The lost Boeing contract
 

I am all for doing whatever we can to keep jobs in the US but not at the expense of quality. From what I have heard Boeing failed to meet any of the 5 benchmarks laid out in the bidding process. The AF is required by law not to consider anything but quality and mission, not the economics. The military has been required to abide by these standards for years. And now they want to change the rules and drop the contract from AirBus in favor of Boeing. I am not fond of anything made in France but if it is a better plane then we need to go with it. And it is not like we have not had or used quality product from Northrop Grumman.

Anyway, here is a NYT article that discusses some of the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/bu...boeing.html?hp

It should be interesting to watch this play out. Boeing was awarded the contract and Northrop Grumman/EADS protested.
Now they awarded the contract to Northrop, and Boeing is calling foul.
And so it goes.

Using patriotism as a cover for shoddy quality is just plain shameful.

Moving goalposts
 

Boeings argument on a pbs program the other night was that in initial stages they offered a larger plane, but were discouraged and encouraged to offer something smaller, lower load capacity, range etc. so they tendered this and were told they lost out to Airbus becuase their range, load capacity etc wasn't as high. :yelsick:

The people who decide on the finished project aren't always the same as those who provided feedback along the way. Sometimes they are the same people who have just changed their minds.

The contract should go to the firm that produced the best product at the best value. ( not necessarily lowest price)

Who said anything about shoddy quality?

Yes, but any contract put up for bid, by the government or a private party, must be spelled out as to the goals/requirements for all bidders in advance.

Nobody. I was just spouting off poorly-formed opinions based on partial information and wild conjecture.

I was responding more, I think, to the "Buy American" sentiment that runs through the auto industry. I have no idea if that's what's going on here or not.

That notion went out many years ago to the informed consumer. They make F-150's in Canada and Toyota's in Tenn. So many parts come from all over the world. No American cars are truely American any more.

True, and many Hondas are made right here in Ohio.

Your point was accurate. Boeing's 767 production line is diminishing due to superior competition. Boeing wanted corporate welfare to prop up the 767 by assuming Boeing will always get tanker contracts.

Boeing was using corruption at the highest levels of management and in the Air Force to win the contract previously. Corruption so flagrant that top Boeing management was removed. Still, if Boeing was making their best offer, then Boeing would have proposed a 777 tanker. But that product line has plenty of customers - does not need corporate welfare. Boeing did not want to convert a 767 production line to make superior 777s. Boeing hoped to automatically win the tanker contract to maintain a diminishing 767 production line - to avoid retooling by using corporate welfare. Boeing was not offering the better product. Boeing wanted government to protect a slowly dying product line.

Does not matter where the product is built or assembled. Those who believe in free markets buy the best. Those who promote 'buy American' only promote the destruction of American jobs.

More complete and utter bullshit. They lost the contract. The AF top management did their job and did it well. The chose the best airframe regardless of who built it or where it was built.

So why did so many top Boeing management and top Air Force officials who made the selection forced to resign and suffer possible prosecution? TheMercenary is again denying while forgetting to first obtain knowledge. He apparently did not bother to read what was posted and learn of the history of that tanker contract. Knowing without first learning.

tw's been reading to many scandal sheets.

On Boeing's end, it was two employees, and on the governments end one woman in the pentagon, that were colluding to find employment at Boeing for the woman after she left the government. Also, the Boeing people gave jobs to the womans two children. Both Boeing people and the pentagon woman, lost their jobs and went to jail. Now the other 99.99999%, of the something like 150,000 Boeing employees, have to sit through days of ethics lectures, on not abusing opportunities that they never get anyway.

Boeing tried to convince the Air Force they should change the specs to a larger capacity tanker, for which Boeing would use a larger airframe. The Air Force flatly refused, so Boeing went with the 767 airframe to keep the cost down. Boeing won the competition, but Northrop/EADs protested and the contract was rebid. During the rebid, Northrop/EADs changed their design to a larger airframe with more capacity. The Air Force saw more bling and chose it, saying it would give them more capacity without regard to the increased price or unproven track record. This is the basis for Boeing's current protest to the GAO, who unlike the Air Force, look at bang for the buck.

The other day, there was a full page ad in the Washington Post promoting Northrop's bid. It's always interesting to me to see those ads since they cost a hell of a lot of money and are only intended to be seen by a handful of important eyes. I always wonder if those eyes are reading the paper that morning.

