urbanSTL

innov8ion wrote:This quote shows that even Loren Thompson knew Boeing's proposal was better matched to the Air Force's RFP in March 2007, yet somehow he managed to pull a 180 degree turn a year later. Very fishy, Mr. Thompson.

Not so fishy considering Boeing was paying Lexington Institute to lobby the Senate in 2007. Perhaps Boeing Upper Management has since dissolved their relationship with Lexington (i.e., stopped paying them hundreds of thousands of dollars?)



I think BA came to the table with a tanker that (literally) matched the RFP word for word. I also think that EADS bidded this competition (a gamble, no doubt) with the only viable plane they could and it just so happened that there plane won the hearts and minds of the selection committee. Well, perhaps more hearts than minds as there are several billion dollars worth of logistical issues that must be addressed in order to facilitate and service the French planes.



I work for Boeing, and I report directly to a Vice President that reports to Albaugh. Believe me when I tell you there was no conspiracy here.



It certainly didn't help that McCain repeatedly reminded the Senate Armed Services Committee that our plane would cost more AND that we had a history of being unethical while at the same time downplaying the EADS/WTO issue. However, McCain and past non-ethics isn't the only reason we lost.



NG and EADS came to the table with a gamble and won on delivery, increased fuel/cargo carrying capacity, and threw the US a bone with the deal to mod the tanker down in Bama.



All that said, and because I do love my country, I am dissappointed in knowing that my tax dollars (sans the 1% the city of st. louis collects ) will flow to French coffers. I find it even more disheartening knowing one of the possible reasons for this decision stemmed from the promise of bringing non-union jobs back to Alabama after they've left Washington state and the Aerospace workers union.



Rumblings from Boeing Brass last week would indicate that we don't even protest this loss (total speculation on my part) as Boeing hasn't protested a defense contract loss in 33 years.



Why is that?



Well, I would tell you Albaugh and McNerney know we have other competitions in play that could be affected by this. I would also tell you that a company who tries to win a defense contract on a technicality looks something similar to whiny b----. However, a company who takes their lumps and can weather the storm looks that much more appealing.



In short, Boeing as a company will be just fine, but I still don't like paying the French to make USAF planes. Although, Nice in the summer is a beautiful place.



Innov8ion - you know the 40,000 is a bloated number, and you also know the logical move is to absorb as much of 767 folks into the 787 line as possible. By the way, do work for Uncle Boeing?



If a protest does surface, then Boeing has found something seriously wrong with the procurement process - which will make my D.C. trip in two weeks very interesting.

^ I highly doubt it can be proven there was a problem with the procurement process. As you say, it was clear that Boeing delivered a proposal that matched the Air Force's RFP word for word. Yet verbiage in the RFP was altered to give EADS a shot for the sake of competition.



It's known the Air Force had an airlift requirement that was left unmet after Congress decided not to fund the C-17 past order 189. It had to be met somehow, and it made perfect fiscal sense to kill two birds (airlift + tanking) with one stone.



So the Air Force did what they had to in hedging their bets. And EADS got lucky by offering up the only platform it could. I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles when defense budgets shrink. Would have been nice if Boeing could have proposed the larger platform and EADS the smaller one. Oh well.



Like you say, it's doubtful Boeing would protest. The only thing that could happen is for Congress to deny funding which they're unlikely to do -- not when the KC-135 fleet is operating in band-aids. So the Congressmen will squawk to make their constituency feel better but nothing will happen because the readiness of our military truly is more important. Oh, and the Dems haven't missed their opportunity to take stabs at McCain because they'd rather see a fellow Dem in the Oval Office. Isn't politics fun, boys and girls?



Life goes on and Boeing should be proud of its efforts.

The saga continues!



McNerney and his band of ruffians are going to shake it up with a protest! "serious flaws" were found in the procurement process. this will prove to be ALMOST as exciting as Eliot Spitzer laundering money to sustain his habit for call girls.

so, is this a big loss for STL or not? ttricamo, you make it sound like it wasn't a huge loss for STL's IDS. Is the loss of this tanker contract not that big of a deal?

Also, what planes does Boeing still make near the airport? Anything?



Oh and why did they take down the BOEING sign that was visible from Lambert? what was that all about?! used to love the McDonnell Douglas sign...

In the scheme of things, it's not a big deal in regards to revenue over 20 years or so. But it is worth fighting for when Boeing loses a contract due to impropriety in the procurement process. Believe me, Boeing hasn't protested a government contract in at least 100 years and doesn't take this lightly especially since it could hamper future contracts if the allegations were to be untrue. That means there is very likely some serious fallout to be had. You've read only some of the facts about apparent government impropriety in the last few pages here. I wouldn't doubt there's more to come.



