This Senator Has KC-X Questions

This Senator Has KC-X Questions

By John Reed Thursday, January 20th, 2011 6:10 pm
Posted in Air, International

UPDATED: SASC Chair Levin Skeds Hearing

Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell today released some of the questions she’d like answered during the presumptive Senate Armed Services Committee hearing looking into the incident where the Air Force mistakenly sent data to EADS and Boeing about the other’s bids in the $35 billion KC-X contest.

(Note that the hearing has not yet been officially scheduled.) Sen. Carl Levin, SASC chairman, has scheduled the hearing for 9:30 a.m. Jan. 27.

Here are some of the question’s she’s got for Air Force brass:


What steps were taken to ensure EADS did not gain an unfair competitive advantage by having Boeing data for more than a month before the investigation was completed by the Air Force?

What did the Air Force’s forensic analysis show?

Were each company’s actions consistent with ethics rules, standards and practices described in the Air Force’s ethics briefing each bidder received?

Will the data release compromise the part of the bidding process that includes the three adjustments to price?

If so, what does this means for the competition?

Cantwell and other key Boeing supporters may well be growing worried that Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the committee, has not yet set a date for the hearing. Releasing the questions is a sure way to show Boeing that she’s trying hard and, perhaps, to prod Levin into doing the hearing.

Join the Conversation

Gregory Savage January 21st, 2011 at 10:08 am

Just buy the American plane. We keep talking about we import too much stuff. Let’s not start importing jets now thanks.

frank January 21st, 2011 at 11:40 am

The problem with picking the Boeing offer is, that this will come at a very high cost:
1) Boeing is providing a technological and economical inferior solution, which will reduce US military capabilities over the next 50 years.
2) It would underline the already strong case against the US at the WTO about illegal subsidies to Boeing via military contracts (I am aware that there is also a case and (preliminary?) ruling against the EU related to Airbus subsidies).
3) It sends a clear signal to European countries that the US is basing military procurement decisions only on nationalistic grounds, which will induce them to buy less in the US and more in the EU in the future.

(Disclosure: I am a European living in Toulouse, but have no relation whatsoever to Airbus)

Steve January 21st, 2011 at 12:12 pm

Also, the good Senator from Washington missed the question “Did Boeing get an unfair advantage to having access to EADS’ data?” Oh yes, as the losing bidder the first time round, Boeing was provided the winners (EADS) data. EADS did not get the losers. “Did this provide an unfair advantage to Boeing?” I think the fine Senator really wants to ask “How can we guarantee Boeing gets the contract no matter what?” If this is not a fair decision, and based on the Senators obvious one-sidedness she doesn’t care, the Military and the taxpayers are the losers .… the only winners is Boeing. I think the taxpayers and Military deserve the best for everyone. Be objective!

ForrestCantrell January 21st, 2011 at 12:51 pm

Buy the aircraft that our military wants, not what the politicians want.

Philip O'Leary January 21st, 2011 at 1:26 pm

Anyone else think its funny that Boeing led SIAC is proposing the German Puma IFV for the US Army’s new GCV…

James January 21st, 2011 at 3:58 pm

The disclosure of data was not symmetrical, giving Boeing and advantage — as follows.
The bid price is modified by three factors, the IFARA being one of them (basically how many “old” tankers a “new” tanker substitutes). But only the bidder that wins in each factor gets to decrease their price — the other bidder does not. Now, it is clear that EADS wins in this factor, as its tanker is larger and can carry more fuel. So now Boeing would know by how much EADS gets to reduce its price!!! EADS would know what it already knows, that Boeing gets zero reduction in price for this factor.
Therefore, the release in data benefits Boeing as it tells them by how much EADS will reduce its price with this factor.

Aurora January 21st, 2011 at 6:13 pm

Way to go, Maria! You got your hearing. Jan 27.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011–01-21/u-s-sena…

asdf January 22nd, 2011 at 6:33 pm

if the data was really on a DVD, there is no way to know that it hasn’t been accessed (or that it was for that matter)

asdf January 22nd, 2011 at 6:34 pm

what exactly did the boeing get (in return for the original leak) and what did EADS get? is it publicly known?