Important eyes view the technology; choose Northrop. Boeing is appealing to the naive using half truth and hyping the 'Buy American' lies in public statements and advertisements. Northrop must do same because technology no longer matters - and because all these costs end up on government.

So how much of a Boeing airliner is manufactured overseas? Boeing was hyping that 'overseas manufactured' when selling aircraft oversea. Now they hype 'Buy American'? Suddenly the plane only has American parts? Which is it? They are appealing to the same people who know only because Rush Limbaugh, et al tell them how to think - only know what they are first told.

Most important is to frame it early. The less intelligent only believe the first thing heard; then deny any facts that arrive later. Important is to manipulate the naive so that Congress will cancel the contract. Boeing tells us the US Air Force is an evil institution that wants to destroy American jobs. Boeing spins it differently. But those who believe what they are told cannot see it this way.

How stupid. Air Force told Boeing to not propose a larger aircraft? Boeing could have submitted three different bids if the objective was to provide the Air Force with a best product. Boeing hoped that contract would protect a slowly dying 767 product line. And since Boeing supplied tankers for the past 50 years, Boeing viewed this contact as a done deal. Surprise. The Air Force wanted better aircraft - not corporate welfare for a company that had also bribed Air Force many officials (only some got punished) to win a previous contract.

Of course these other facts somehow get lost when preaching to the naive by waving flags and accusing the Air Force of being unfair. Better is to spend $40,000 every day on each newspaper preaching spin to the naive. Northrop must do same to protect their contract.

Is that why you post the exact same screed in every thread that is tangentially related to your diatribe of the day?

Wait... the contract is lost?

Did they look in Bruce's desk for it?

:angel:

Cite.

From The Economist of 30 Nov 2004 entitled "Et voila": From The Economist of 4 Dec 2003 entitled "Tanked up": If Boeing wanted to provide their best solution, then a 777 based tanker would have been proposed. But Boeing needs the 'corporate welfare' to keep a now old and uncompetitive 767 line operating.

Since that 2003 contract that was canceled - dripping in scandel - Airbus developed an air refueling tanker that is beating Boeing's 767 base tanker constantly - because it is technically superior. 767 is now obsolete technology. Why would the Air Force want inferior technology? If Boeing wanted to be competitive, Boeing would have proposed a 777 based tanker. But tanker contracts reeked of corporate welfare. Shame on the naive who did not know of this scandelous history.

I was rather surprised that Northrop got the contract since these tanker contracts routinely reeked of bribery, scandel, and a most destructive concept : "Buy American".

Your Brit friends are mixing apples and oranges.... and grapes.
The first paragraph refers to the rocket deal where two former Rockwell employees brought documents with them they shouldn't have. When Boeing found out they blew the whistle, but the damage had been done by the two perps and their cow orkers, so Boeing lost a billion dollars worth of rocket contracts.
No mention of; I asked you to cite.


Second & third paragraph, The tanker lease deal to avoid putting a lot of money out to buy them. The typical Air Force personnel that rotate through the pentagon procurement office every 14 months or so, know jack shit. They leave that to civilian personnel, that stay longer and follow the entire process. As long as things go smoothly, the Air Force personnel just want to put in their time, collect their atta boy and move up the ladder. This is why the pentagon woman, and two Boeing employees, went to jail when they were discovered.
No mention of; I asked you to cite.


Forth paragraph, Says congressmen/women won't vote for appropriations unless a company in their "home patch" gets a piece of the subcontracting.... surprise, surprise. This is reality in the World. In order to sell aircraft, military or commercial, to any country in the world, you have to subcontract to companies in that country. Then you get into Canada arguing about how many dollars of that work, go to companies in french Canada vs English Canada.
No mention of; I asked you to cite.


Then after not citing as I requested, tw speculates in garbage about corporate welfare keeping the 767 line open. In truth, Boeing has been expecting to phase out the 767 line since the introduction of the 777 in 1998.
The only reason that didn't happen is because the Air Force insisted the 777 was too big and expensive for their needs. The 767 has been used to build some tankers for foreign countries, but mostly just hanging fire waiting for the Air Force. Boeing requested the 777 be used for tankers, from the gitgo, and changing the 767 line to a 777 line is a piece of cake.

The bottom line is, like the rotating pentagon officers, tw knows jack shit.

