[voodoo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Exactly. That's the "fraud" of the A380. Airbus advertised this plane with pictures of flat beds, showers and a bowling alley, but in reality the extra space will just be used to pack people just as in small planes.

The former Airbus boss Noël Forgeard has been arrested for fraud by the way. He is accused of insider trading because he sold shares before it became public the A380 was to be delayed.

What no hate article in der Spiegel for you to quote today on the 380?

[TETENAL]

There you go:

EADS Scandal: French File Preliminary Charges against Forgeard - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

There you go:

EADS Scandal: French File Preliminary Charges against Forgeard - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

thanks.. for a moment there I felt as if the world had gone all topsy turvy.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Exactly. That's the "fraud" of the A380. Airbus advertised this plane with pictures of flat beds, showers and a bowling alley, but in reality the extra space will just be used to pack people just as in small planes.

You write that as it would be Airbus' choice how the cabin will be customized!?
Those pictures are just examples to show possibilities for the interior design.
We build what the customer wants - that's the main problem the A380 has!

If you don't like to be packed like in small planes, then search for a better airline or get a private jet!

The former Airbus boss Noël Forgeard has been arrested for fraud by the way. He is accused of insider trading because he sold shares before it became public the A380 was to be delayed.

Noël is an idiot (and everybody is glad he's gone)!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by badidea 

Noël is an idiot (and everybody is glad he's gone)!

I'm thrilled!

However.. I don't know about Gallois. I'd prefer him out of the way as well. Tom Enders.. well..

What they could do to prove their worth would be to set up an Airbus memerobilia shop online so I can order my Airbus logo t-shirt!

[mattyb]

TETENAL, you are a fool. Each airline chooses exactly what they want inside, from how many seats, how wide each seat is, what colour the carpet is, the speakers, where they'll be placed etc etc.

And btw, they also choose the engines.

[osiris]

The A380 is coming to JFK next week and will proceed with 3 flights a week.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index...id=1&aid=84465

(there's video)

[mrtew]

Doesn't sound like Airbus lied about the nice accommodations to me! If the seats lie flat they can't be packed in too tightly. I'd almost be willing to fly to that bizarre overdeveloped wasteland to ride on that plane!

[voodoo]

Oh I'd love to ride on the 380!

[analogika]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Doesn't sound like Airbus lied about the nice accommodations to me! If the seats lie flat they can't be packed in too tightly. I'd almost be willing to fly to that bizarre overdeveloped wasteland to ride on that plane!

Pics of the internals:
http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/...b-1_pos-7.html

[aristotles]

Wow. Incredible.

The nicest I've had was on my flight back from London Gatwick to Vancouver. It was on an A330 so Club Class only had slightly larger seats than economy and a bit more leg room but they did give us a a choice of Champagne, Mimosas or Orange juice when we took our seats. All food and drink was served with glass and ceramic dishes and real cutlery. I had a french Sauvignon Blanc with my dinner. All drinks in between meals were free of course. We had two flight attendants for the three rows of seats in the club cabin.

[OreoCookie]

Just an update: apparently, pilots find the A380 too quiet, they seem to have trouble sleeping, because of all the noise coming from the passengers

Can't wait to fly that thing

[mattyb]

They're not too quiet for me, the fookers fly right over my flat !!!

[Footy]

I love it... They're considering "installing lightweight generators to create ambient noise". I'm just wondering how much it will cost compared to a $10 fan from Walmart that would serve the same purpose.

[mrtew]

Seriously.... or how about a radio? Or maybe just remove the exteriour sound insulation from the sleeping cabin so the pilots can hear the engines better again! That would make the plane even lighter!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Footy 

I love it... They're considering "installing lightweight generators to create ambient noise". I'm just wondering how much it will cost compared to a $10 fan from Walmart that would serve the same purpose.

I would think they mean "Noise Generators." I can't sleep without mine. "Rain on a Tin Roof" is my favorite.

[tooki]

Yes, and a simple fan is an effective white noise generator.

[ghporter]

I can see this as an issue for a lot of people. On most jets, I can't hear because of background noise, but it sort of blankets everything and is almost a soothing sort of sound. On a quiet jet? I'd have to have some way to keep my iPod going constantly! I have tinnitus, so I need some sort of background noise to drown out the noise in my ears...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by abe 

Why Boeing Lost The Air Tanker Deal to Northrup/EADS/Airbus

A quick look seems to make the decision an obvious one.



