Stop with the lies.

Boeing wasn’t caught doing ANYTHING wrong. It was BOEING with caught Druyun & Sears, fired them, passed of the relavant information to the proper autorities & cooperated fully in the criminal investigation into the Druyun & Sears misconduct.

McCain didn’t stop anything. It was BOEING blowing the lid on the Druyun & Sears misconduct which lead to the investigations into the tanker lease whcih ultimately undovered ‘mistakes’ made BY THE USAF/DOD in its rush to get the the tankers it wanted sooner.

The rest of your rant isn’t even worth responding to.

Wrong.

First of all, the KC-30 is NOT the KC-45. The KC-X is the KC-45 & we don’t know what it wil ultimately be yet.

The KC-30 is not even as far along TODAY as the KC-767 was back in 2008. Not is the Aurtralian KC-30 the same as the NG/EADS KC-30 offered for KC-X.

***

Taxpayer,

No the Draft RFP is NOT set up for Boeing’s 767. It is set up for what the USAF has determined it requires for a new tanker (with some alterations to accomodate the noncompetative KC-30 so that EADS dosn’t pull out of the ‘competition’).

It is NG/EADS which has used misinformation & been spinning facts.

The reason boeing is bidding the 777 frame is because they feel they lost the contract due to the a300 being larger. The 767 met the requirements of the contract, but boeing wanted to level the playing field so they are also going to offer an equal size airframe. This makes the winner the truly better airframe and takes out the potential of bonus points out for size and weight.

As for the kc-135’s they are in desperate need of replacements. i have talked to the maintainers at Macdill afb and they are trying their best to keep them flying, but have said the airframes are pretty shot. you can only do so much before there is nothing left. the longer this contract takes to be awarded the better chance of there being an accident. they need to get these new tankers now before they start falling out of the sky. our air capabilities should not be hindered or supported by 40+ yearold airframes.

no they didn’t, they found the KC-30 to have lower life-cycle costs

those calculations may have been in error, but they didn’t ignore it

> the recent declaration that the EAD has been subsidized by EU and as such it doesn’t represent a true bid

because
1) it’s a PRELIMINARY report, there are still appeals
2) there’s a similar counter-claim against Boeing in process
3) they aren’t legally allowed to impose any sanctions/penalties outside the WTO process

what if both sides are found to have been illegally subsidized? go to embraer?

> The original RFP specifically required non-subsidized bids

no, it said the USAF wouldn’t have to pay anyting extra whatever judgments the WTO may pass down

You are talking in circles, as usual. Other then personal attacks you seem to have nothing to say.

As far as Grumman goes, I could care less about them as I do about Boeing. In my opinion this whole bid should be scrapped and not visited again for another five years. The AF has not indicated a pressing need for these tankers and in five years the AF’s future needs will be more clear.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Can your source give any insight into why boeing would even consider bidding the KC-777?

there is no way it’s price can be within 1% of the 767 and it’s highly doubtful it can meet the schedule requirements

I can’t say much about my source but it is excellent. As you well know, organizations regularly make initial decisions which they then review to make sure they are not doing something really stupid. My source said Boeing will submit two bids. The spokesman made clear they have not officially made a decision and I would expect to keep hearing that until the day they submit the bids or reverse course for whatever reason.

No, I do not claim the 767 met or exceeded all the key requirements of the last solicitation (which are essentailly the same in the new draft RFP). The KC-X Source Selection Team SAID IT DID.

Colin’s sources are wrong. Boeing had NOT decided yet what it will bid. But it could include a bid with the 777 in order trump the “bigger is better” BS & remind everyone that the KC-30 is the size of a large tanker (larger & heavier than the KC-10) but does not have the capability of a large tanker, making it the wrong choice for a medium tanker.

It is YOU who should see the public record. If you have information/proof of Boeings corporate corruption you should contact the appropriate authorities so they can make a case in a cort of law. Otherwise your baseless accusations are just making you look like an ass DESPIRATE to somehow disquilify Boeing because you fear NG/EADS can’t win a fair competition.

