EADS Gets 60 Days For KC-X Bid

EADS Gets 60 Days For KC-X Bid

UPDATED: Boeing Slams DoD Extension; EADS Says 60 Days Not Enough

The Pentagon announced today that it will extend the deadline for KC-X Tanker program bids for another 60 days to allow EADS time to submit a bid, if it receives formal notification from EADS of their intention to make an offer.

The new deadline to submit proposals for both Boeing and EADS would be July 9. EADS had asked for 90 days, but DOD determined 60 days was a reasonable amount of time, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The military is willing to compress its bid evaluation period to allow EADS more time to submit its bid. He said he believes that EADS is likely to submit a bid.


“We believe we can compress the valuation period somewhat,” he said. Politics is not a part of the process, he emphasized. The extension will not change any of the tanker requirements or the way bids will be evaluated, Morrell said. He expects EADS to make a decision on whether to submit a bid in the “next couple of weeks.”

EADS was clearly not as happy as Morrell might have wanted them to be.

“Since the Department of Defense indicated their interest in EADS’ participation as prime contractor in the KC-X tanker competition, the company has carefully assessed the many requirements necessary to participate. We have firmly indicated that a 90 day extension would be the minimum time necessary to prepare a responsible proposal for this $40 billion program,” Guy Hicks, spokesperson for EADS North America, said in an email. “We will consider the Department’s decision to offer a 60-day extension.”

The Pentagon, Morrell said, plans to award the contract in early fall. Compressing the evaluation period somewhat will allow the military to stick closely to the original contract schedule. “It is not uncommon to grant reasonable extensions in competitions of this sort, we consider 60 days to be reasonable in this case,” he said.

One day after the announcement, Boeing issued a statement criticizing the Pentagon for granting the extension. Here it is:

“We are deeply disappointed with EADS-Airbus efforts to further delay this vital warfighting program and tilt the U.S. procurement process in its favor. EADS-Airbus has been fully engaged in the competition for four years and was always expected to provide the vast majority of its team’s work content.

“We welcome the denial of EADS’s repeated requests to alter U.S. warfighting requirements, and we support the Air Force’s stated intent to provide a level playing field for qualified competitors. We do not see a legitimate reason for EADS’s bid deadline extension request, and we believe an extension that favors any individual competitor does not further the goal of ensuring fair competition.

“Boeing remains fully prepared to submit a competitive proposal by the May 10 deadline originally set by the Air Force. However, this latest development, along with the World Trade Organization’s recent final ruling that Airbus has been heavily and illegally subsidized for decades, requires Boeing to review all of our options for going forward while we wait for a final determination on a deadline extension.”

Join the Conversation

Why do we want the Europeans to bid on our tanker?
Their A400M Cargo Lifter is overweight 12 tons, can only lift 2/3 of the original mission, $10 billion US over budget and 4 years behind schedule. Incidentally they would not allow Boeing or Lockeheed to bid on the airframe and when Pratt-Whitney won the engine competition is was halted and promptly awarded to Rolls-Royce/Snecma. In addition in the WTO part of the arguement that EADS/Airbus has with Boeing is that they receive subsidies through defense contracts. And now they even though they are subsized by at least 4 European governments they want the same defense contracts that they complain Boeing benefits from.
Gee, if they win our tanker competition can we look forward to the same lack of performance, late schedule, increasing costs/budget and then have them complain to the WTO?

Can you name one (1) Boeing government contract of any size in the last decade that was on the original schedule, on the original budget, and worked to full spec? Feel free to consider non-DoD contracts. For that matter, feel free to refer to new commercial plane programs to illustrate the company’s performance.