Bloomberg.com: Worldwide


The current tanker being replaced carries 200,000 lbs of fuel.

The proposed Boeing replacement would carry 202,000 lbs of fuel.

The Northrup/EADS/Airbus plane that has been chosen by the Pentagon carries 250,000 lbs of fuel.


I can't understand why anyone would be surprised that the Northrup plane would be chosen.

So…after patriots complained about the deal going to those Godless Socialist Moneygrubbers in Europe, the deal was scrapped and the contract offer redone, tailor-made to exactly what Boeing offers.

And now Airbus has withdrawn from the contest, citing pointlessness due to said tailor-made conditions.

End of story.

Congratulations.

[mduell]

Wow, what a slanted view you have there.

The previous contest (which Northrup won) was chided by the GAO for being conducted illegally. Just as the previous acquisition process that selected Boeing was overturned. It didn't matter who won, the process was conducted incorrectly so it needed to be redone.

The Air Force has determined they need a new midsize tanker. The new tanker must be at least as capable as the old tanker, but beyond that they're more concerned about price (acquisition and lifecycle) than additional capabilities (they already have a large tanker, the 175t capable KC-10). With the fixed price contract, Northrup would be taking too much risk for too little margin to propose the A330 MRTT derivative.

If it was about capacity they'd be bidding the A380 against the 747.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Wow, what a slanted view you have there.

The previous contest (which Northrup won) was chided by the GAO for being conducted illegally. Just as the previous acquisition process that selected Boeing was overturned. It didn't matter who won, the process was conducted incorrectly so it needed to be redone.

Wow, what a slanted view you have there.

The original contest which Boeing won was due to corruption and people went to jail.

The contest where Northropp won was dismissed because the GOA found some minor faults within it and due to political pressure and the collapsed economy it was scrapped.

Hardly comparable.

Welcome to the now.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Wow, what a slanted view you have there.

The previous contest (which Northrup won) was chided by the GAO for being conducted illegally. Just as the previous acquisition process that selected Boeing was overturned. It didn't matter who won, the process was conducted incorrectly so it needed to be redone.

The Air Force has determined they need a new midsize tanker. The new tanker must be at least as capable as the old tanker, but beyond that they're more concerned about price (acquisition and lifecycle) than additional capabilities (they already have a large tanker, the 175t capable KC-10). With the fixed price contract, Northrup would be taking too much risk for too little margin to propose the A330 MRTT derivative.

If it was about capacity they'd be bidding the A380 against the 747.

Reality distortion field much

-t

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So…after patriots complained about the deal going to those Godless Socialist Moneygrubbers in Europe, the deal was scrapped and the contract offer redone, tailor-made to exactly what Boeing offers.

And now Airbus has withdrawn from the contest, citing pointlessness due to said tailor-made conditions.

End of story.

Congratulations.

You make a good point.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Wow, what a slanted view you have there.

The original contest which Boeing won was due to corruption and people went to jail.

The contest where Northropp won was dismissed because the GOA found some minor faults within it and due to political pressure and the collapsed economy it was scrapped.

Hardly comparable.

Welcome to the now.

Yes!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter 

Yes!

What. Have. I. Done?

(Hi Aberdeenwriter!)

[Spheric Harlot]

FWIW, in a highly politicized contract like this one, it's perfectly understandable that this would happen. It just throws an interesting light on the president's proclamation that all defense contract would henceforth be subject to real competition, in order to keep costs low and quality high.

And it really would have helped EADS recover from the A400M debacle, which is a subject all unto itself.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So…after patriots complained about the deal going to those Godless Socialist Moneygrubbers in Europe, the deal was scrapped and the contract offer redone, tailor-made to exactly what Boeing offers.

And now Airbus has withdrawn from the contest, citing pointlessness due to said tailor-made conditions.

End of story.

Congratulations.

Whether it was due to "not built here" at its core or not, the Air Force DID, without formally changing the requirements, "adjust" them toward larger aircraft, which favored the EADS offering. When called on this, the Air Force suddenly "pointed out" that they also wanted a smaller, more nimble aircraft "as well..." It turned out that there were not enough senior people supervising the acquisition process and that the true, formal requirements weren't even what the brass had asked for in the first place. Congress and the White House basically said "when you figure out what you really want, do this thing again, but do it fairly and according to the rules."