Tw, considering how often and how wildly you are off base, where do you get off slagging anyone? You were off base on the C-130J -- any reason to believe you're right on this one? You hardly ever know shit, fella, the minute you step outside of systems analysis.

I've been waffling on what I think the truth is regarding this. The news will come on and all I can think is 'well that makes sense' to whatever anyone says in their defense. What's the right thing? the truth?

This has been big news in St. Louis, as Boeing's defense ops are based here (at the old McDonnell Douglas).

I'm not sure what to believe...so many things have been said. Sen. Kit Bond is threatening to get Congress to yank the funding for it. If the EADS/Northrup plan is a better deal as a whole, then go for it. I don't have a problem with EADS having some control over a defense project...after all, isn't the EU supposed to be our friend? We sell American jets and what not to foreign countries all the time? And whoever got the contract is supposed to create a lot of jobs here in the States. I'd like to see those jobs here in St. Louis, but at least those jobs are Americans being employed.

Bruce, I cannot even quote a single useful sentence from your post. What do you do - work for Boeing? It certainly sounds like it.

The first paragraph about that famous rocket deal was the context - how both deals were being made in Boeing. The tanker deal was same. It was criminal at the highest levels of the Air Force and Boeing. Both contracts resulted in job removals. Some were investigated for ciminal wrongdoing. So Bruce, where are your citations that said the Economist got it wrong?

Meanwhile, Airbus built a new tanker that is beating Boeing's 767 version all over the world. Its not just the US Air Force that sees a superior product. Saudis even do. Saudis who religiously buy American, instead, refused to buy the 767 based tanker. Airbus based tanker is has numerous customers. I don't know of anyone buying Boeing's 767 tanker.

The 767 is a dying product. 767 is not even competitive as a tanker. The citations from 2003 and 2004 demonstrate what Boeing did even back then to sell an inferior product. Since then, the Northrop proposal and resulting contract - using newer technology, a more recent design, less costs, and an airframe that can carry more for longer times - is the superior product.

It's not even debateable by viewing reasons why Boeing wants the Northrop contract voided. To be competitive, Boeing had to provide a tanker using the 777. Boeing did not for the same reasons why Boeing proposed the 767 in 2003 - to protect a dying and inferior product line. Bruce who knew facts would know of Boeing's problems maintaining 767 sales.

Those Economist citations - as reqested - describe why top Boeing executives lost their jobs in 2004 due to that 2003 fradulently obtained contract that took pork to new levels. What Boeing did to win a contract for a lesser product set new standards for pork that eventually costs jobs both in Boeing and in the Air Force. Boeing wants an inferior technology sold to the Air Force only because Boeing has been the only supplier of tankers to the Air Force. Today's Boeing that was competing fair would have proposed a 777 tanker. The 777 is a superior airframe - would have made a superior tanker.

Why do we know Bruce? I said so. That reasoning works for you. But I have better credibility. Therefore it must be true. Meantime, the Economist also agrees with me. I also have better friends.

There you have it, the bottom line, in the last sentence. Because he said so.

And again Bruce wastes bandwidth. Nothing factual about Boeing's 767 tanker failure. Ego post?

Meanwhile, another nation also found the Boeing 767 tanker lacking - Australia.

tw, king of the ego post, says no other country wants to buy the 767 tankers. Then my his own admission says Australia has, conveniently forgetting Italy and Japan. Personally, I think those countries bought them because, the US Air Force was saying they didn't want to step up to the 777, and was expected to choose the 767.

tw says the 777 would be a better tanker, which is what Boeing said 5 years ago. But neither tw, or Boeing, are BUYING tankers, and don't have a say in what the customer specifies.

So now tw is just repeating his mish-mosh of unfounded bullshit, and trying to bait me, rather than presenting the truth.

I never said that Bruce. Why are you being insulting? Why do you completely misrepresent what I posted? That is what I expect from UG or TheMercenary.

I said I don't know of any 767 tanker sales. I did not say those other sales did not exist. Both Saudi's and Australians rejected the Boeing 767 for technical reasons. Most surprising for the Saudi's who almost automatically buy American.

Before this decision was announced, from The Economist on 31 Jan 2008 entitled "This time it's war: The aviation giants battle to supply America's air force with a new tanker": Do we 'buy the best' or provide Boeing with corporate welfare?