If that is the case then they should not want to have one of our contracts. EADs/Airbus would not even be a viable company if it were not for the government aid. When they pay back all of their no interest loans to the European countries then they can complain to the WTO and bid on our contracts. BTW they would not even allow Boeing and Lockheed to bid on the A400M so why should we allow them to bid on our tanker contract. They want a contract from the US and complain about our practices to the WTO. If our practices are so corrupt then they should not even want any of our contracts otherwise they would have to complain about themselves. We should let them compete as soon as the European countries give 30 years of subsidies to Boeing. You can have it both ways.

this subsidies discussion is very much a matter of perspective. If not for the original KC135 order, the 707 would probably have launched much later, much more expensive. Who knows, the world might have been flying DH Comets, or Dassault Mercures. (or DC8’s) Anyway, please buy american, nothing wrong with that, but stop preaching to the world about free trade! And please please pull the plug on the horrible F35 JSF.

Like the A400? Like the F-35? Like the FCS? What’s your point?

P-8A and EF-18G to name two

“Why do we want the Europeans to bid on our tanker?”

The tanker program was labeled as a “$40 billion program” but NG/EADS lowered the price to “$35 billion program”.

You can pay more than 4,000 workers $5.000 per month for 20 years with $5 billion. Without an offer by another company Boeing would have demanded $10 billion more for the share holders.

Gates has stated the F-35 is too big to fail. Expect further bailouts.

I’m starting to think that all this huff is one big head game going on so Boeing can brag that it won the tanker deal fair and square through a fair fight rather than the empty victory by default (thru forfeit because of the NG bid being withdrawn).

What a waste of time.
The US already operates 3 tanker types: KC-135, KC-10, KC-130.
All this crying about the expense of operating multiple types,…they didn’t b*tch over these three, so why b*tch now when we should be building both the KC-X (KC-135 replacement) and KC-Y (KC-10 replacement),
AT THE SAME TIME, to replace these aging airframes…?

Give Boeing a contract for one, NG-EADS-Airbus-Whoever for the other, just to keep the industries alive,
because god forbid the day Boeing becomes a sole-source provider the world over. When that day comes, they’ll rape the US government over defense programs like how Lockheed Martin does when it comes to stealth aircraft programs.

No competition is VERY bad.

Yes, we’ve see what happens when there’s no competition–the A400M.

Meh! Not like the F-22, F-35, FCS, EFV, and LCS are crowing achievements of how to properly run a defense program, either!

Considering how much money the US Govt has sunk into US defense contractors over the years, with no end product as the final result (billions spent only to have the programs cancelled),
you might as well say that the US Govt has pretty much done little more than subsidize the US defense industry, just to keep the technical know-how base alive.

Is the end result really much different that European governments funnelling money just to keep EADS/Airbus afloat?

Boeing just issued a statement on the Pentagon’s willingness to grant EADS an extension. Quoting from that statement:

““Boeing remains fully prepared to submit a competitive proposal by the May 10 deadline originally set by the Air Force. However, this latest development, along with the World Trade Organization’s recent final ruling that Airbus has been heavily and illegally subsidized for decades, requires Boeing to review all of our options for going forward while we wait for a final determination on a deadline extension.”

Note the “review all our options for going forward”.…

If this means what I think it means then DOD was daft to even consider changing ANY part of this RFP–including the timeline. Yes, there is precedent, but there were also protests. This will be no different if they accede to the demands of the french government–again.

Did the frogs help us in WWI ? or in WWII ? they even told us to buzz off on their M-400 project.
I say keep the $$ in our own back yard.

Hope all the tankers start having issues that will cause these 535 idiots in congress to get off the brains they sit on and split the deal and have a real job stimulus…

The warfighters need planes now…

There are about 1000 Boeing 757’s around. The DOD should just select that airframe and ask for bids to modify them into tankers. Fair to all, free-for-all who want to submit a bid, and I venture far cheaper than any alternative.

Given the recent WTO verdict on Airbus’ unfair subsidization, EADS (the parent unit of Airbus) should be disqualified from competing for the KC-X contract and, should be outrightly named in the WTO verdict as complicit in unfair trade practices.

