Comments on: Dicks ‘Sure Thing’ For HAC-D

By: max headroom

max headroom — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:04:54 +0000

Murtha dies from complications to gall bladder surgery? And dicks, the bought and paid for boeing lackey ascends to the chair? With potentially hundreds of billions at stake? Just wow! Hollywood couldn’t write a better script.

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:20:05 +0000

John King–thanks for the answer. Here’s my problems: If there were two manufacturers producing the same plane, I could agree with you 100%, but we’re talking different aircraft here with very few, if any, common parts. So isn’t a split buy only exacerbating the problem by creating two sole sources, to say nothing of needing two separate supply chains and personnel requirments for the same mission? If we need two different airframes, that’s one thing, but is that the case? Am I just spewing or am I on to something here?

By: mike j

mike j — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:24:26 +0000

Are there any downsides?

By: John King

John King — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:45:41 +0000

A sole source contract results in higher prices when there is no competition to force prices down. Dual sourcing or a year-to-year, head-to-head competition will drive prices down 15 to 30 percent, as the two competitors bump heads to get the lion’s share of the profits by removing “excess costs” in their supply chain and manufacturing processes. If you don’t dual source, that 30 percent “excess cost” goes into the pockets of the company making the item. Plus, will no competition, they will slowly raise prices. Sole source contract sare NEVER a good deal for the taxpayer.

By: Phoenix

Phoenix — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:50:30 +0000

Business as usual, deals under the guise of studies, continued bickering over who is in charge, same old political arguments — saves a lot of taxpayers money NOT!

By: Billion $ Error

Billion $ Error — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:20:04 +0000

Notm has opposed Speaker Polosi on some key issues — in the OLD days he would be a “sure thing” but under this regime, who knows?

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:11:21 +0000

What is the merit of a ‘split buy’ over buying one platform? Really? I can see several problems, and I suppose some tactical/strategic reasons to do it, but all sorts of downsides.
Basically, is there any reason to go with a split buy OTHER than not hurting someone’s feelings?
I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I really do want to know.

By: Old391

Old391 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:28:43 +0000

NGC/EADS can say Good Bye to a Fair Tanker Deal with the “Dick” in Murtha old position. Boeing will raise prices and be late ontheir contract and will be able to get away with it since “Dick” is running the committee now

By: CharlesHouston

CharlesHouston — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:50:53 +0000

There are certainly arguments for both sides of the “split tanker” buy, but one thing for sure (except that it will be impossible to convince Byron) is that we need to replace the KC-135s. We cannot just give any aircraft builder a non-competitive contract but we gotta get someone working on a replacement aircraft. At this point it would be better to have Cessna working on an aircraft than no one.