I was upset that the EADS offering was originally selected for a number of reasons-none of which had anything to do with what language the stuffed shirts who were in charge spoke. The Air Force has nearly 70 years of experience with Boeing air refueling products, and that means a huge investment in training and support equipment. To change vendors now would require an expensive, slow, and very difficult "cultural shift" from the Boeing paradigm to some new paradigm. While "we've always done it this way" isn't necessarily a good thing in business practices, it has some solid support in safety of flight issues. Changing the controls from a Boeing-centric system (which the KC-10 mimics) would, to me anyway, introduce safety issues.

I also saw some of the "oh wait, we want this too..." stuff from a slightly different perspective-contract support for KC-135s is performed at Lackland AFB on the grounds of what used to be Kelly AFB, right here where I live. The Boeing people here were getting wind of the "adjustments" to the requirement during the competition, and making it clear that the little guy working on aircraft support here in San Antonio was going to take it in the shorts (and lose his job) because of pressure to select some source other than Boeing. This sort of thing isn't about "everybody should get a turn to play on the swings" fairness and inclusion, it's about following a set of rules carefully and completely, including settling on a single, fixed requirement and letting the best, most cost-effective source prevail. There was plenty of pressure from within and outside the government to see someone displace Boeing-much of that being related to Congresscritters who disliked certain other members from Washington, Kansas and Illinois and wanted to see them lose some points. That's not following the rules, that's "throwing one's weight around," and it's just plain wrong.

[imitchellg5]

In the end it made no sense at all to go with EADS when Boeing is standing by with a product that's pretty much ready to go.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

What. Have. I. Done?

(Hi Aberdeenwriter!)

Good to see you, voodoo!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Whether it was due to "not built here" at its core or not, the Air Force DID, without formally changing the requirements, "adjust" them toward larger aircraft, which favored the EADS offering. When called on this, the Air Force suddenly "pointed out" that they also wanted a smaller, more nimble aircraft "as well..." It turned out that there were not enough senior people supervising the acquisition process and that the true, formal requirements weren't even what the brass had asked for in the first place. Congress and the White House basically said "when you figure out what you really want, do this thing again, but do it fairly and according to the rules."

I was upset that the EADS offering was originally selected for a number of reasons-none of which had anything to do with what language the stuffed shirts who were in charge spoke. The Air Force has nearly 70 years of experience with Boeing air refueling products, and that means a huge investment in training and support equipment. To change vendors now would require an expensive, slow, and very difficult "cultural shift" from the Boeing paradigm to some new paradigm. While "we've always done it this way" isn't necessarily a good thing in business practices, it has some solid support in safety of flight issues. Changing the controls from a Boeing-centric system (which the KC-10 mimics) would, to me anyway, introduce safety issues.

I also saw some of the "oh wait, we want this too..." stuff from a slightly different perspective-contract support for KC-135s is performed at Lackland AFB on the grounds of what used to be Kelly AFB, right here where I live. The Boeing people here were getting wind of the "adjustments" to the requirement during the competition, and making it clear that the little guy working on aircraft support here in San Antonio was going to take it in the shorts (and lose his job) because of pressure to select some source other than Boeing. This sort of thing isn't about "everybody should get a turn to play on the swings" fairness and inclusion, it's about following a set of rules carefully and completely, including settling on a single, fixed requirement and letting the best, most cost-effective source prevail. There was plenty of pressure from within and outside the government to see someone displace Boeing-much of that being related to Congresscritters who disliked certain other members from Washington, Kansas and Illinois and wanted to see them lose some points. That's not following the rules, that's "throwing one's weight around," and it's just plain wrong.

If cultural shift is so important then ALL U.S. military planes should be built by the same manufacturer that builds the tankers, shouldn't they? That would eliminate any cultural safety issues, ideally.

If the criterion used to award the contract was who would build the most capable plane for the least money, Northrup should have won the bid.

[aberdeenwriter]

Seattle/Paris ­ The United States Air Force has been using Boeings KC-135 aerial tanker to refuel fighter jets for over half a century. It wants to gradually replace its fleet with new aircraft and the contract to build the planes is regarded as the deal of the century" in the aerospace industry.