Oh, and did you know that three of John McCain's closest advisors to include his campaign co-chair and a former Navy Secretary were paid at least $780,000 to lobby for EADS in a contract likely to total over $100 billion over the entire recapitalization? I thought John McCain had fancied himself as a reformer, a transparent candidate free from special interests? Instead he and his closest advisors are implicated in what looks to be a bribe in order to gain political favor for a foreign competitor in one of the largest US military contracts in our time.



"The aesthetics are not good, especially since he is an advocate of reform and transparency," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the aerospace consulting firm Teal Group.



What does McCain have to say for himself? "I never weighed in for or against anybody that competed for the contract," Mr McCain said this week. "All I asked for was a fair process."



But Mr. McCain, three of your closest advisers collected nearly a million dollars from EADS while you sent letters to the Pentagon pushing for the EADS tanker even when you knew it was far larger than Air Force specifications and while EADS was in the midst of a WTO scandal placing American corporations and its workers in anti-competitive situations.



Is it a "fair process" when you and your closest advisers so clearly pander to foreign special interests, at the expense of America's security, its industrial base and its workers? Mr. McCain, it is one thing when you lobby against American interests as you have here. It is yet another when you and your closest advisers take huge sums of special interest money from a foreign contractor when your entire platform is based upon ethics, transparency, and freedom from special interests.



Read about McCain's impropriety in the Tanker deal in the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/po ... f=politics. Heck, while you're at it, read about McCain's complicity as a member of the Keating Five in the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980's. Or yet another scandal in regards to a purported love interest with a lobbyist whose interests he also supported. You can read about those here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/po ... wanted=all

So, Innov8ion pretty much answered this question: No, I don't think the tanker loss will be a bid deal for St. Louis. The 767 line in Wash state yes, but not STL.



On McCain: Man, I really want to like McCain, and I'm not anywhere close to a Republican. I'm not comfortable with Obama and, quite frankly, I don't think Hilary will receive the nod for Democratic Candidate. That said, Boeing moving forward with a protest is a VERY big deal, so I'm curious to know no what prompted this move. I hope McCain had nothing to do with it, but I think we're going to find out very soon.

Of course lobbying is part of big business, but the level attributed to McCain's advisory team seems curious given his platform of transparency and independence from special interests. You may have your opinion, CS, but ethical guidelines dictate that even giving an impression of favoritism puts one's personal integrity at risk. In McCain's case, EADS can provide nearly one million reasons why.



I believe the Boeing sign moved because the National Guard assumed control of the building in question. Viewing that sign while landing at Lambert made me truly feel at home and is missed. The sign is now visible from 170.



I think there's some F-15, F-18 and T-45 stuff.

This is one republican that won't be voting for John McCain. How anyone in St. Louis can vote for him is a joke to me. I'll obviously wait for more facts to come out of this, but it doesn't look to good. Sending this money to Europe is an absolute joke.

Just curious, tt, why don't you feel "comfortable" with Obama? you prefer Clinton? you can PM me your response, so we don't side track this thread.

The tanker deal sort of surprised me due to the fact that I thought that our government would protect U.S. jobs whenever they can. Guess I was wrong! Almost every industry has been affected regarding the shipping of manufacturing jobs overseas and elsewhere. For so many reasons, defense work should never be done in other countries. I always thought that was the prevailing thought and that U.S. companies such as Boeing should fear government cuts more so than Government outsourcing of defense jobs overseas. I was wrong again.

JCity wrote:Just curious, tt, why don't you feel "comfortable" with Obama? you prefer Clinton? you can PM me your response, so we don't side track this thread.

On Obama: I think he's winning votes on his abilities as an orator. I don't like the fact that he has not served in the Armed Forces. I'm a liberal, but I don't agree with an immediate pull out in Iraq. I don't agree with his Healthcare Plan These are just of the issues that me uncomfortable with Obama.



On McCain: Yeah I work for Boeing, but I respect the fact that McCain called us out in 2003. We were using unethical measures to try and close a multi-billion dollar defense contract. McCain's healthcare plan makes sense to me. I like his stance on the environment. I like the fact that he spent 5 years at the Hanoi Hiton and can't raise his arms above his shoulders. I like the fact that he's a hardliner. I agree with his stance to do away with the AMT. I hope he sticks with his plan to restructure the Social Security System. Honestly, McCain reminds me of an older Teddy Roosevelt and I like that.



I don't really pay attention to political s--- slinging or speculations, which is why my puts and takes on the two candidates are pretty straightforward.