Just build the damn tanker here and all Americans will be happy and a few will even have a job think of that what a deal

I am right there with you. We have 12% unemployment in California and even though it is less throughout the rest of the country why would we not put Americans to work. Furthermore, why give the profits to a foreign company/country because we know that EADS is mostly subsidized. We have transplanted so many jobs to other countries in various industries, why would we put “our:” troops in the hands of people that show us no respect? I wouldn’t want my son or daughter depending on the safety, quality and security of a product built by foreigners.

Build American, Buy American…

There is no worry bout Boeing becoming the sole provider, we still have Lockheed and other industries. Besides, Airbus will remain afloat without US contracts. Boeing will not do very well without Boeing contracts.

Problem is, you can’t just pull any unemployed git off the street and have him/her skilled enough to assemble aircraft.
These require a lot of skill and hands-on training to get up to par with ISO standards and such.
This isn’t like WW2 and Rosie the Riveter anymore.
You can’t just train everybody on how to properly and safely build modern aircraft within a month.
(There are people in this world you absolutely don’t want around power tools and expensive manufacturing machinery, because they’re just too mechanically inept and clumsy.)

First off, a 757 doesn’t meet the minimum requirements. Second, pulling in existing aircraft for such an extensive modification is no quicker than building a new aircraft, it’s just marginally cheaper (until the DoD gets involved). Third, after all of that lunacy the Air Force is saddled with a pre-aged tanker fleet. This idea makes absolutely zero sense from any perspective.

The bid process was probably extended as a bone to the southern congressional delegates whose districts would have benifited from an EADS win. If you read the original requirement doc you’ll see the A330 does NOT meet the criteria. The Air Force very stupidly picked the plane becuase it was “bigger”, opening the door for Boeing to rightly protest. If they wanted a bigger tanker they should have specified it and Boeing would have offered the 777. Between that and the other inproprieties this was a huge embarrassment for the AF. I also wish our President would publicly tell Sarkozy to shut the hell up and that our defense procurement is none of France’s business. But, that’s the mentality anymore… even foreign countries feel they have a right to U.S. tax dollars.

You need to go back a bit farther than WW1/2. The French Navy saved our butts back in the American Revolution. It’s their fleet hadn’t blockaged and fought the British at Yorktown, we’d still be speaking the Queen’s English right now.

All I can say is LOL at this point. After all the stink from EADS, Northrop, euro-politicos, american journos, us-politicos, they are now going to submit a bid. This is hysterical. I hope they lose.

BUY AMERICAN NOW!

MHalblaub,

No, KC-X has ALWAYS BEEN a $35–40 billion development & procurement program. NG/EADS DID NOT lower the price.

I problem here its not the Air Force or Gates it will be Obama. He’ll bend over backwards and see that the euro connection is heavily involved and possble win. Jus a thought a but a sicking one. Lets remember this individual has gone on recordto apploigize or everything this country has done so lets hold our collective breath, because we need those hard fought jobs here at home not overseas. And I don’t care were th final assembly will be.

“Given the recent WTO verdict on Airbus’ unfair subsidization, EADS (the parent unit of Airbus) should be disqualified from competing for the KC-X contract and, should be outrightly named in the WTO verdict as complicit in unfair trade practices.”

Any when Boeing is found to have violated WTO rules on subsidies, then what? The Russian tanker after all?

EF-18G perhaps, but definitely NOT P-8A

David, Obama will work for Boeing and the Unions, who do you think is the #1 visitor to the WH, SEIU Union Leader is #1, he is not going to support the French or anyone but Boeing and the Unions…

David, Obama will work for Boeing and the Unions, who do you think is the #1 visitor to the WH, SEIU Union Leader is #1, he is not going to support the French or anyone but Boeing and the Unions…

Arthur, can you tell me more about your statement? Boeing is gobal just as EADS, wake up it is 2010…

Boeing gets the same benifits from Washington State and the counties and cities, just wait for the WTO verdict on them coming soon. Plus they get DOD money for R&D. At least Airbus pays back a comission on every aircraft sale back to the countries that help. When was the last time Boeing or the Unions did that? Oh yeah they take dues and blow it on campaign funds to crooked politicos…