Who is proposing any bonus points for adding items?

Earth to Byron Skinner, in the last solicitation Boeing’s offer met more requirements, was superior in more & higher valued requirements AND was the LOWER COST bid even under the flawed in favor of the KC-30 cost evaluation methodology!

Lets see. First off I stopped smoking anything decades ago.

Item#1: On specifications you claim the 767 met (?) or exceeds all of them. The answer to this of course since the 767 is a cheaper air frame then why include the 777?

A split buy is simply out of the question, I don’t recall anyone saying that it was a bid option. The bid calls for a single air craft that meets the bid requirements. Two different aircraft would burden the AF with duplicating maintenance, support facilities and supply lines for two air craft doing the same mission. Only a politician could even consider this compromise.

I apologize to my friend Cole but I just can’t resist. (KCY+KCX)=(KCy(a)+KCx(b))+KCY+KCX. Who knows what goes on inside those hangers at night? After submarines, what next, Tankers?

Boeings corporate corruption is no BS, see the public record.

To JN: I’ve done a lot of Federal Bids and never saw any bonus points for adding items, I have seen bids with optional items to be priced separately, but they were not to be part of or a consideration to the bid price and would be ordered, if desired, separately.

It is true the Government doesn’t have to take the lowest bid. I’ve never seen that option exercised because someone offered something at a higher price, but exceeded the bid requirements. The reason(s) for taking the alternate price as it is called, is that there is some question about the ability of the winning bidder to do the contract. I would say that either of these vendors can perform on this contract.

In short none of my question were addressed. pfcem says that the 767 mets or exceeds the specifications, but he seems to be alone in this contention, and it would explain why the push for including the 777 and then selling it to Congress.

There is no conspiracy going on here, there is no collusion between Grumman and the AF, Boeing simply can’t provide at a competitive price what the AF wants and Grumman can.

Boeing is acting like a spoiled child who for one is having a hard time getting what it wants vs. what the military is asking for. Boeing as in the past will use politics and it’s favorite user of the Boeing ATM, Congressman John Murtha is leading the charge. This is the meat of the problem that Sec. of Defense Gates is attempting to deal with.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

–With requirements and a number of bonus items (that potentially can be considered), Boeing is bidding two planes, the 767 can meet the requirements but not the bonus items, Boeing is likely bidding the 777 to provide a bid that can meet those bonus requirements but with a trade off in the cost difference in attaining those bonus items.

–With a split buy on the table and that possibility becoming a reality Boeing is vying to be sole source even in a split buy. Commonality of components and maintainance can be selling point for an all Boeing split buy, in comparison to a Boeing/EAD split buy.

All the problems could have been avoided if some one had a better understanding of what they really needed the first time around and stuck to it. Putting these bids together cost money and whichever company wins, they will have to charge more to cover all this. The GAO has said that this type of uncertainty over desired specification and the changes that occur as a result are the leading cause of cost overuns. This time around they need to decide what needed and stick to it.

What are you smoking?

The ‘new specs’ are essentially the same as the last time (only even remotely significant ‘spec’ change being the fuel onload/offload increased to 1200 gal/min) & the 767 MET OR EXCEEDED ALL OF THEM.

Gainging access to competator pricing has NOTHING to do with meeting or not meeting ‘bid specs’.

Where did I say that bidders are penalized for ‘only meeting specifications’ when another exceeds them?

What political actions by Boeing? How are Boeing supporters doing a rather poor job here? What problems with in the frame work of the competitive bidding process? What Boeings problems?

ABSOLUTELY the yet to be specified KC-Y should be considered & realize that KC-X is a KC-135 replacement MEDIUM TANKER with the upcoming KC-Y indended to be the KC-10 replacement LARGE TANKER of the mixed medium/large tanker force! Every time ‘more’ comes up, the KC-Y LARGE TANKER is the answer, not the KC-X MEDIUM TANKER.

Hardly a month has gone by in the past 6+ years where the USAF has not stated the pressing need to begin tanker recapitalization ASAP.

Stop the BS lies about Boeing corporate corruption!