I don't understand why anyone should waffle on this. Facts are obvious - quite clear. The Boeing air tanker is inferior. If Boeing was bidding a competitive product, their proposal would have been a 777. Why would Boeing offer the inferior 767 platform? Boeing was protecting a dying product line rather than offering the Air Force their best. Boeing never thought the Air Force would always "Buy America" rather than 'buy the best'. The Air Force decided to advance America rather than advance Boeing.

Now let's see how many Congressmen are as patriotic.

From the people that brought you supersonic fighters, instead of Warthogs... bling over actual need.

You're right, you were wrong... but that's not unusual or ever let it stop you from spouting off before.

This post started with a fact - a Northrop tanker was a superior (higher “quality”) product. But as the week progressed, Boeing propaganda began to appear in following posts. How many knew that a proposed Boeing 767 tanker was clearly an inferior choice? How many waffled rather than see obvious facts? This post is not about the tanker contract. This is about the many here who did not learn from seven years ago. 70% of Americans then also believed a mental midget’s propaganda rather than the facts. Facts then indicated that Saddam's WMDs did not exist. And facts say the Northrop tanker is superior to Boeing’s 767 proposal.

So again, I ask, how many saw up front reality - that the Air Force choose the best product. How many instead were manipulated by propaganda from Boeing that was crying, "Unfair"? No decent American believed that Boeing nonsense. The facts say otherwise. Even crying about ‘job losses’ plays to anti-America propaganda called “Buy American”.

Do you want the Air Force to provide corporate welfare to Boeing or do you want the Air Force to 'buy the best'? "Buy the best" means Boeing's next proposals will be for superior technical products - not to protect their obsolete product lines - which means more American jobs.

This next month, watch many Americans advocating corporate welfare to Boeing. Corporate welfare (just like tariffs) always means less American jobs. Informed spectators will have an opportunity to watch propaganda and 'flag waving' promote an economic pervert's solution: corporate welfare to Boeing. The informed can judge, from a logical perspective, which Congressmen advance America and which Congressmen will instead be so anti-American as to hide behind waving flags.

It's amazing how many of tw's facts come from....

Price is ALWAYS an object. We should not get "the best plane". We should get "the best plane for the price that meets our requirements".

The only 2 questions that are really important are:

1) Does the plane carry the required amount of people and cargo safely and have the required number of safety and performance features?

2) How much does it cost.


We don't have to buy a Rolls Royce when a Honda will do the job just as well.

Radar, what about reliability, operation and maintenance costs, availability of components, fuel efficiency, noise level, and how cool it looks? Are none of these important?

All except, how cool it looks, are extremely important.

Reliability and maintenance costs, and fuel efficiency, fall under total cost of ownership which is what we're really talking about here. The total cost of ownership on a BMW is still higher than a Honda even though BMW gives free oil changes and all parts during the first few years.

Depending on the needs, one might sacrifice engine size for fuel efficiency, etc. I'm a bit of a utilitarian so looks are less important than performance to me. I put function leaps and bounds over form.

Availability of parts should be something negotiated in the contract. For every so many number of planes purchased, a minimum of a certain number of parts should be made available, or available for special order at a fixed price regardless of which vendor you're using. My guess is you can't go to the Pep Boys to pick up spare parts for either of them.

Those promoting propaganda have been muddying the waters. But consistently from sources that promote innovation and technology (not a poltical agenda) are facts about the inferior Boeing 767 tanker. These facts are so one sided that if you had any doubts, time to assess the credibility of your news sources. tw posted in a tone intentionally set to make you either dislike the author or be patriotic enough to instead see the facts. Which did you do? Entertain your emotions or instead see the facts.

Another technically honest observation is from 14 Mar 2008 EE Times Not just more confirmation of what tw was posting. Worse, this was so obvious that if every poster here did not know this, then why are your information sources so corrupt? There was no doubt which contract was better for America and the Air Force. It was not even close - so one sided - which is why that should have been obvious even to everyone here.

Or maybe I am just so politically incorrect that I cannot see spin doctor propaganda? By separating my religion from other parts of my life, then I am immune to witch doctor magic spells - I can only see facts?

This post is about how one sided obvious; Northrop had the superior proposal. How Boeing was using the tanker contract for corporate welfare. How people have lost their executive jobs and even gone to jail promoting the inferior Boeing tanker.