The french just opted to buy 8 CN-235’s as a stop gap measure while they wait for the delayed A400M to arrive. This was a straight sole source, no public tender. Announced just after Sarko’s visit to the White House.
http://​www​.defensenews​.com/​s​t​o​r​y​.​p​h​p​?​i​=​4​5​6​4​3​7​7​&​a​m​p​;am…

So, they demand we provide them a chance to bid on our procurements, yet they close their market to us! They could have ordered C-130Js and made a statement on the benefits of two way defense procurement. Sadly, they reverted to type and gave this to the home team. Those little propeller planes aren’t even close to being a substitute for the A400M. (Note that the french air force flies both types.)

Frankly, this makes the competition advocates in DOD look like a pack of braying donkeys.

So do you feel then that it’s OK for the US to play the NIH/NBH card (Not Invented Here/Not Built Here),
but it’s wrong when Europe does it?

Notice exactly just how few European designs the US buys for its military, yet foreign nations flock to the US to shore up their own national defenses willy-nilly with no crying about buying their own local wares?

France bought US-manufactured AWACS and Hawkeyes, yet where’s the French designs that the US bought?
France is even buying Javelin ATGMs, yet where’s the French equipment the US is fitting out with?

Companies like Thales, and numerous others, subcontract a lot of little stuff (electronics, optics, etc, and recently I’ve even seen batteries marked Made in France), yet where are the US contractors crying up a storm there about not getting US-built products for US military use,
even worse that many no-bid subcontracting doesn’t fall under NIH/NBH syndrome, but only the primary product (like an M1 tank or Bradley with Thomson CSF or Seimens electronics and optics, not to mention scores of test fixtures built by non-US contractors).

Why no crying foul there?

The French had no domestic alternatives when they bought the AWACS & Hawkeyes. If they would have had a “made in France” option, they would have went for it.

A400M, Galileo, Telarion, the list goes one. Europe develops and buys their own kit now. They will NOT buy ours if they have any alternative. Frankly, they’re wise to do so.

What DOD is trying to accomplish by extending the deadline on this RFPis beyond me. They are opening the gates to protest hell again.

Points taken, thx.

Still, like I said elsewhere a while back, I think anymore it’s all a canine-equestrian event (dog and pony show) solely to soothe Boeing’s ego so they can believe they won it fair and square, not by the empty victory of default.

Someone needs to still remind Boeing that, “You started it!”, this whole mess as it is, with the tanker scandal years ago…, so they should be a little more appreciative that the DoD has even actually allowed them to continue particpation in a program that they, Boeing, initially pulled the first dirty move.

Shail, Darleen again? Surely you have read the reports in the media that EADS board member and owner, Daimler, is in negotiations with the U.S. Department of Justice on guilty pleas and fines due to bribery by its subsidiaries? By that standard, EADS is fortunate that DOD is crawling after them and begging them to bid. (BTW, Der Spiegel had a nice piece a few days ago on the culture of bribery among certain european companies.)

Boeing has stated that if it loses this contest, it is out of the tanker business. A key element of U.S. airpower will be out of our control and outsourced to Europe (there will be NO A330 manufacture in the U.S.; only a half-@$$ed assembly line–if that– & paint booth). This is very, very reckless behavior on the part of DOD, but they seem willing to risk further dismantling the aerospace infrastructure in the United States, consequences be damned.

I am still holding out hope that Congress intervenes in this mess and sanity prevails at some point.

Show me one single defense contractor from any country who truly has a clean nose when it comes to defense dealings…

Sanity prevail in theUS Congress?
Never happen, until they’re called to accountability for everything they’ve allowed to happen for years (but how exactly do we go about that?).
Throw in term limits, pay cuts when they underperform, or better yet let the voting public determine what Congress is worth.