Dadbo January 22nd, 2011 at 8:38 pm

Better yet.…..let’s just keep the KC-135’s flying for another 50+ years ! Need to award a contract here folks !!!

Code1 January 22nd, 2011 at 10:41 pm

Here’s the thing. Boeing needs to learn a lesson. They have cheated and bought politicians and held the U.S. Taxpayers for ransom for decades. Look at C-130 AMP and the Tanker fiasco for prime examples. The KC-767 is nominally less domestic than the KC-45. Wait and see. If Boeing looses the Tanker competition, then see how quickly that “Eisenhower Era” tanker becomes the best option for the next 50 years. The KC-135R is only half way through its expected service life. We over-inspect and rebuild it every 5 years. We spend as much as 5 million per aircraft every five years during Programmed Depot Maintenance. Boeing will be all about extending the KC-135 service life (SLEP) and will make a ton on it AGAIN. The thing is, that is the right thing to do. Boeing knows it and is waiting to pounce as soon as EADS wins this contract. The U.S. is rapidly migrating toward unmanned aircraft as the foremost airpower weapon system. UAV’s don’t need tankers. So, if the KC-135 can fly another 50 years, and it can indeed, what is the right sized tanker fleet then? Let EADS win, Boeing keep it in court for another five years and keep the KC-135.

Trophy January 23rd, 2011 at 2:11 am

UAV’s don’t need tankers… yet. We currently don’t field any high-performance UAV’s that guzzle fuel like a high performance fighter. All USAF UAV’s are low-performance (as in light on thrust or horsepower) aircraft designed for long loitering times.

If something like, say, an air superiority UCAV was developed, it would definitely suck down enough fuel to require a tanker to sustain it’s airtime.

Freedom fries January 23rd, 2011 at 7:10 am

Keep the jobs AND the profits local. Tax them both because it is good for the economy.

Thanks for your support with Iraq!

fthomas January 23rd, 2011 at 10:57 am

Cantwell is a fool she is a hack just like the rest of the Dems that support Boeing as an American Company. Tell me Sen Cantwell, where were you when Boeing decided to outsource all the Boeing 787 wing engineering to Japan, yes that is a fact. Where were you when Cessna decided to close the plant in Kansas for the Sky Catcher and build it in China. Yep you and your political pals, Republicans this time from Kansas were silent as usual…It is funny too that Airbus is the builder for the 787 tail cone…and this Political Hack thinks she can call Boeing 100% American…give me a break, WAKE UP America, these are the people we need to get out of office. I hope she goes bye bye in 2012. But then if Boeing gets the Tanker there will be enough tax dollars to flow back to her campaign. So much for doing the right thing for the War Fighters out there. The KC-10 turns 30 soon…

tom trebblehorn January 23rd, 2011 at 10:59 am

What steps were taken to ensure EADS did not gain an unfair competitive advantage by having Boeing data for more than a month before the investigation was completed by the Air Force?

How about what steps were made that Boeing finally realized when they saw what they did is that tehy can’t win and will have to protest again.

And this is a US Senator…I pray for America…

fthomas January 23rd, 2011 at 11:03 am

Gregory what is the American plane, so you think Boeing is 100% American? Come on I hope you are not that lost…Neither is 100% anything, it is a global world and global products are in both.

