Northrop Drops Tanker Bid

Northrop Drops Tanker Bid

UPDATED: DepSecDef Lynn Says U.S. Disappointed By NG Decision And “Strongly Supports Trans-Atlantic Defense Industrial ties“

More than eight years since Boeing first tried to supply new airborne tankers to the Defense Department, the company appears to have finally won the tanker competition Northrop Grumman announced today that it will not bid on the KC-X tanker and it will not file a protest that might delay the program any further

The announcement came from the top. “We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing’s smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity,” said CEO Wes Bush. “We continue to believe that Northrop Grumman’s tanker represents the best value for the military and taxpayer – a belief supported by the selection of the A330 tanker design over the Boeing design in the last five consecutive tanker competitions around the globe. Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our Allies in this vital mission area.”

Bush also said the company, mindful of the furor over the last bid protest, will not file one. “While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America’s service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers,” he said in his statement.


The top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Buck McKeon, said he hopes, “Northrop reconsiders its decision in the coming weeks. I still believe that competition produces the most effective solutions for our warfighters and ensures the best value for U.S. taxpayers.”

However, a congressional aide said there was nothing for Congress to do now but keep an eye on the program as it moves ahead. The industrial base for large commercial aircraft is robust, with Boeing and Airbus annually producing about 400 planes each. That may have played some role in Northrop’s decision not to bid: “At best, this is going to buy 15 airplanes a year. This is a drop in the bucket for these commercial producers,” the aide said.

One thing, at least, did go right in the latest iteration of the competition. The requirements process appears to have worked this time, the aide said.

“One of the things the department has been criticized for lately is gold-plating its requirements,” the aide said. “I think that the requirements process on this tanker has been scrutinized to the nth degree. I’m pretty confident all the 372 requirements that are in that final RFP are what the Air Force feels it needs to go to war on day one.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn said the department was “disappointed by Northrop’s decision.” He said Pentagon leaders “strongly believe that the current competition is structured fairly and that both companies could compete effectively.”

In a final gesture, Bush said that the government should make sure the taxpayers gets a good deal from the new sole source contract. He noted that when the Air Force decided to buy Northrop’s tanker, it came up with unit flyaway cost of $184 million per plane for the first 68 tankers. “With the Department’s decision to procure a much smaller, less capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less,” Bush said.

Deputy Secretary Lynn, mindful of the probable negative reaction from European countries who are likely to see Northrop’s action as proof the U.S. discourages European defense investment, said the Pentagon “strongly supports trans-Atlantic defense industrial ties and believes they benefit the American war-fighter and taxpayer.”

EADS North America, Northrop’s partner in the KC-X competition and whose parent builds the A330 that would have been modified for the tanker, issued a statement reaffirming the company’s commitment to the U.S. market. “This decision does not diminish our commitment to the U.S., or to its service men and women. The enduring strength of our commitment is reflected in the success of the Army’s Light Utility Helicopter—of which we are prime contractor and that just celebrated its 100th on-schedule delivery,” said Board Chairman Ralph Crosby. In a nod to the Alabama politicians who fought tooth and nail for them, Crosby tips his hat. “We express our appreciation to the states and communities in which we do business, and particularly to their elected officials who have been unwavering in their determination to provide the best available capability to the American warfighter.”

Now Boeing must deliver on time, within budget and without significant technical problems, as one of its keenest supporters noted. “Boeing still must bring a very competitive bid to the table that meets all the requirements the Pentagon has set forth,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said in a statement. “It’s important to remember that the American people are the customers, and that we drive a hard bargain.”

Share |

Join the Conversation

> Now Boeing must deliver on time, within budget and without significant technical problems, as one of its keenest supporters noted

uh huh, and why ‘must’ it do any of those things now?

The Air Force will get an underperforming, less capable, tanker. Too Bad. It will be more expensive in the long run as its multi role capabilities are far less.

