Murtha is pushing for billions more in unnecessary payments to contractors. He has been at it for as long as I can remember.
	pfcem April 4th, 2009 at 11:58 pm UKair, You fail to realize Druyun’s position in the system. SHE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SELECTION! Her job was to negotiate the details AFTER the selection — or “more accurately” to make sure the deal gets done. You need to go ‘higher up the food chain’ than her to get to someone who truly has ANY influence over the selection process… Where was Druyun in 1996–2000 (even early 2001) when the USAF was working on a KC-135 replacement?
	UKair April 5th, 2009 at 5:02 am pfcem, I said she ‘played a key role’, which may not have made an executive decision to buy but she was actively promoting it, ‘bringing the USAF price up to Boeing’s and supplying all sorts of information to Boeing illegally. All this is DURING the selection process. At the time her position was a senior Air Force acquisitions officer. In my book that means she had plenty to do with it. Believe what you want to believe, but I would be interested in reading something that says she came into the picture AFTER the selection. Please provide a link. OK, loggie, now this is freaky… ‘How are you doing?’ Fine, you? Why would I be holding stocks in any US airline? But for your information US Airways is operating A330-300s and had ordered A330-200s in 2007 because ‘The A330-200 with its superior range relative to our existing fleet will allow US Airways to continue international expansion’. Looking simply at trip cost is entirely wrong in assessing the aircraft capability. For example, an A330-300 has lower trip cost than 777-200ER. But the 772 allows to lift higher payload and longer range, returning a bigger profit per trip. Now, you are singling out USAir, specifically because they are operating the A330s, and during the period of the biggest down turn in aviation history where all major US airlines are making a loss, you are asking me how they are doing? That is a bit desperate… Thank for the physics lesson.
	loggie20 April 5th, 2009 at 7:56 am UKair, USAir or whatever it was is called, went Airbus in the late 1990’s, I was doing a bit of consulting in the industry then. Their financial issues predate the current effects. I could provide an even better lesson in total ownership costs, and large loads never booked or earning revenues, but I will save my typing. How much of Airbus’ “price advantage” comes from the socilaized economies in EADS where they don’t have to cost in employees benefits? I think if aerial tankers have such military utility and the Airbus is such a good solution why don’t the Euro zone nations buy say 60 each and offer to lease them to the USAF?
	Aurora April 5th, 2009 at 9:02 am Perhaps we need to learn a lesson from the Euros on cultivating the defense infrastructure? Look at the A400M. By all reports its a disaster, yet the governments of Spain, Germany, and France will eat ground glass before they abandon it; all the hollow ‘threats’ to do just that is mere posturing to squeeze EADS. There is not a politician in any of the airbus countries that would seriously consider divesting the effort and have to answer for the loss of those precious jobs. All of this against the backdrop where the French Senate has reported that The A400Ms costs are almost on par with the vastly more capable C-17–in today’s prices. In five years time, when this thing may enter service, it will likely cost more than the superior American airlifter. None of that matters, though; jobs are on the line. I could point out the same with Galileo, even though there is a U.S. alternative. Frankly, I think the euros are on to something here: its public money and should be spent on improving the public welfare. If early indicators are correct, painful budget cuts are coming. It makes absolutely zero sense to have one dollar of tax payer money spent on providing EADS the wherewithal to set up facilities in the U.S. to compete with one of our largest exporters–to the detriment of Boeing workers in Kansas and Washington state. The AMC commander even said he didn’t care which tanker he got, as long as he got one! At the end of the day, as I noted earlier, this will come down to cost and politics, with a very heavy dose of the latter swaying the decision. If Murtha is the mood to craft grand political compromises, why not give Alabama a share of the work on the Boeing tanker and buy off Shelby and Sessions?
	UKair April 5th, 2009 at 9:08 am loggie, ’USAir or whatever it was is called, went Airbus in the late 1990’s’… ‘Their financial issues predate the current effects’. Hence the implication is, their problems started as soon as they ‘went Airbus’? How are AA and the old Delta doing with their Boeing fleet? ‘How much of Airbus’ “price advantage” comes from the socilaized economies in EADS where they don’t have to cost in employees benefits?‘ Fair point but is hardly Airbus’ fault. Outside of the ‘socilaized economies in EADS’, are Bomardier or Embraer paying the same level of benefits? The Euro countries will buy new tankers whenever the need arises. UK has bought the A330s, Germany has converted A310s into MRTTs and France may issue an RFP for their Air Force.
	loggie20 April 5th, 2009 at 9:15 am Thanks UKair, it has been interesting. Bottom line in my thinking is: US needs to spend more like the Euro zone on things like this. There are no resources. I am oppoosed to congressman Murtha’s view.
	UKair April 5th, 2009 at 9:18 am loggie, ’I am oppoosed to congressman Murtha’s view.’ We have something in common then.
	pfcem April 6th, 2009 at 12:36 am UKair, Go back & read about the USAF’s tanker recapitalization (which accumulated in the tanker lease & then the KC-X debacle) PRIOR TO 9/11/01! Druyun played NO ROLE IN ANY DECISION MAKING UNTIL AFTER THE KC-767 HAD BEEN SELECTED. The only role Druyun played in terms of ANY DECISION was on price.
	DensityDuck April 6th, 2009 at 10:50 am pfcem: …so then Druyun WAS, in fact, involved in the process. For what it’s worth, I was actually okay with the “lease” plan, because it got the tankers out the gate more quickly. Failing to recapitalize the fleet is a cost, and it’s a cost that’s very seldom included in analyses; people seem to just assume that our advantages happen because of Magic Freedom Power and we’ll always have them. So, really, the issue isn’t that the lease was a bad deal. The issue is that everyone in the process assumed that it was a done deal, and it didn’t matter how they did things because everyone would just agree to whatever they said.
	wm hewitt April 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm Murtha seems to have lost his value..if any there was. March in his shadow and grom pale.
	UKair April 6th, 2009 at 4:24 pm pfcem, Druyun’s job was not only price negotiation. ‘Boeing prepared briefing materials that Druyun presented to lawmakers while seeking congressional approval of the deal and worked with Druyun to refine the wording of legislation that specifically named the company as the beneficiary of the deal. Roche and Sambur later cited that language as the prime reason for favoring Boeing.’ ‘Druyun “was accountable for manipulating the congressional language,” the report states.’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR2005060601715_pf.html
	pfcem April 7th, 2009 at 12:34 am DensityDuck & UKair, Involved in the process. But NOTHING Druyun was involved in had ANY bearing on ANY DECISION reguarding what the new tanker would be. NOTHING Druyun did convinced ANYONE in the USAF/DOD that the KC-767 was the right tanker. Quite the opposite. The USAF/DOD determined that the KC-767 was the right tanker & tasked Druyun with getting the deal done so that the USAF would get the KC-767.