On Monday European plane maker Airbus and its US partner Northrop Grumman abandoned their bid to supply the US Air Force with new tankers.

The Airbus KC-45 is based on the European manufacturers A330 plane, which is mainly used on intercontinental routes.

Almost all of the worlds big passenger carriers have the A330 in their fleets.

According to Airbus the KC-45 can carry 25 per cent more fuel than the old KC-135 and is also bigger than Boeings rival KC-767 aircraft.

The KC-767s design is based on the Boeing 767 airliner which is over 30 years old.

The 767 has almost completely disappeared from the market and been replaced by Airbus planes. Last year just seven Boeing 767 aircraft were ordered. Until this week Airbus KC-45 had won almost every international competition against Boeings KC-767.

In 2008 when the US Air Force originally selected the KC-45 to be its new aerial tanker, Boeing revamped the design of its KC-767. It gave the aircraft the same large cockpit display the company is putting in its Dreamliner 787 while maintaining the 767 fuselage.

The changes in design meant the KC-767 was more tailored to the demands set by the Air Force. It also uses 24 per cent less fuel than the larger and heavier Airbus plane.

The KC-767 has been sold to just two nations, Japan and Italy - where Boeing orders plane parts. In every market where the model has openly competed against the Airbus KC-45 such as Australia, Britain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and in the US two years ago, it was the Europeans who won out.

Read more: BACKGROUND: Airbus versus Boeing - comparison of rival tankers : Business

Some facts to consider, although the issue is now decided for Boeing.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

In the end it made no sense at all to go with EADS when Boeing is standing by with a product that's pretty much ready to go.

"[R]eady to go" in the sense that it's a frankentanker integrating bits from multiple platforms (including the new 787 flight deck) that has never flown together?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Changing the controls from a Boeing-centric system (which the KC-10 mimics) would, to me anyway, introduce safety issues.

Good thing Boeing isn't switching to an all new FBW boom... er wait, they are.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter 

If the criterion used to award the contract was who would build the most capable plane for the least money, Northrup should have won the bid.

But what do you do when the most capable plane and the lowest cost plane are different? You pick the higher priority. For this contest, USAF has decided it's cost.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter 

The 767 has almost completely disappeared from the market and been replaced by Airbus planes.

Ridiculously slanted and misleading. There's about 660 A330s and 825 767s in commercial service today.

[aberdeenwriter]

Here is Northrop's statement.

Statement From Northrop Grumman on U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Program

WASHINGTON, D.C. - March 8, 2010 - The following is a statement from Wes Bush, Chief Executive Officer and President of Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC), concerning the U.S. Air Force aerial refueling tanker program.

"After a comprehensive analysis of the final RFP, Northrop Grumman has determined that it will not submit a bid to the Department of Defense for the KC-X program. We reached this conclusion based on the structure of the source selection methodology defined in the RFP, which clearly favors Boeing's smaller refueling tanker and does not provide adequate value recognition of the added capability of a larger tanker, precluding us from any competitive opportunity.

"Northrop Grumman fully respects the Department's responsibility to determine the military requirements for the new tanker. In the previous competition, Northrop Grumman was selected by the Air Force as offering the most capable tanker for the warfighter at the best value for the taxpayer. However, the Northrop Grumman and EADS team is very disappointed that the revised source selection methodology now dramatically favors Boeing's smaller refueling tanker. We agree that the fundamental military requirements for the new tanker have not changed since the last competition, but the Department's new evaluation methodology now clearly favors the smaller tanker.

"We continue to believe that Northrop Grumman's tanker represents the best value for the military and taxpayer – a belief supported by the selection of the A330 tanker design over the Boeing design in the last five consecutive tanker competitions around the globe. Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our Allies in this vital mission area.

"Our prior selection by the Air Force, our firm belief that we provide the best value offering, and the hard work and commitment of the many individuals and communities on our team over many years made this a difficult decision for our company. But we have a fiduciary responsibility to our shareholders to prudently invest our corporate resources, as do our more than 200 tanker team suppliers across the United States. Investing further resources to submit a bid would not be acting responsibly.

