OK, who actually expected Boeing to win the contract? (Seattle: how much, hotel)

[eskercurve]

So ... I was in the engineering simulator for the 747-8 when I saw company news come across my laptop. WE WON THE TANKER CONTRACT!

I was very very surprised, really, because from a technical standpoint, their plane carried more fuel, could loiter longer, could carry more cargo, and not to mention they already have a platform (Boeing does too, but it will need revision to be made in to the US spec model). That means that while both airplanes met or exceeded the absolute requirements, the Airbus plane would likely edge ahead on optional requirements.

However, according to the news conference, it appears Boeing bid 1% or lower than EADS, which rendered the technical options indeterminate.

The fact that price factored in as much as it did means one thing to me: the USAF basically said that both planes in their view were nearly equivalent and they care more about recurring cost.

And that was the Achilles heel for the EADS plane. You could make an argument that we can't let a foreign industry monopolize the US war machine's efforts, especially in such a critical logistical role. You could also probably make an argument that some politics went into this decision (more jobs for Americans and all that). But in the end, it was cost, and we must have bid an almost zero-profit plane.

This makes sense because if Boeing were to have lost, they'd have a second 787 line in Everett. Keeping the 767 line open (which I've seen, they really made it slick now) will give Boeing leverage.

My only concern now are the machinsts' union. If they go on strike, and the line stops, ... I can only imagine what the Air Force's reaction will be. At least EADS can keep their unions in check.

Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted, but I'm looking at this from many angles, and I personally think Boeing has this much >< room for error. For now though, I really look forward to potential opportunities to join the KC-46A tanker program!

[ryanmm]

I expect most any contract that big would be in the bag for the domestic bidder from the get-go. Boeing would've had to really screw something up big time to not get it. Otherwise there'd be a political firestorm.

Would expect EADS, other contractors, other countries to do the same thing whenever possible.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by ryanmm

I expect most any contract that big would be in the bag for the domestic bidder from the get-go. Boeing would've had to really screw something up big time to not get it. Otherwise there'd be a political firestorm.

Would expect EADS, other contractors, other countries to do the same thing whenever possible.

Initially, didn't EADS win the contract, though? I seem to recall that Boeing protested and they ordered a reanalysis of the contract, and that's what led to their win.

Even though the EU are our allies and I really don't see that changing, I would prefer that our military use something that was developed stateside. The EADS offering may have some advantages, but I know Boeing can close the gaps. Hell, the KC-135 it's replacing was developed in the 50's... that's a pretty good run of it!

[Ira500]

I didn't expect it. Boeing actually won the contract initially, if I recall, and that was thrown out because of some kind of corruption in the bidding, then EADS won the contract, and that was thrown out because they said Boeing wasn't given a chance to redo their bid properly, and the WA congressional delegation protested mightily and successfully. I think there was a lot of politics going on. When EADS was awarded the contract, I think Bush was President, and a little less inclined to intervene to help out a state that voted for his opponents both times he ran.

[Xanathos]

EADS originally won the contract (and should have, because they have a better product). Awarding it to Boeing is just another maneuver by the politicians to try and keep the economy propped up a bit by awarding a contract to an inferior domestic product (if you'll recall, there was a lot of outrage when EADS won the first one because they were "French" and Boeing was "American").

Course, it remains to be seen how much of the BA plane is actually built here...but hey, the politicians can claim they fought to award a contract to an American company.

This bidding result was patently obvious from the start. I don't really care either way, but the reality is Airbus does make better products across the board. I'd fly an A320 over a 737, an A321 over a 757, An A330 over a 767, and I'll take the A380 over the new 747 any day of the week. The only Boeing plane I'm really a fan of is the trip 7, which is better than the A340. Hell, even the A350WXB looks to be a better plane than the 787.

[seattlerain]

Originally Posted by Xanathos

EADS originally won the contract (and should have, because they have a better product). Awarding it to Boeing is just another maneuver by the politicians to try and keep the economy propped up a bit by awarding a contract to an inferior domestic product (if you'll recall, there was a lot of outrage when EADS won the first one because they were "French" and Boeing was "American").

Course, it remains to be seen how much of the BA plane is actually built here...but hey, the politicians can claim they fought to award a contract to an American company.

This bidding result was patently obvious from the start. I don't really care either way, but the reality is Airbus does make better products across the board. I'd fly an A320 over a 737, an A321 over a 757, An A330 over a 767, and I'll take the A380 over the new 747 any day of the week. The only Boeing plane I'm really a fan of is the trip 7, which is better than the A340. Hell, even the A350WXB looks to be a better plane than the 787.

Inferior domestic product...Airbus makes better products across the board?

In your opinion, and in these parts is not a very popular opinion.

