http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/business...mp;ref=businessRoger

This just sets my hair on fire. Give it to Boeing, end of story. I don't want to hear about the airbus being a joint venture with Northrop. Airbus is a European company. And yea, I know that Boeing is outsourcing more and more of their work. Tough! There are some things that just need to be made by the home team, and military aircraft should be first on the list! :( Bunson

Maybe PMDG should take a shot at it! :(

This just sets my hair on fire. Give it to Boeing, end of story. I don't want to hear about the airbus being a joint venture with Northrop. Airbus is a European company. And yea, I know that Boeing is outsourcing more and more of their work. Tough! There are some things that just need to be made by the home team, and military aircraft should be first on the list! :( Bunson

Even if the Boeing option is *not* the best aircraft for the job...?-Dai

Even if the Boeing option is *not* the best aircraft for the job...?-Dai

Short answer is YES!But it was the best aircraft for the job "specified". Airbus came back with an airplane that was bigger, with more capacity than the bid required. I think that's called cheating. When you are asked to design a product to certain specs, that is what you should do. Boeing certainly could have designed anything the military wanted.And that's it for me. The last time I got involved with this discussion, things got out of hand, and Tom came down from the mountain and beat me bloody! (I might be wrong, but I think he is involved with Northrop on some level.) And as far as anybody designing and building a better plane than Boeing, I give you the B-52.Bunson

Short answer is YES!

Ah.... Look up the history of the F-111/TSR-2. It's pretty instructive. Also, I'd doubt that providing a proposed design that exceeded the requirements can be called cheating when the buyer will be getting more for their money than they asked for. After all, any request to tender in any field is a competition to provide the most attactive package at the best price. The only requirement is that the tender must *meet* the requirements; you will never find a request to tender that specifies disqualification on the grounds of exceeding the requirements. That's called supplying a competeitive edge.-Dai

Short answer is YES!

Thank goodness you're not on the selection board. It's that kind of pork barrel mentality that is killing our government and screwing our troops out of the best equipment. This whole redo is a huge waste of taxpayer money as they already picked the best aircraft for the job. Those Boeing lobbyists must have deep pockets.

Those Boeing lobbyists must have deep pockets.

True. I would guess that the contract will now go to Boeing because it's given them time to study the Airbus proposal and to exceed/meet that proposal or, if they have to field the same tender again, to sweeten the tender considerably in one way or another. I'm not sure what American contract law is like in this sort of case but certainly in the UK, a delay is a real excuse to revamp a tender to make it more attractive. I'm no AERBUZ RULEZ fan - for one reason and another I know far too much about the FBW systems on the Airbus A32x series for my peace of mind in certain weather conditions and on an Atlantic crossing, I'd rather be on a 773 than any Airbus - but yes, the Airbus poposal was far, far better than Boeing's and did deserve to win.Perhaps a point could be made that in this situation, it's Boeing that are cheating?-Dai

Thank goodness you're not on the selection board. It's that kind of pork barrel mentality that is killing our government and screwing our troops out of the best equipment. This whole redo is a huge waste of taxpayer money as they already picked the best aircraft for the job. Those Boeing lobbyists must have deep pockets.

I'm a realist. We live in a corrupt world governed by corrupt thugs whose only interest in politics is how they can use their time in office to line their own pockets. This is the way it has always been, and the way it always will be. If you can't come to grips with that truth, then you are naive. I'm also tired of watching American companies selling the rope to hang themselves with to any foreign company willing to pony up. And all for short term gain. Other countries have nationalist policies in place to protect their home industries from themselves and foreign interests. My policy would be to match the protectionist policies of other countries. What's good for the goose, ect.Now it's sunday morning, I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet, so leave me alone!! :( PS-This time I really am done with this thread (I hope). When I wake up, I'm gonna regret having posted this. I think I hear footsteps comin' down the mountain!

Other countries have nationalist policies in place to protect their home industries from themselves and foreign interests.

Ford, General Motors, Boeing, McDonalds, Starbucks, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Apple, AOL Time Warner, Exxon Mobil, Kodak, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Hilton... all American companies that market and sell their products all over the world on a massive scale. If everyone was trying to keep American companies and products out how is it these brands have become instantly recognised around the globe?Now name me the same number of non-American companies that have such a market presence in America, or indeed the world.

Thank goodness you're not on the selection board. It's that kind of pork barrel mentality that is killing our government and screwing our troops out of the best equipment. This whole redo is a huge waste of taxpayer money as they already picked the best aircraft for the job. Those Boeing lobbyists must have deep pockets.

So does Airbus. In fact the Airbus lobby managed to get the requirements changed to more closely match the specs of the A330. The Boeing 767 was meant to meet the requirements as put forth originally. Airbus entered the competition with the A330, which did not fit the original requirements but got them changed to fit the A330 better. The military would have had a new tanker by the early 2000s and would not have wasted all this money and time if it was not for the government politicking and personal vendettas.

I think I hear footsteps comin' down the mountain!

Only in your dreams. You really should have had that first cup of coffee. :( By some fluke I am currently in France - Lorient to be exact (and... please do not read into this anymore than; I just happen to be here - and I am sure the conspiratorial types will not abide that request at all - chock it up to bad timing - really bad timing). I work with things that float. Last time I looked, Airbus made nothing that came close to floating... in fact, they appear to make things that sink very quickly. I also work with things that sink quickly, but most of the time, come back to the surface and then float. Okay, with over 30 years in International Business; making deals, partnerships, joint ventures, co-production agreements, counter trade, offsets, mergers and acquisitions, I have a few opinions about the Boeing versus Airbus/Northrop competition. I have no end of opinion regarding the U.S. Government's handling of the first acquisition attempt. But... I will keep them to myself.All I ask is that this thread not go south like the last one which covered this topic.

All I ask is that this thread not go south like the last one which covered this topic.

It won't :(

So does Airbus. In fact the Airbus lobby managed to get the requirements changed to more closely match the specs of the A330. The Boeing 767 was meant to meet the requirements as put forth originally. Airbus entered the competition with the A330, which did not fit the original requirements but got them changed to fit the A330 better. The military would have had a new tanker by the early 2000s and would not have wasted all this money and time if it was not for the government politicking and personal vendettas.

Kevin, you are 100% correct. My sentiments exactly. In my opinion it is a good example how common sense is absent in such contracts. They had a good plane at rock bottom prices that met USAF's requirements but someone decided there must be a competition, however Airbus would not compete unless they changed requirements so they had a chance. What good is a competition if requirements can be changed at a whim? What good is a 1% win over competing entry if requirements themselves are so flux? I think they should first have a contract to write up requirements :(

This just sets my hair on fire. Give it to Boeing, end of story. I don't want to hear about the airbus being a joint venture with Northrop. Airbus is a European company. And yea, I know that Boeing is outsourcing more and more of their work. Tough! There are some things that just need to be made by the home team, and military aircraft should be first on the list! :( Bunson

Boeing already had a single-source contract to lease KC767s to the USAF in 2003. Unfortunately, it was gained by corruption. A senior Pentagon procurement official went to jail for it, as did the Chief Financial Officer of Boeing.http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1004/100104g1.htmhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/04/...ain664652.shtml