"We have decided that Northrop Grumman will not protest. While we feel we have substantial grounds to support a GAO or court ruling to overturn this revised source selection process, America's service men and women have been forced to wait too long for new tankers. We feel a deep responsibility to their safety and to their ability to fulfill the missions our nation calls upon them to perform. Taking actions that would further delay the introduction of this urgent capability would also not be acting responsibly.

"We recognize that our decision likely creates a sole-source outcome for Boeing. We call on the Department to keep in mind the economic conclusions of the prior round of bidding as it takes actions to protect the taxpayer when defining the sole-source procurement contract. In the previous round, the Air Force, through a rigorous assessment of our proposal, determined that it would pay a unit flyaway cost of approximately $184 million per tanker for the first 68 tankers, including the non-recurring development costs. With the Department's decision to procure a much smaller, less capable design, the taxpayer should certainly expect the bill to be much less."

Northrop Grumman Corporation is a leading global security company whose 120,000 employees provide innovative systems, products, and solutions in aerospace, electronics, information systems, shipbuilding and technical services to government and commercial customers worldwide.

Statement From Northrop Grumman on U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Program (NYSE:NOC)

Boeing's smaller, less capable tanker should also cost less than $184 million ea. Let's demand this.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by mduell 

"[R]eady to go" in the sense that it's a frankentanker integrating bits from multiple platforms (including the new 787 flight deck) that has never flown together?

No, "ready to go" in the sense that it integrates material from the 767 that has been in existence for years and are in service today. Sharing material between only two different aircraft is hardly a "frankentanker."

[mduell]

It's disappointing how political/national considerations dominate the debate rather than the needs of the Air Force.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

No, "ready to go" in the sense that it integrates material from the 767 that has been in existence for years and are in service today. Sharing material between only two different aircraft is hardly a "frankentanker."

767-200 fuselage
+767-300F wing
+767-400ER flaps
+767-300F landing gear
+767-400ER generators
+767-300F cargo door
+787 flight deck
+767-300F main deck floor
+ new FBW boom

With the fixed price contract the risk is all on Boeing rather than the Air Force, but frankentanker is absolutely the right name for it.

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter 

Regrettably, this means that the U.S. Air Force will be operating a less capable tanker than many of our Allies in this vital mission area.

Different force structure... only one of our allies has something bigger than the A330 in their tanker fleet.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Ridiculously slanted and misleading. There's about 660 A330s and 825 767s in commercial service today.

The 767 has been in service for almost 28 years while the A330 is 16 years old. Boeing has had more than 10 years extra to put planes into service than Airbus. How about some more realistic measure of popularity, namely orders and deliveries?
In 2009, only 7 Boeing 767s have been ordered and 11 delivered. During the same period, 78 A330s have been ordered and 76 delivered. It's quite clear which aircraft airlines think is more capable.
Hardly surprising, considering the B767's age. Souping up the cockpit to bring it to the standards of the competition won't change that. Boeing was in the difficult position that they could not offer a 787-based tanker, for instance (for obvious reasons).

Originally Posted by mduell 

It's disappointing how political/national considerations dominate the debate rather than the needs of the Air Force.

Because that's the reason Boeing has gotten the contract. The AF has concluded the first time around that the A330-based tanker is the more suitable choice. Otherwise the EADS/Northrop-Grumman consortium wouldn't have been awarded the contract the first time around.

I don't mind if you prefer Boeing over Airbus (I think they're equally (in)capable), but at least be honest and upfront about it. Living in a reality distortion field isn't particularly helpful to anyone. This big contract is a long-term government subsidy which is in big trouble because of its B787.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter 

If cultural shift is so important then ALL U.S. military planes should be built by the same manufacturer that builds the tankers, shouldn't they? That would eliminate any cultural safety issues, ideally.

If the criterion used to award the contract was who would build the most capable plane for the least money, Northrup should have won the bid.

I must not have been as clear as I wanted to be. I was talking about retaining a specific paradigm, very much like "push the stick forward to dive," not "all the lights are in the same places." With an experience base that has come at a cost of millions of dollars per person, making things as directly transferable as possible makes a lot of sense. It was my understanding that the control system in the EADS product works very differently from that in Boeing's tankers. For example, the pilot in a KC-135 manages fuel delivery (i.e. "feed 2,000 pounds of fuel from port and starboard midwing tanks, then 1000 from the midships belly tank...) while the boom operator handles connecting and disconnecting. From what I understand, the EADS system puts both functions in the hands of the boom operator-which feels very much like giving the control yoke to someone who isn't in the cockpit. (I am fully ready to have any errors in my admittedly sketchy understanding of the EADS fuel connection and delivery system corrected with factual data. My sources may have been "slanted" against EADS.)

