Boeing contract loss

[cgallery]

I've been reading some articles (nothing too seriously) and am a little concerned about some of what I read. Here is a for instance:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...btanker03.html

Apparently, the experts evaluating the proposals initially thought the larger size of the Airbus plane was a negative, but Grumman/Airbus convinced them it was a positive. How does that happen? How do people that are "experts" get such a key issue wrong? And how can I trust that they now have it right?

Also, the article states that they will be able to take delivery of more Grumman/Airbus planes sooner than Boeing would be able to deliver. Have some real doubts on that, too. The Airbus plane will be made in France, Great Britain, Germany, and final assembly will be done in the U.S. Lots of chances for screw-ups.

I do wonder whether this is going to turn into another boondoggle.

[DonHo]

"I do wonder whether this is going to turn into another boondoggle."

Well with the government in charge it stands a real good chance of being a screw up.

My all time favorite marquee posting was "If you don't want crime to pay, put the government in charge"

DonHo

[jackellis]

Airbus turns out commercial airliners in the same volumes as Boeing that arrive on time and work just fine. In fact, Boeing is in the hot seat right now with its new 787 because the many subcontractors are having trouble manufacturing and delivering needed parts.

I suspect there are many reasons the decision went the way it did. Boeing's conduct several years ago in connection with this tanker procurement really hurt their reputation. The A-330 is a bigger airplane and there's some logic to bigger, but apparently it also needs a longer runway.

Remember too that no matter who makes commercial airplanes these days, a lot of the major components are made in America. Engines (GE, Pratt & Whitney), avionics (Honeywell), interior bits, brakes and wheels (Honeywell or Goodrich) are made here rather than in Europe. Engines make up somewhere around 1/3rd of the cost of a new airplane.

Much as I like Boeings, Airbus builds safe, well-engineered airplanes. My only real beef with Airbus is the way they use automation. In Boeings, automation is there to help but the pilot has the last word. As I understand it, Airbus makes it harder for the pilot to fly without automation. For everyone except pilots, that's too far down in the weeds to worry about.

[L. D. Jeffries]

Does make you wonder! PBS had a good call-in program on this AM; evidently the Air Force laid out what they wanted in the way of features. Boeing came back with a bid that did not answer the requirements so the honcho's at AF procurement went with the AirBus bid. Lots of pros-cons on this issue but the bottom line is that Congress may step in and try to snuff the deal; of course that will really screw up the process. Bottom line, we may not ever get a refueler!

[LinuxRandal]

Much as I like Boeings, Airbus builds safe, well-engineered airplanes. My only real beef with Airbus is the way they use automation. In Boeings, automation is there to help but the pilot has the last word. As I understand it, Airbus makes it harder for the pilot to fly without automation. For everyone except pilots, that's too far down in the weeds to worry about.

Ok, I don't know a lot about flight control mechanisms of civilian/military planes, but won't the flight controllers/computers, be different between them? I would think it would have to be to allow for air defense (against other planes/missles), and to allow for quick disconnect of the fuel line (what I understand this plane to be delivering).

[Tom Slick]

Airbus or Boeing or Lockheed are assembled with multinational parts. just their engines will have parts form 7 different countries.

Boeing has already been in the hot seat for back door dealings trying to lease new tankers to the USAF a couple of years ago. Boeing also lost the JSF contract for failing to meet the criteria for the contract within the time frame.

With that said I would prefer that it Boeing or Lockheed getting the contract but if they can't get their act together...



side note: the majority of the current USAF tanker fleet is mostly Boeing KC-135, that is a modified Boeing 707 built in the early 60's. B707s went out of commercial fleets long ago. The CFM-56 engines on the KC-135 are a GE and French (Semca) joint venture.

[cgallery]

I really don't think our interests (as taxpayers) are served when it seems like one vendor's bid was "superior in every way." Part of the job of the committee making these decisions is to make sure that there are no clear winners. If the bidding process is followed properly, the final decision should be agonizing or based on price only. We (as taxpayers) want a photo finish, where all bidders know and understood exactly what the committee is shopping for. It is an apples-to-apples and oranges-to-oranges thing.

I suppose it is possible that Boeing just couldn't get there. But I'm guessing that once Boeing sees how the bids were graded we may get some more data.

Last year I had a hospital call me and ask for a quote for thirty notebook PC's with the fastest CPU I could find, along with 4GB of RAM, at least a 120-GB hard drive, and a larger wide-screen display. Two weeks later they told me they were going with another quote because they decided they needed a three to four-hour battery life. Found out the quote they were going with had a substantially slower CPU, smaller screen, 2GB of RAM, the list went on and on.