The link to the opinion doesn't work.
tw spins so much, it's a wonder he doesn't screw himself into the ground.
I already addressed the people that went to jail, because of improper behavior, during the Air Force's attempt to lease tankers, to keep from siphoning money from their other wish list items. The attempt by the Air Force to hoodwink the congressional appropriations committee was unsuccessful, and has nothing to do with the bidding on the purchased tankers.

Boeing won the tanker contract because EADs had no suitable airframe for the project. Northrop cried foul because nobody else could supply a suitable airframe for the contract specifications. It the meantime, EADS developed the A330 airframe, but it was way to big and expensive for the specs the Air Force proposed. As the contract was rebid, in order to allow Northrop to compete, the Air Force repeatedly changed the rules, without telling Boeing.
Now Northrop/EADS has been awarded the contract and it's Boeing's turn to protest what they feel was an unfair competition.

A number of congressmen/women are upset and speaking out about the estimated 43,000, good paying jobs, lost in their districts. But, when Boeing files their reasons for feeling the competition was unfair, lost jobs and foreign dependency for war materials, are not legitimate objections, as far as the GAO is concerned. The protest must be based of substantial facts, not flag waving. The political posturing and mud slinging, don't effect the facts used for the determination, to be made by the GAO.

Classic line... TW the square dancer.

Screw your partner to the ground, promenade left and don't fall down!

Airbus once had no airframe for a tanker. If nobody had an alternative to the Boeing 767 tanker, then why were Boeing and Air Force officials so corrupt in 2003 to promote a 'sure thing'?

Which is it Bruce? 1) Boeing had the only tanker to sell. 2) Or Boeing's proposal was so bad in 2003 as to not even compete against a new design from Airbus. Which is it Bruce? Airbus did not have a tanker (yet). But the Boeing 767 tanker was still so inferior as to need massive corruption to get promoted even in 2003.

Same crappy tanker in 2003 should have won in 2008? This is not square dancing. It's a duck moonwalking.

Responsible sources repeatedly say the Boeing 767 tanker was hands down crappy. The Electrical Engineering Times joins a long list of honest and technical sources that all say same. So Bruce must also attack honest sources? Facts cannot be denied. Bruce, you finally admit to 2003 corruption because it is even in the EE Times editorial. So crappy was that Boeing 767 tanker that new levels of corruption were implemented to win a 767 contract. Responsible sources also said both in 2003 and 2008 that Boeing's proposed crappy tanker was for 'corporate welfare'. An honest person cannot deny that reality.

Bruce, do you work for Boeing? I don't know and normally would not care. But your biases are absurdly obvious. Bruce, do you work for or in Boeing? Certainly sounds like it. Since Bruce will not answer, does anyone know if Bruce works for Boeing? Question asked only because Bruce's replies and accusations sound like a TheMercenary post and because Bruce will not answer that question.

Boeing's 767 tanker was hands down the crappier proposal - for America today as it also was in 2003. So crappy back then that widespread corruption both in the Air Force and in top Boeing management was necessary. So shitty today that only a completely dishonest person could deny it.

Well, Bruce implied the US Air Force is so anti-American as to deny Boeing its just reward. Nonsense. Boeing proposes the same inferior 2003 tanker in 2007 - and lost again. The US Air Force did what is best for America. Numerous honest sources state that and state why. The only thing anti-American was that Boeing 767 tanker proposal. A patriotic Boeing that was really interested in American jobs would have proposed a superior and less expensive 777 tanker. But that would not create corporate welfare.

Again, if that is not obvious, one needs to question the integrity his information sources. Was Fox News honest enough to admit this? From Brit Hume on 13 Mar 2008: How curious that the right wing news service associates Bruce's accusations with anti-American Democrats. Even Fox News could not be more critical of what Bruce posts.

If it squawks like a moonwalking duck, it is Boeing propaganda. Even Fox News sees through those lies.

Why haven't you fixed the bogus honest source link.

You, and everyone else, knows I work for Boeing Helicopter, so what? This shit has nothing to do with my division. We have over 500 helicopters on order, and at 6 a month, plenty of work.
Some Arabs showed up in January with cash for 3 ships, but were turned away because we can't accommodate them for many years. So professionally, this contract means jack shit to me, but as a taxpaying American, I'm concerned with how the government spends my money.

Here's the first part of Boeing's protest to the GAO. If anyone wants the entire PDF (2.5mb), PM me your email and I'll send it to you. This is the public redacted version, so there's no confidentially problem.