Of course my earlier post was also much broader than I had intended it to be, and this control paradigm issue is the least serious of any on this subject.

[voodoo]

I am mildly surprised that Northrop didn't get the deal in the end... It's Northrop-Grumman gol-darn-it. I guess Boeing is a heavier hitter these days and Alabama is going to have to wait to become an aviation center in the US.

Boeing managed to bribe/whine themselves into winning by default. That's heavy hitting.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I am mildly surprised that Northrop didn't get the deal in the end... It's Northrop-Grumman gol-darn-it. I guess Boeing is a heavier hitter these days and Alabama is going to have to wait to become an aviation center in the US.

Boeing managed to bribe/whine themselves into winning by default. That's heavy hitting.

Suggesting that bribery was involved is quite a serious charge. Especially when the Air Force broke its own rules in changing the requirements during the competition to favor Northrop...

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I must not have been as clear as I wanted to be. I was talking about retaining a specific paradigm, very much like "push the stick forward to dive," not "all the lights are in the same places." With an experience base that has come at a cost of millions of dollars per person, making things as directly transferable as possible makes a lot of sense.

That would preclude any manufacturer other than Boeing from getting the contract -- for no good reason. Sort of like saying `we should stick to Windows, because people would have a hard time dealing with closing windows going to the upper-left of a window instead of the upper-right.

Airbus is an established player and having experience on a hypothetic A330-based tanker would go a long way to qualify Airforce personell to fly commercial jetliners after their military career.

Originally Posted by ghporter

It was my understanding that the control system in the EADS product works very differently from that in Boeing's tankers. For example, the pilot in a KC-135 manages fuel delivery (i.e. "feed 2,000 pounds of fuel from port and starboard midwing tanks, then 1000 from the midships belly tank...) while the boom operator handles connecting and disconnecting. From what I understand, the EADS system puts both functions in the hands of the boom operator-which feels very much like giving the control yoke to someone who isn't in the cockpit.

To be honest, I have no clue as to how refueling an aircraft in mid-air works in detail. However, if the personnel is properly trained, why is splitting responsibilities the KC-135 way worse? You could make an argument that the pilot has less things to do at the same time -- which is a good thing.

In any case, the vibe I get the most reminds me very much of `Toyota can't make American trucks!' Despite the fact that part-by-part, some Toyota products are more American than those of `genuine American' manufacturers. In the end, this stifles competition that has led to the formation of behemoths like Boeing and Airbus. There is very little competition as both are practically state-backed. They both have projects that are commercially not viable. At the same time, political considerations make it hard to make good products. In the next decade or two, I expect China and Brazil at least to introduce larger jets of their own (say, A320/B737-sized aircraft).

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Suggesting that bribery was involved is quite a serious charge. Especially when the Air Force broke its own rules in changing the requirements during the competition to favor Northrop...

I wasn't suggesting there was bribery involved in the first tanker deal to Boeing, that's actually what happened.

Next, Boeing presented an idea that was enormous, even for the Pentagon. It wanted to lease to the Air Force 100 767s as refueling tankers. The cost: $23.5 billion. Critics thought the idea was much too expensive. But during the price negotiations, Boeing internal Emails show that Druyun was siding with Boeing, not the Air Force.

After one meeting, a Boeing executive wrote: "Meeting today on price was very good. Darleen spent most of the time bringing the USAF pricer up to our number.”

Sen. John McCain, who uncovered the Emails in an investigation of the tanker deal, had this to say: "Her job was to get the best possible price of the product for the American taxpayer. Instead, obviously she drove the price up to get the best possible deal for Boeing Corporation."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in664652.shtml

[mduell]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter 

Statement From Northrop Grumman on U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Program (NYSE:NOC)

Boeing's smaller, less capable tanker should also cost less than $184 million ea. Let's demand this.