If it wasnt clear yet for anyone. Boing recently didnt reveal the upgraded 767 for the sake of competition, but to have an excuse to raise their prices from their last bid, in what is now a sole source bid. The american Taxpayer is gonna get fleeced hard. Congrats :D

if you were a 135 guy and knew what you were talking about I would be inclined to believe you. However that not being the case, let me educate you in this matter. A smaller aircraft is more economical in its intended support role and also based on the sheer volume of refuelers needed. You, just like all the generals and higher ups out there, have forgotten that this aircrafts main mission is refueling. Not cargo, Not aeromed, Not troop lift. I have wokrd 135’s and the refuleing mission for 17 years and I can guarentee you that for the foreseeable future, a 767 sized airframe is ideal. All of this being said please dont think that believe only in boeing or that I do not belive in fair competetion. I think it’s a shame that Northrop has dropped out. I hope you take this comment as it’s intended and not as an offence.

Kevin Maybe but Boeings Tanker is still a paper aircraft. Boeing has not said which 767 airframe it will be using a –200/300 or what. Also to get the lift they need it will require a –300 or –400 wings. So saying it was the better choice is not really true. Also the way the RFP was slanted to Boeing why waste the time and personnel to bid on a already known outcome. This was not Fair at all kind of like Obama administration.

Given the way the 767 derivative has performed in Italy and Japan, I don’t think the USAF is going to be very happy with what they are buying. Contrary to what Boeing says, there are no tankers operational that reflect the configuration they bid on, and all of the tankers delivered by them have had problems supporting their primary mission, aerial refueling. We just bought into paying new car prices for a tricked out 20 year old design.

> have forgotten that this aircrafts main mission is refueling. Not cargo, Not aeromed, Not troop lift. I have wokrd 135’s and the refuleing mission for 17 years and I can guarentee you that for the foreseeable future, a 767 sized airframe is ideal

no, if the first part of your statement is true, then a KC-135 sized airframe is ideal

The 767 is just so much wasted width.

As a tool designer, the mods that will be required for a 767 will be a nice “shot in the arm” for a depressed field. From what I’ve heard, the work is going to be done somewhere in the Southeastern US. Looks like I may have to say good-by to Southern Calif

Well done team America!. You certainly shafted those European cheese eating surrender monkeys! OUr national airline replaced its B-767’s a few years back for the far more modern and efficient A-330’s. They have turned out to be far more fuel efficient and have greater in service availability. They certainly climb a lot faster and can land in near no visibility. But anyway, there never was a doubt that EAD was ever going to get the contract so its time to stop kidding yourselves that this was going to end anyother way and just build the Boeings. The less said now to justify it the better. At least EADs is being pragmatic and accepts real world realities. It is even had the face saving grace not to have a public hissy fit and embarass the Airforce who it knew had its hands tied. Good for them!

A nice “shot in the arm” for some workers will soon be fogotten when the troops “get their ams blown-off” because they are using sub-standard oboslete aircraft. I hope they enjoy their bloated pay packets.

The aircraft’s main mission IS refueling. However how many aircraft were ever designed for one task excelled in other fields, even proved war winning. Lets see, the DC-3 was designed to carry 20 people at night between Chicago and NY, NOT for carring jeeps and cargo and paratroopers, nor was the C-130 designed as a Gunship, nor the B-52 for carrying anything but thermo-nuclear bombs.….….….…..I guess thats what 17 years of pumping gas does, it makes you really wise and observant.

Whos asking you, you whinning tax-payer?. Just keep paying your taxes, these matters do not concern you. BOEING and its share holders have your interest at heart, can’t you see that?

Somebody slap down Pete’s idiotic and misinformed claims about the “superiority” of the A-330.

Good Evening Folks,

Hey folks now the fun has started, Boeing vs. Boeing, will they find a way to screw it up a third time?

Is that $35 billion price still good?

Will the South rise again?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

You know what I have seem over the past few years an increasing number of sorties for other aircraft being cancel because of no tanker support. You old Boeing 135 lovers only see one mission and that is the problems with this tanker, so now we will have a one horse pony instead of a mutlipe use aircraft that not only will refuel but perform other missions. But then that is the Air Force Loss

Here Here… Pete… How about just having a aircraft where you don’t software that forces you into a flight envelope like a poor doomed 330 that would lose you a valuable airframe.

All of EADS aircraft have software that control them, cause many of them have supercritical flight charecteristics that need to be managed faster than a human could, versus a Boeing that can and will always be designed with the pilot in mind.

It’s going to hurt me to say this but I have to agree with Byron, Boeing’s record of late has not exactly been inspiring with the 787.