On Hilary, I honestly don't think she'll come up with the Nomination just by looking at the numbers. I could be wrong on that, but I think Obama has a lead (whether justified or not) that would be hard to surpass.



Maybe we take this discussion to another thread?

ttricamo wrote:

JCity wrote:Just curious, tt, why don't you feel "comfortable" with Obama? you prefer Clinton? you can PM me your response, so we don't side track this thread.

On Hilary, I honestly don't think she'll come up with the Nomination just by looking at the numbers. I could be wrong on that, but I think Obama has a lead (whether justified or not) that would be hard to surpass.

Probably because the moveon.org backed Democratic National Committee (DNC) is an unDemocratic entity that refuses to count the delegate votes for both Michigan and Florida. Who cares when they scheduled their primary, the people's will should not be denied.



Oh, but Obama would deny the people's will!. He states that he favors an arrangement "fair to all the parties involved" - a reference to his proposal to split disputed delegates 50-50 between the rivals.



This is an unacceptable outcome because it could potentially decide the race for the nomination. Obama leads Clinton by 106 delegates and if delegates in Florida and Michigan are allotted in proportion to the popular vote, Clinton would win about 156 of the 313 delegates. The remaining delegates would be divided between Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who has dropped out of the race.



Then you have Obama's spiritual leader, Jeremiah Wright, spouting off a litany of racist and black-separatist diatribes. How utterly sickening that America could even consider electing a President who keeps such close staid with racists. For over 20 years, Obama has been member of a Church that says things like is quoted in the below YouTube video. This racist preacher married Obama and baptized his children. Why did Obama never leave the Church that espoused such hate? Has Obama no conscience? What does that say about Obama's character? And can America trust such a person as its leader?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2EVd9WDio0.



In addition, the racist, homophobic and anti-semitic leader of the Nation of Islam(NOI) has endorsed Obama. NOI leader, Louis Farrakhan, is very close to Obama's spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright. Wright has even awarded him with a "Trumpeter Award" citing Farrakhan as a man that "truly epitomized greatness.". Also, Wright and Farrakhan went to Libya together to visit Moammar Qhaddafi.



Why America would want to be associated with such hate, I do not know. I hope it is not the case. Let American votes count and do not subvert the system. Obama may be a great orator, but there is a lot we don't know about him. Here's another quote from Obama in his book, "An Audacity of Hope": "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." We're only now starting to learn the truth of Obama's racist ties.



Articles

- More Jeremiah Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJB-qkfUH

- Obama/Wright/Farrakhan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02083.html

- Farrakhan Controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farr ... ontroversy

Knock off the political talk. This is not the place. You know better, Inno.

Ahh, an 18 page publicly-redacted summary of the Boeing protest: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aero ... ummary.pdf

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

what's the context of this? would you stand with the muslim Bosnians who recently had their church windows smashed in? I would..

^ Good point, context is everything. It just makes one wonder when he maintains close ties with such unsavory characters like Farakkhan and Wright.



To be fair, I just found the original quote which does appear innocuous: “In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

Innov8ion was right:



GAO sides with Boeing on tanker contract

WIRE REPORTS

06/18/2008



WASHINGTON -- Bloomberg News is reporting that Boeing Co. successfully challenged the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion aerial-tanker award to rival Northrop Grumman Corp., giving Boeing another shot at the program after a three-month lobbying blitz.



"Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman," the Government Accountability Office announced today in Washington. "We therefore sustained Boeing's protest."



Boeing appealed to the GAO after Northrop and partner European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co. won the contract Feb. 29, snaring a program that had been Boeing's for more than half a century.





http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument

If Boeing comes out on top, what would that mean for the StL operations?

Full Report in PDF:

http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf

This confirms what I described in previous posts.



Specifically, GAO sustained the protest for the following reasons:



1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical “requirements” than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these

technical “requirements” as possible.



2. The Air Force’s use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives.”



3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force’s determination that Northrop Grumman’s proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.



4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency’s assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.



5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman’s refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within two years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an “administrative oversight,” and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.



6. The Air Force’s evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors’ most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors’ specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.



7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing’s estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm’s most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing’s failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force’s use of a simulation model to determine Boeing’s probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing’s non-recurring engineering costs.

"if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going."



Glad to see Boeing has another shot at the Tanker, and a true testament to the fact that Boeing would only protest in a situation that posed both a great threat to the "warfighter" and the long-term health of our company.



Perhaps we move the tanker mod work to StL to absorb the loss of A+B*?



*let the fierce posting ensue.

In the original proposal, was it disclosed what part of this project would be built at Boeing's operations in St. Louis?