If Northrup thought there was any chance Boeing's bid would be more than $184MM, why don't they submit a bid at $184MM?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The 767 has been in service for almost 28 years while the A330 is 16 years old. Boeing has had more than 10 years extra to put planes into service than Airbus.

Reread the statement I was replying to: "The 767 has almost completely disappeared from the market and been replaced by Airbus planes."
My point was the 767 is still very much present in the active fleets. Also military transports are more like civilian freighters in terms of utilization than civilian passenger aircraft. 767 BCF conversions are not reflected in your numbers.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

How about some more realistic measure of popularity, namely orders and deliveries?
In 2009, only 7 Boeing 767s have been ordered and 11 delivered. During the same period, 78 A330s have been ordered and 76 delivered. It's quite clear which aircraft airlines think is more capable.

A 1 year sample is far too short in a market where products are on the market for ~10 years and used for 15-30 years.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Because that's the reason Boeing has gotten the contract. The AF has concluded the first time around that the A330-based tanker is the more suitable choice. Otherwise the EADS/Northrop-Grumman consortium wouldn't have been awarded the contract the first time around.

Boeing won the contest because they have the right size platform and Northrup can't get their larger platform down to the right price.
To add a gratuitous car analogy, USAF currently operates 4 passenger sedans (100t KC135) and 7 passenger large SUVs (175t KC10). They need to replace the 4 passenger sedans and they're being offered 4 passenger sedans (100t KC767) and 5 passenger midsize SUVs (125t KC330). USAF would take the 5 passenger SUV if it was the same price as the 4 passenger car, but it's not.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't mind if you prefer Boeing over Airbus (I think they're equally (in)capable), but at least be honest and upfront about it.

I don't prefer either manufacturer; they each have their political (factors other than product) appeal. I prefer USAF gets the vehicle it needs.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by mduell 

If Northrup thought there was any chance Boeing's bid would be more than $184MM, why don't they submit a bid at $184MM?

Read the statement.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...6/#post3945046

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I wasn't suggesting there was bribery involved in the first tanker deal to Boeing, that's actually what happened.

I wasn't aware that this person was involved in the tanker deal in question, particularly since the competition we're talking about was in 2007, and Dryun was outed in 2005...

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I wasn't aware that this person was involved in the tanker deal in question, particularly since the competition we're talking about was in 2007, and Dryun was outed in 2005...

Ah willfully obtuse. I wrote bribe/whine, indicating first bribe then whine. Can't be bothered to play games with you - who are you kidding?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Ah willfully obtuse. I wrote bribe/whine, indicating first bribe then whine. Can't be bothered to play games with you - who are you kidding?

Picking fights doesn't work with me. Your wording was not clear. No whining needed when you can point to the rules that Congress made plenty of fuss about when they told the Air Force never again to allow the sort of bribery thing you referred to and say "you're messing up again." That's not whining. That's following the rules.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Picking fights doesn't work with me. Your wording was not clear. No whining needed when you can point to the rules that Congress made plenty of fuss about when they told the Air Force never again to allow the sort of bribery thing you referred to and say "you're messing up again." That's not whining. That's following the rules.

When you deliberately misunderstand someone - evidenced by your "Your wording was not clear." backpedalling - then you aren't in a fight, let a lone being fought with. ... in fact it is quite telling that you're in some full-force defensive attitude, because you're wrong, so you think you're being attacked...

I was quite clear and you.. well you thought it would be cute to "misunderstand" to support an argument - and that's just poor argument technique.

Well done, it doesn't change the F A C T that Boeing won the tanker deal by bribing/whining until the competition finally thought: wow since we're not prepared to break the law to get this contract, we're out.

[ghporter]

Your wording was simply not clear enough to say that you were talking about two separate instances. End of point. Boeing got the most recent tanker contract award rescinded by pointing out that the Air Force broke the rules. THAT is a fact. End of that point.

[Andy8]

Read this article in the Economist:

The best plane loses

Mar 11th 2010 - From The Economist print edition

Politics decided the contest to supply America’s new aerial fuel tanker

In the end, they bowed to the inevitable. The decision this week by Northrop Grumman and its partner, EADS, to withdraw from a $35 billion contest with Boeing to provide the United States Air Force (USAF) with a new generation of aerial tankers had been well trailed, but it was still a bitter blow to the two defence firms. It was also a bad day both for America’s taxpayers and its armed forces.