Only time will tell, but I have a bad feeling on this non-competition tanker deal.…

OK…We have a sole source tanker bid with the 767. Now, I am no air refueling expert, but from what I have gathered about the A330, the Boeing MIGHT have been the better choice. The A330 according from what I have read,was capable, but with EADS reputation on the A400, I can now see why Boeing was chosen. I mean, who wants to dump billions into a program, and see nothing for 20–30 years from initial purchase concept and prototype?

Why are they using the 767? I swear they have the 777 and now the 787… if we going to buy a new tanker, we want to buy the best, and longest lasting tanker.

Ummmmm…then how come the new B-787 has the EXACT same system ‘fly through computer’ on it that Airbuses have had for over 20 years. Boeing is copying Airbus, not the other way around. They are even giving it an arm rest control Joystick. Anyway not even Boeing have suggested that thier are any problems with the software (and you can bet your boots they would have if there was), and the Mighty US Airforce are happy with it. And with that attitude, how come ‘steam gauges’ which should be even more relaible be specified? Sorry, computers are here to stay.

You mean like the ABL program where they had problems with the NG Laser? Or did you mean the A400 or the MRTT? Oops, right, that was Airbus, my bad.

Pete, everyone uses fly by wire. Boeing and Airbus do not use the same system although it may appear that way to the uneducated. The difference is that in an Airbus, the computer has the final say, at least until you turn it off and then the flying characteristics change significantly. In Boeing, the pilot can overide the computer. Significantly different philosophy. Most of the time it doesn’t make a difference in how the plane is flown, but in certain emergency situations, it may make a significant difference. Both systems have their own advantages and disadvantages.

Based on Boeing last tanker contract they were late and over budget. I bet 3 to 1 it will happen again. Gee seems like when ever Boeing or Lockheed gets a big contract they get behind schedule and over cost.

Say what you want we shall see what happens

Cocidius: if the first non-compete is any indication, I’m with you. However, since this was such a high profile solicitation Boeing will forever be under a microscope with the general population positioned to gobble Boeing up with any mistep. I wish them luck, but I think I’ll look elsewhere to work.

This is only the first contract (KC-X) to replace the oldest KC-135s. KC-Y and KC-Z will come later. When the KC-10s need replacing, maybe the cargo spec will drive a bid based on the 777 or the 787–10 (if developed). One problem with the 787 is it being too new. Boeing is struggling enough to meet its commercial contracts. It does not want to have to contend now with militarizing it with large gas tanks, plumbing for the drogues /boom, cargo hatches, and increased floor loading. You might have noticed that it took Boeing several years to offer a 777 freighter and it’s any one’s guess when a 787 freighter will appear.

Wow this reeks of the political sleaze that I grew accustomed to when I used to work for BA. Good thing I got the heck out of there. This deal went waay past it’s expiration date and just smells fishy.

You’ll be moving to Charleston, SC

It was Northrop Grumman’s decision to not bid — not EADS. The source selection critieria can be boiled down to one phrase: “Lowest Cost, Minimally Acceptable Performance.” Bidding a developmental aircraft like Boeing’s modified/hybrid 767 on a Firm-Fixed Price contract is clearly a receipe for cost over-runs. Just wait a few years

Sorry, the A330 based tanker is not flying in the version they offered to the USAF in the last round. It is flying in the A330 MRTT for Australia which is somewhat closer to the USAF standard than the 767AT was, but still different. The MRTT is also behind schedule and over cost. Airbus/NG doesn’t even have a facility to make the coversion in yet, they have an empty field. The 767 uses proven 767 components. The P-8A uses proven components from several different 737 based airframes and the BBJ and it is on track. At least Boeing has a facility and a trained workforce.

A real disappointment for NG, to be sure. I bet they were licking their chops at the thought of cost overruns and schedule delays.…

every will buy A330 tanker because ha was better in all point exept for people who was in the “america first” party.
after that boeing have receive A330 info and make one virtual plane better in all point but that was just in paper.
after the f-35,A400M in some year you have this tanker

USA , year after year was used by their protectionism , and today we can see all defense program with big difficult​.in 2011, USA can’t launch one guy in space, it is russian who make that now.

many country was going to remember that when one US firm is involved in one contract.
today is not the period after the ww2, america can’t be alone against all
USA will sell all military product for others but no one can sell in USA

Do not compare NGC to Lockheed or Boeing when it comes to cost overruns and schedule delays as those two are the King and Queen of it.