Boeing just is afraid if AIrbus comes to american soil with american jobs that the people in the Northwest will bolt to them as they know how to take care of thier workers…

Both planes are good ideas and EADS/Airbus has thiers flying so get the war fighter planes now as the KC 10 turns 30 soon and that makes some 135 planes over 55. There are 2 more rounds of planes to be bought and Boeing can get thier plane in the air and then if Obama is smart he buys them too. Create jobs all over America.

fthomas January 23rd, 2011 at 11:06 am

Already do that Brandon. Plus did you know that the engineering for the Boeing wings will be done in Japan, so what say you on that? It is a global world now…can’t change that. When Clinton sold our missle secrets to China is when the flood gates opened and we are not in a position to look back anymore. I was a 787 engineer at Boeing who lost my job to Japan so I know what I am talking about…

fthomas January 23rd, 2011 at 11:11 am

And you my dear are driniking too much Kool-Aid, this hearing will reveal only one thing, another protest to come soon as there is no basis for this political hack and her whining.

Aurora where was Cantwell when the 787 wing engineering went to Japan? Where was she and her Republican pals in Kansas when the Cessna Sky Catcher went to China?

Answer those or better yet call her office and you’ll be suprised when they say this is the first knowledge they have of this and the Senator will respond to you, but she never does…

tom trebblehorn January 23rd, 2011 at 11:12 am

Good idea as Boeing has the contract to keep them in the air, so then they have already won.

Oblat January 23rd, 2011 at 10:44 pm

The title of this piece should really be: “Senator publicly prostitutes herself for Boeing”.

With the 787 delayed for the 7th timer and with no answer to the A380 Boeing has worked out that it’s just easier to rip off the American taxpayer by buying politicians to rig contracts rather then competing internationally.

Of course the money wont go into new technology or more efficient operations, no they want it to prop up an obsolete production line for an aircraft already dumped from the airline inventories for being a gas guzzler.

JRT January 24th, 2011 at 5:16 pm

To fthomas’ comment about the ChiCom made Cessna 162 SkyCatcher powered by a 100hp Chinese Continental O-200D, to anybody considering that LSA I’d suggest they should take a close look at a US made CubCrafters Carbon SS powered by a 180hp CC140. Google it. I have no financial interest in it.

JRT January 24th, 2011 at 6:35 pm

Maybe we can follow the path taken by EFV, FCS, Crusader, Commanche, etc., and throw a big wad of money at developing a new tanker, and then cancel funding before it goes into production. If that doesn’t waste enough money, we can slap a new name on a regurgitated development program, and then rinse and repeat.

If we delay long enough, eventually we will be able to buy some cheap long range tankers from China, as they are very likely developing one to refuel their new fighters, and will probably get it into full production before we do at this pace. They’ll probably lend us the money to buy them too.

JRT January 24th, 2011 at 6:39 pm

Taking that thought a little further… The ChiComs can set up a shell company out of Hong Kong (maybe a little more politically correct than Shanghai), with a wholey owned subsidiary US corporate presence. Then they can assemble the tankers here.

Detroit would be a good spot for that, as there is a lot of land available where whole neighborhoods full of abandoned houses have already been torn down, and Detroit has a lot of unemployed looking for training and jobs. They could probably get some Federal funding for the training, maybe get the state to issue some 30-year tax free bonds to finance the land and building development, and a longterm property tax break to go with it. The Chinese could buy the bonds at a good discount now as fear of defaults on state bonds is currently on the rise, and then resell them into the market when fear subsides after the recession, adding a nice profit. It would be good PR for the ChiComs, and they have USDs to burn. The design effort and most of the engineering jobs whould remain in China, boosting their move into aerospace.

Code1 January 25th, 2011 at 12:08 am

Great point! I agree. So should we be developing a UAV Tanker? Jump straight to KC-Z? Still think we should SLEP the 135. With protests and looming litigation, they’re NEVER going to put a KC-X on the flight line before critical structural mods will be required on the 135 anyway. By then the 135 will be a viable platform for another 50 years. But the REAL point here is pumping money into a constituency not airpower projection.

Gregory Savage January 25th, 2011 at 8:39 am

No but it is still an American corporation. Do you see France running out to buy any of our major systems? I mean any? no so why should i care about eads. And if boeing ever folded what would we do then?

Elizabeth January 25th, 2011 at 11:01 am

Well, that’s just too logical.

*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