When those big defense contractors have that kind of money to throw around, they’ll always attract a handful of shills in both defense itself and government (regardless of any ethics training) to favor their offerings on any given contract offer.
Boeing, BAE, General Dynamics, EADS, they’re all the same.
Someone somewhere can either be bought outright or paid to look the other way (or offered a job when their government or military service is over).

Cut the false patriotism with this “Buy American” stuff. How about buying what our warfighters need? And that’s buying the best equipment available. Defense budgets aren’t job bailouts unless you are willing to compromise on what you are buying. We have many instances of hardware we now use coming from foreign sources. And why are you pretending Boeing builds their planes in the CONUS? They assemble them here.

If you are from Seattle, then you will know the history of the Lazy B and realize they are no longer the great airplane designer/manufacuturer of yester year. The don’t build B-17’s, B-52’s and KC-135’s anymore. They packed up and moved to Chicago and now just order sub assemblies from every place but Seattle. Their next big move is to move out of Seattle and leave the trade unionists behind looking for regular jobs.

The handwriting is on the wall.

Surely these jobs –all of them –need to go to Americans, not Europeans. I’m all for Boeing having competition, but it needs to be American competition!

EADS trolls — here’s the $64K question — How in the Hell does defense contracting for Boeing amount to a govt. subsidy? It’s simply another business unit that serves a customer other than commercial interests. By that logic, Ford shouldn’t sell Crown Victorias to all the police in America, because that sounds like a subsidy. I hear Pringles make more than one flavor of potato chip too.…

It’s a gov’t subsidy because Boeing is the last US widebody aircraft manufacturer.
The late 1970s thru the early 1990s saw the big corporations merging just to stay afloat in an ever-increasing worldwide economy where Airbus was slowly gaining ground and growing.
Lockheed Martin doesn’t build anything bigger than C-130s anymore, not suitable for replacing any tankers exept aging C-130s with new-build C-130J’s.
Northrop doesn’t build any, hence their short-time merger with EADS/Airbus to market that aircraft.
Neither does General Dynamics.
Anyone remember McDonnell Douglas, one of the few US manufacturers of widebodies?
They’re part of Boeing now. Have been since, what, early 1990s?
So for all intents and purposes, since Boeing is the only surviving US widebody (commercial AND military grade) manufacturer, then ANY defense contract thrown at them that is keeping that part of them afloat, is therefore gov’t subsidization (under the playing-it-down accusation that “no, we’re keeping competition with foreigners”).
Dress it up all you like.
Until there is airframe competition in the US itself, Boeing is thus being gov’t subsidized, no matter how else you label it.

And for you folks saying that any Airbus design isn’t 100% made in USA,
you forget that American construction labor would be building the main manufacturing facilities in Alabama, because Boeing already has plants.
So the NG/Airbus offer would’ve created more jobs across the US economy.

Anyone thinking Boeing is 100% Made in USA, obviously doesn’t know just how much parts subcontracting Boeing does to foreign countries, such as china building wing and tail components (a nice tech transfer to help china expand its long-term military aviation capabilities).

Get all you facts straight, Boeing lovers.

The NG/Airbus selection opening a major manufacturing facility in the US would’ve meant that Boeing would have to remain competitive in more and more military and eventually civilian contracts, not get closer and closer to monopolization (personally, I’d rather have seen Bombardier and Embraer team up in the long run to offer BOTH Airbus and Boeing some much-needed competition…).

Do I really want to guarantee “American” jobs, when the biggest threats to those kinds of global companies actually comes more from the executive ranks running those companies?

Shail,

Nobady is say that Boeing is 100% US made. However the bid going to Boeing would have >85% ($29.75–34.0 billion) US content vs the bid going to NG/EADS of <58% ($20.3–23.2 billion) & with NG out a EADS led bid would be significantly less (likely below 50%).

There is no way an airframe manufactured in Europe is going to employ more people in the US vs a 767 airframe that is ~70% US & ~30% foreign manufactured.

*required

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