Southern Democrats in LA, MS, AL, GA and FL need to grow some and go to Pelosi and just gently suggest that if they want Health Care then Split the tanker and create a true stimulus. For some reason I doubt that this is the end of this saga…I’d add some from AZ and OH too as Honeywell and GE Engines are losing out too on this one. Oh yeah I liked the $184 Million a piece that NG/EADS was going to bid and Boeing last time was around $235 Million a piece? Yeah the American taxpayers will take it in the pants, Thanks Dicks and Roberts…

What really reeks in this contract is,
Boeing doesn’t even have a prototype built.
They haven’t even physically tried integrating the 787’s fanciful digitial big screen cockpit into the 767 airframe yet, and only recently have they announced that Pratt & Whitney will power the aircraft,
so don’t even count on the first KC-X to even come off the assembly line until late 2010, if that.
Even longer to work out all the kinks.

For future ref, to save time, the Pentagon might as well just write all its future large aircraft contracts worded so as to adhere to what Boeing says it can offer, and any fighter aircraft programs written for Lockheed Martin.

On that note, General Dynamics get all wheeled combat vechicle contracts, BAE gets all tracked AFV contracts, and Oshkosh gets all the logistics trucks.

Let’s just do away with bidding altogether: it’ll save a lot of time, and money won’t be wasted constantly re-writing contracts when competitors cry.
Plus, it’ll shut the GAO up because they’ll no longer have a job listening to competitors’ contract appeals.

Unreal.

The A330 Tanker version is flying today. The 767 Tanker version bid to the USAF is not — just a paper design to include the new boom. The Northrop Grumman bid would have been an Integration contract leading quickly to flying articles. The Boeing bid is a developmental program — their version is totally new. Years from flying. Anyone want to bet that we will see singificant over-runs on this aircraft?

HERE IS A SOLUTION PEOPLE just give out FIXED FEE contracts ONLY and any delay or mismanagement is paid for by the company that won the contact. If you can build it on time and the way we want it then great you get the money. If you drag things out anf f**k things up, it’s coming out of your pocket.

Boeing was the only choice. Thank God for Rep Todd Tiahrt of KS and Lou Dobbs fighting John McCain and the Pentagon for a tanker made in America by Americans. Outsourcing our defense manufacturing is nuts. What part of jobs don’t you people understand? Its hard to have a first rate military when Americans don’t have decent jobs and our enemies or at least those who don’t like us very much have not just our jobs but our technology.
After the teapartiers clear out the WH and Capitol I hope and pray they clear out the Pentagon and State department. Lets get some American loving folks in there who will do what is best for the good ole USA. Go Todd Tiahrt! Don’t let the turkeys get you down. Go troops-the folks are behind you and we will win!

Chet where do yo get that BS about Made in America, the body for the tanker will be built in either Japan or Chia, tail section somewhere else. So it will be put together by americans, not totally made in America

The 787 Tails is made by Airbus so if that is good for Boeing then why not the tanker…

Todd Tiahrt has been seen in a photo at Airbus facility in Kansas ribbon cutting event? Hum makes one wonder, says he is against Airbus but shows up for the event and I guess free food and get his face out there? WAKE up and do not vote for this guy for Senate…

He also did nothing when Cessna announced moving the Sky Catcher and jobs from KS to CHINA, who is this guy, Chet your a shrill for these fools if you think he is good for KS and American workers you are wrong.

Lou Dobbs, Last I checked he is no longer on TV, plus Lou had an idea to go to Victorville CA and take the 767’s in the desert and use them. Yeah he is qualifed to make a statement…

Todd Tiahrt has been seen in a photo at Airbus facility in Kansas ribbon cutting event? Hum makes one wonder, says he is against Airbus but shows up for the event and I guess free food and get his face out there? WAKE up and do not vote for this guy for Senate…

He also did nothing when Cessna announced moving the Sky Catcher and jobs from KS to CHINA, who is this guy, Chet your a shrill for these fools if you think he is good for KS and American workers you are wrong.