Political controversy has never been far from the battle to replace USAF’s 500 or so Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers. Boeing first won the contract in 2002 and then lost it when a congressional investigation discovered criminal collusion between the aerospace firm and an air-force official. Six years later, Northrop and EADS, the parent company of Airbus, pulled off a surprise victory when the USAF decided that the KC-45, its bigger and more modern (though more expensive) plane, based on the Airbus A330, represented better value than Boeing’s offering, based on the 767.

Most neutral experts agreed that the KC-45 was the better aircraft. But the Pentagon’s willingness to brave outraged claims from Congress that it was showering money and jobs on a European company “unfairly supported and subsidised by foreign powers” was a surprise. When Boeing protested, producing 110 complaints about the bidding process that (partly because of the earlier scandal) had been unusually fair and transparent, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog, upheld seven of them. The nub of Boeing’s complaint was that the USAF had used subjective criteria to reach its decision in favour of the KC-45, which had inherently disadvantaged its smaller plane.

The GAO has the power only to recommend, so the Pentagon could have stuck to its guns. Instead, the air force issued a new draft Request for Proposals (RFP) last September that in effect nullified the KC-45’s advantages—that it can deliver more fuel to front-line aircraft and evacuate more troops. A Northrop executive described the terms as a “lowest-common-denominator approach designed to favour a less capable, smaller aircraft by turning the contest into a cost shoot-out.” Northrop told the Department of Defence that unless the RFP was revised in its final version, it would not bid. Apart from some minor tweaks, nothing changed, ensuring that Boeing would be left as the sole bidder.

The two Republican senators from Alabama, where EADS was planning to establish an assembly line to build the KC-45 and a freighter version of the A330, were quick to condemn what they regard as a political stitch-up that put jobs in traditionally Democratic Washington state (Boeing’s home) before employment in their region. Senator Richard Shelby says: “The final RFP discredits the integrity of the entire process.” Senator Jeff Sessions believes Northrop’s forced withdrawal has left an “irreparable stain” on a programme already marked by scandal.

There have also been expressions of anger in Europe. Germany’s economy minister, Rainer Brüderle, said he saw “signs of protectionism”. The European Commission issued a statement saying that it “would be extremely concerned if it were to emerge that the terms of tender were such as to inhibit open competition for the contract.” The commission also noted that the trade in military gear between the European Union and America strongly favours the latter—in 2008 America exported $5 billion-worth but imported only $2.2 billion from Europe.

As for EADS, all is not lost. Its A400m military transport may have cost it a lot of money: this week it announced a charge for the troubled programme of €1.8 billion ($2.5 billion). But it is an aircraft with unique abilities that could appeal to the USAF—if the airfield is level.

[ghporter]

Interesting take on "best plane" by The Economist. I think the biggest issue the Air Force has to work on in this whole mess is to figure out exactly what they really want.

Tankers are referred to as "high value assets," because they are few and provide substantial capabilities to the warfighter. They are also very vulnerable. This is why in-air refueling takes place well away from the conflict area-there is no way to defend a tanker during a refueling run. So why would you risk an expensive, specialized aircraft to do something beside what you bought it for-refueling other aircraft? The C-17 can evacuate hundreds of troops and has a stellar track record. It is also part of the existing air-evac system. Oh, and it can also land on short, unimproved airfields, which is not something an airliner airframe can do.

This decision should be first and foremost about what it takes to support the warfighter so our forces can get in and get out most effectively, most successfully, and fastest. Having congresscritters argue about whether one state is being favored over another sounds like kids whining on the playground about who didn't get invited to the cool kid's birthday party. The decision should be made by people who KNOW about the uses of the aircraft in question, and how those aircraft would fit into a larger picture, not by people who are interested in lining their pockets, whether they're stuffed shirts that like to stay in Congress, or stuffed shirts who have fancy titles in DoD.

While the Air Force has broken their own rules several times on this project, the whole procurement system is really at fault. Too many people who have no clue what the plane is for and how it would be used have way too much input in the process. I think the whole thing should be double-blind, with all "vendor-identifiable" data removed before an impartial panel reviews how well the offerings meet the standards set out for the final product, and then vote on which candidate best fits those standards. No, I'm not holding my breath, but that would be a much better, much less contentious system.