In the hospital's defense once I explained that they were overpaying for the lesser configuration, and that they had changed their specs w/o telling me or anyone else, they tossed everything and started over. In the end they saved $80 per machine (and no, I wasn't the low bidder).

[Slik Geek]

Anybody else ever ride in the back of an Airbus A320? Did you notice the loud metallic creaking noises during takeoff and landing (when rudder forces are at their maximum?) The sounds are in the ceiling, right under the rudder. Those sounds scare me.

I've spoken to the pilot of at least one of those aircraft about the noise. He said it was "normal". My concern is if it is "proper" - it sure sounds like metal fatigue is happening on a regular basis. For that reason, I'm always uneasy when I'm riding in an A320 - so that makes me a bit biased towards Boeing / (old) McDonnell Douglas aircraft.

[lrogers]

Well, I can you tell EVERYONE in Mobile, the State of ALabama and the entire gulf coast is THRILLED! This contract will bring a lot of good, high pay jobs to the area. Shoot, I might even give up ship repair for aircraft building.

With the history the Air Force has with Boeing, and knowing how this decision will be examined, you can bet the decision makers crossed all the I's and dotted all the T's so the award will hold up to the protest that I'm sure is going to be filed.

Regardless of who builds them, the Air Force needs them badly.

[cwithboat]

In both cases, the 767 and the A330, this represents an opportunity to extend the product life of an obsolete airframe. These planes no longer have a viable commercial market. Rather than defining a re-fueler that is up to date the Air Force has attempted to take advantage of the lack of a market for these planes. Both Boeing and Airbus would be remiss if they quoted a product with committed production capability(377?, A340?), that they could get higher dollar for from commercial buyers.
As for commonality of flight control and communications systems, all major western airframe manufacturers adhere to specifications and resulting hardware defined by ARINC (Aeronautical Radio, Inc).
As an aside, I live in the Seattle are and ,boy, are they pi**ed.

[jackellis]

Ok, I don't know a lot about flight control mechanisms of civilian/military planes, but won't the flight controllers/computers, be different between them? I would think it would have to be to allow for air defense (against other planes/missles), and to allow for quick disconnect of the fuel line (what I understand this plane to be delivering).

Whatever the vendor delivers will have to deal with all of those concerns. Both companies are quite capable of delivering a quality product.

Anybody else ever ride in the back of an Airbus A320? Did you notice the loud metallic creaking noises during takeoff and landing (when rudder forces are at their maximum?)

Every aircraft is subject to forces that cause metal fatigue. The interior of the L-1011 rattled like crazy. What you might be hearing is machinery at work rather than metal being flexed. All of these airplanes get regular inspections on a pretty strict schedule, including non-destructive testing for cracks and other signs of metal fatigue. If you're worried about the risks, poor maintenance is a much bigger threat than poor design. These machines are extremely safe in spite of occasional stories in the press that try to scare the public.

Both Boeing and Airbus would be remiss if they quoted a product with committed production capability(377?, A340?), that they could get higher dollar for from commercial buyers.

The Boeing 777 might have been a better bet than the 767 and I'm pretty certain Boeing could have easily increased output by the one or two planes per month they'd have to produce if they won the contract. They currently crank out one 737 per day!

The A330 and A340 are essentially the same airplane, differing only in the number of engines. A330 has two. A340 has four. They even use the same wing, which is quite remarkable. I think the only reason for four engines is that it allows the A340 to fly routes that take it more than 180 minutes from the nearest airport, whereas twin-engine airplanes are a bit more limited in that regard. There's now a variant of the 777 that can fly for 16 or 18 hours without refueling.

[pierhogunn]

I've been loosely following this on www.defensetech.net and I find that this whole process, or even military procurement in general to be less about what is better for the war-fighter and more about what is better for the lead politician on the committee...

That said, I would rather see a split-buy with procurement from both boeing and airbus so that one contract can be played against the other and hold prices down, but, as a couple of the articles that I have read point out, that would entail starting the entire tanker procurement thing from square 1, and would fail to meet the immediate need that our armed forces have for in-flight servicing

[MilDoc]

From what I've read in the papers, news mags, online, and elsewhere, Boeing deserved to lose. Lousy presentation. Needless to say, though, I'd rather see an American company get the bid. Boeing needs to get its act together and not just count on getting contracts because they're in this country.