Lou Dobbs, Last I checked he is no longer on TV, plus Lou had an idea to go to Victorville CA and take the 767’s in the desert and use them. Yeah he is qualifed to make a statement…

Lets see now, Boeing moved it headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, who lived in Chicago, Obama. SOD Gates comes from Kansas, Boeing uses Union labor, NGC/EADS would not. Obama owes the Unions fo his election. Let you’ll come up with the rest

pfcm you better go back and check your figures but since your a Boeing spy lover you will get the facts out of thin air. Let’s look at it this way; fuselage, wings and tail section makes up the airframe. Now if the fuselage and tail section in made outside the US then 66% of the aircraft is made outside the US.

It is over with, I hope in 1 or 2 years that you will not be eating your words, wait I hope you do. Also to amazing that now Boeing is claiming it will create approx 60,000 jobs now that NGC/EADS is not in the picture. Sounds like Obama Stimulus package jobs he has created

Diego,

No, the USAF will now FINALLY be getting the overperforming, more capable, bigger than necessary but not too big tanker that EXCEED its stated requirements that it has wanted since prior to 9/11/01.*

Old391,

Stop drinking the EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid! The KC-767 IS a multi-role tanker.

*

Tremain,

The only thing ‘new’ about the NewGen Tanker vs the previously offered KC-767AT is utilizing 787 cockpit technology & a boom which ‘looks’ different.

*

George Pinkham,

Therte are no operational tankers that reflect the configuration NG/EADS bid either.

*

Cocidius,

NG, Airbus/EADS’s record of late is WORSE than Boeing’s.

*

Thunder350,

They are using the 767 because it is closest size Boeing airframe to the optimum size for KC-X.

*

Old391,

Less than 30% of the 767 airframe is manufactured outside the US (& Boeing retains the ability to manufacture 100% if necessary) vs 95+% for the A330.

My first deployment to Iraq in 2004 I got there in a KC-10. They removed the fuel system and nailed seats to the deck.

Old391,

Get your facts straight. Only skins, door panals & such airframe components are manufactured oversees on Boeing airframes (787 being the obvious exclusion) NOT entire airframe sections.

KEEP THE WORK IN THE USA « RE INDUSRIALIZE OUR COUNTRY « WE WILL NOT HAVE TO KISS ASS FOR THE NEXT CONFLICT

KEEP THE WORK IN THE USA NOT SOME FOREIGN COUNTRY ANY BOEING MAKE A SUPPERIOR PRODUCT AND TO HELL WITH EADS RE INDUSRIALIZE OUR COUNTRY AND NOT SOME FOREIGN COUNTRY HURRAY FOR THE USA

Another giveaway for the south. This means the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars to our communities. Its nice government pats self on back for getting the requirements defined but it appears still fails in fair competition, and responsibleness to southern coastal states and communities affected. Boeing will have much of this aircraft made in foreign countries, including China, and parts and spares will become expensive to maintain and store. Clearly this is McCains shortsightedness that cost him election, and Obama’s lack of interest and control in government to keep competition fair.

Only thing Obama is interested in is making the US a Socialist nation depended on the government for our food, water and fuel. I do not know about you’ll, but there are a lot of us who served over 20 years and are severing today that doesnot want the US to become a second rate nation which is what Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats are doing to us.

The issue being missed here is that the 767 is an old design. It is my hope that Boeing is required to update the airframe from its commercial variant and that the avionics are FULLY upgraded in like manner. We don’t need to replace one antiquated aiframe for another.

The 767 is a capable basic design, however, technology has left manny of its systems behind.

As someone who has followed the bid closely and actually was involved in Northrop’s Bid process up front for a little while I think everyone is missing both sides of the argument. One remember why Boeing had to re-bid? A lease deal that would cost tax payers billions of dollars more verses purchase. But because they are only one of two companies that make airplanes that side the Air force could not ban them from competing.

However, a smaller plan is what is really needed to meet the primary objective of refueling. The major problem is not that tankers run out of fuel, but having enough of them. There are significantly more runways in the world that can handle the smaller plan. So a larger plan that is more fuel efficient is really not the requirement, but a lot of planes adds increased operational flexibility, that is what the air force really needs. More planes not less more capable planes.

However, on the other side there was the one report released by the DOD in 06. It stated that there was very high inverse relationship between Arial refueling demand verse air transport in a conflict. That is when Arial refueling was needed the most air transportation was needed the lest and vise verses. Not sure what the Air Forces current position is but from what I was able to read it seems they weighted the secondary capabilities of transportation s mission of tankers more heavily mostly for long term cost savings (although one could argue the cost saving is minimal and add very little operational flexibility since commercial is substantial more flexible and cheaper to fill in any need transport needs.)