No I did not know that. If I had read it, I probably would have ignored or forgotten it as irrelevant. However Boeing bias in your posts were so egregious to suspect you either worked for Boeing or for a Boeing contractor.

Meanwhile this still does not change the fact stated by numerous third parties also known for their honesty. The Boeing 767 tanker was corporate welfare in 2003 when outright fraud and corruption was being used to sell it to the Air Force. That same 767 tanker is the inferior choice today. Boeing did not propose the obviously competitive 777 tanker. Boeing could have proposed three different planes. But Boeing chose to only offer the same inferior tanker also proposed in 2003 to protect their dying 767 assembly line. Corporate welfare.

Now we will learn who in Congress is so corrupt as to help Boeing; force a pathetically inferior plane on the Air Force. Meanwhile, if assuming emotion, well, Boeing has always been one of my favorite companies. The 757/767 was always a preferred plane if I had the option. That ‘emotion’ (preference) does not bias my decision based in logic. It may be one of my favorite companies. But Boeing here is wrong.

First, why would the United States Air Force skew a contract to favor a foreign nation's plane (unless Boeing was so corrupt at to be punished by the Air Force).

Second, why can't Boeing make public the entire public statement? Why is it too secret (public redacted version) to trust publically with the entire Cellar? I appreciate the offer of that full statement. But if a full 2.5 Mb version has confidentially issues, then I would prefer neither you nor I to be subject of any Boeing 'problems'.

I don't know why an EE Times link gets perverted. I tried again and it just does not work right. Problem may be due to ‘java’ in the link. Editorial is at www.eetimes.com published 14 Mar 2008.

Boeing has made the entire redacted version public, that's why I have it.
But it's much too long to post as images and I don't know how to get the text out of a PDF. Even as text, it's much too long to post anyway.

Redacted simply means prepared for publication, deleting any military secret information.

Being honest with opinions does not make them facts anymore than you repeating the same accusation repeatedly, does.

Horseshit, the only reason they were keeping the 767 line open, was to fulfill the Air Forces stated requirement for that size airframe. They were practicaly giving the commercial version of the airframe away, just to satisfy the government's request.

Thanks for the info Bruce, as usual tw is full of bs.

These are just small pieces of the full PDF, if anyone wants it.

Um. Can I just take your word for it?

Chicken. :p

I was wrong. Boeing says the 777 was not meant to replace the 767. The 787 is actually targeted at the 767 market.
767 sales are strong enough that they don't expect to "sunset" the commercial 767 line for at least another 4 years.
Sorry, my bad. :o

The GAO report on this contract was only recently released. Although the report is only summarized, the report is unusually critical of how the Air Force selected this tanker contract.

Twice that the contract (potentially the largest in Air Force history) was awarded and then found to be awarded improperly. Air Force has 60 days to respond to this GAO report. But a much larger problem exists. Spend record monies on a fighter plane that cannot even provide ground support (F-22 Raptor). Lose track of and carry over the US nuclear bombs thinking they were only inert training bombs and leave them unguarded overnight. Send a nose cone (the trigger for a nuclear missile) to Korea for an order that was only suppose to be helicopter batteries. Numerous other Boeing contracts were found related to kickbacks and other shady deals. Air Force was making so many mistakes that top Air Force generals were recently 'asked' to retire.

How many other 'events' never got reported? Too much blood is in the water. This GAO report has been summarized as unusually harsh on Air Force management. Much more probably remains untold.

it is all your fault tw. If they had hired you they would have never gotten into this trouble.. I know. I read it on the internet. It must be twrew.....

And if they had shot you in the heat during your mythical military service, then god would be on our side.

What God? Whose God? Mythical? Like your commone sense or fantasies of the truth? Sure, I agree with that.

The GAO released two findings.

On Friday, 6-13, they dismissed the protest against the awarding Boeing the contract to maintain the current tanker fleet.

On Wednesday, 6-18, they upheld Boeing's protest of the awarding the new tanker contract to Airbus.

The GAO will not rule until probably October, the protest against Boeing being awarded the CSAR helicopter contract.

This has been an interesting set of developments. From all the available info that the public had, to include the hearings in front of Congress, it seemed like everything was on the up-and-up. Now the GAO, whom is one of the few remaining entities in government that I think we can trust, has come out saying they (the AF) screwed it up.

I've actually saved his ass several times. Some not directly related to combat but that's another story.