[eskercurve]

It's puzzling how Xanathos can make comments about planes he's never flown on (and I have, the new 747 is a gem, even the freighter, and the 787 is a revolution in air travel, and in the case of the A350XWB, nobody's flown on it because at this point there's only bits and pieces). Borderline troll comment is borderline troll comment.

But he's entitled to his own opinions. Me, I consider A320s to be loud and unreliable (I've had three, THREE, get put back in the shop whilst I wait for another flight, once did a rejected takeoff ... 737s are "fly and forget" for a reason), A321s to be smelly (I swear they messed something up in the ECS). I actually like the A330 a lot. And yeah, 777 is by far the best airplane Boeing's made that is in production (787 is better in my opinion).

It also has to do with options that airlines make.

In the end though, price beat out and I guess the USAF had their requirements. I agree that technically the A330MRRT was a better plane, but if the price is too high, especially in this economic climate, it's just a big ol' target.

[Xanathos]

Apparently some people can't read. Things like 'looks to be a better plane'. Did I say 'is a better plane'? No. Cause I haven't flown one.

Your comments about the 3-7 just show you aren't much of a traveler (or friends with many pilots). And your views on the 4-7 prove you've never been on a 380. The new 4-7 offers very little improvement over its predecessor, which is why only 2 airlines have even put in an order for one. Meanwhile, the 380 is a floating hotel. I've ridden a Lufthansa to Germany and a Qantas to Sydney, and they were the best flights I've ever had. Then again, I don't sit in cattle class, so your experience (if you ever have one) might be different. You can call it opinion all you like but just about any heavy flyer you meet will concur.

Your commentary that Boeing can make a quieter plane is just laughable. The biggest complaint I have about every Boeing is the noise.

[CarawayDJ]

I would have bet my house that they would win the latest round.

My post military life has been working in defense contracting. Before I started my own startup, I was working in business development. I'm familiar with Boeing. Yes, this was political. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Welcome to the real world. However, large contracts like this are hardly the only ones decided on political influence. Sometimes it's overt political lobbying, and sometimes it's nothing more than someone having a favorite contractor and not wanting change. The military is the least guilty offender though. In fact, you can see that they actually tried to award it to the Northrop/EADS team. The most guilty offenders are the state and local governments; not if you are selling low-end items, but if you sell high-ticket items. I've teamed with Northrop and Qualcomm going after civil contracts. You spend most of your money paying lobbyists to explain the political connections and approaches. What you are actually offering gets looked at somewhere down on the list.

That said, I'm glad our politicians stuck it to EADS. Any naive people out there think US companies are given a fair shake in the EU? Think the process would be fair for a US company trying to get a defense contract of that size in France? That's an emphatic NO to both questions. US companies do get business over there, but they do so despite the cards being stacked against them. They usually need to make big concessions somewhere.

And then let's talk about government sponsored corporate espionage. The French are among the worst offenders. Their persistence would make the KGB proud. China might be overtaking them now, but they are bad. You just don't here about any of this. We keep this stuff quiet when it's our "allies". Know this, a portion of their technology and methods were pilfered from Boeing illegally. Know this, some very sensitive 787 data is almost certainly already being analyzed by EADS. They have some brilliant minds, they just find it easier to take shortcuts. I wouldn't be surprised if corporate espionage played a large role in EADS even getting to where it is now. If there is a Boeing security expert (CI) on this forum, I'm sure he or she could share tons of stories about this. Everything from hidden cameras found in facilities, hotel rooms being gone through at trade shows, illegal taping of conversations by sensitive microphones at trade shows, and numerous computer-based methods.

[Xanathos]

Originally Posted by seattlerain

Inferior domestic product...Airbus makes better products across the board?

In your opinion, and in these parts is not a very popular opinion.

The popularity of my comments based on region is irrelevant based on the facts regarding the quality of the vendors.

Personally, I don't care that this was a political maneuver, and I don't care that Boeing basically muscled out EADS for the contract just because they happen to be in Seattle. I'll never fly one of those birds.

But call it what it is: the US government chose the inferior product for reasons other than simply cost-benefit, quality, or any reason that would stand up in a double blind taste test.

As Caraway said, in the EU this contract automatically goes to EADS for the same reasons, even though EADS makes the better product. There's nothing particularly nefarious about it, but don't try to blow a bunch of smoke up everyone's rear ends trying to say that BA actually deserved the contract. Frankly, BA should be using their inferiority in terms of abilities compared to Airbus as a motivator to make a better product, not to stick their head in the sand and insist that they've got the better product in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Wishing and hoping doesn't make something so. It's the same philosophy as the "patriots" who keep insisting that "We're no. 1!" even though we're not.