Although I was no longer in the industry when the previous bid was awarded, what I was able to read indicated this helped Northrop’s case (the primary was technical risk was significantly less with the Northrop/EADS team which effected the price per plane).

Northrop originally tried to go with a computerized 3D boom control joystick interface which should of substantially improved the capabilities. The only problem was the Air Force wanted back-up with fly-by-wire system incase the primary system went down, this greatly increased the cost. So they went ahead with the old Fly-by-wire.

All of this has all been public knowledge to anyone who has followed this (with maybe the exception of computerized boom operation). Assuming the Air Force was correct in penalizing Boeing for perceived technical risk and the increased cost due to this risk close enough(which most comments on the board tend to agree with) then the only downside to the Airbus solution was the requirement for a longer run-ways thus fewer location the tanker could operate out of (that and it being a Subsided foreign corporate which is very subjective so I think should be ignored). I am ignoring politics of it because it should not matter (not that that ever happens with large defense contracts).

I did agree with Boeing protest on how the Air Force changed the rules mid stream to award the contract, that I think was a valid protest point and it should have been rebid. All there other points were just silly.
The RFP should of stayed the same, I fail to understand why they felt the need to change the requirements other than so Northrop would not drop out in round 1. The technical risk cost per plane they added I think is to subjective that one would have to be a subject matter expert and be close to the Air Forces decision process to know if they was any. So we re-bid.

As far as I am concerned this should be the primary three criteria for awarding a tanker with the same budget. Cost per unit and operation cost differences (for TCM), technical risk to deliver solutions at cost, and runway size required (smaller is better). The real issue become weighting the cost verse technical development risk. Mostly how many units can one expect to get based on the risk differences between the two solutions. The air transport capabilities should only be taken into consideration from what I know in operating in wartime verses using commercial. Not if there is that much of a shorterm emergancy operational advantages in using military hardware verses commercial and how much this should be weighted.

From what I can tell with the new RFP the cost saving from transportation was left out of the bid criteria unless the difference was less than 1%. I think this is a mistake. However this great article http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com/​t​h​e​-​u​s​a​f​s​-​k​c​x​-​a​e​r​i​a​l​-​t​a​n​k​e​r​-​r​f​p​-​0​3​0​09/ appears to say that the requirements did not change to much under the Feb 24/10 timeline section. However, it seems to also state the selection criteria model of what would be primary verses secondary changed drastically. So it sound the RFP stayed the same but the award weighting changed drastically.

I honestly think Northrop when they bid in the first round, just had nothing better to bid on. There were very few new RFP R&D project comming out for their Airplane related product line divisions when they bid in 06/07. They knew the government would cover most of the bid cost so even a 20% win chance was worth the cost. However, now there are better opportunity (mostly the long range bomber next year) to spend the negotiated bid and proposal budgets on after the weighting criteria was changed. So they drop out.

Then again I am a little biased because I think a firm who commits corruption should not benefits on the product it committed corruption on. Also Boeing has pissed me off with their press releases. Trying to influence the public, the after voter should have absolutely no say on who should build the product. They are completely ignorant of the cost and operation requirements with the rare exception of the very few of use who actually have the background to understand. The only reasons voters should have any say is if the process is tainted and demand a fair competition from the government. Boeing history of the press releases on the tanker is substantially worse than the typical B.S. press releases we see coming from corporate America. Northrop has released their own but they were typical. On the other hand Boeing releases where extremely emotional, read like political party press releases for jobs, and takes on a religious tone as it is evil and unpatriotic to pick anyone but Boeing. For example “The 3rd thing Boeing’s official release emphasized was a pointed reference to the flight control computers that may have been a major cause of Air France Flight 447’s A330 crash over the Atlantic in 2009, with all hands lost”. How much more in gutter can you get with press releases?

There public sites to try to get voters to put pressure on congress were just plan sick, and it what is wrong with the whole apportion process in this nation.

Boeing win will yet again prove how little real competition there is in the Aerospace industry and having congress in your pocket is more important than delivering the best product for large ticket items.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement