The lost Boeing contract

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You, and everyone else, knows I work for Boeing Helicopter, so what?

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Meanwhile this still does not change the fact stated by numerous third parties also known for their honesty.

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

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

Um. Can I just take your word for it?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Chicken. :p

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[tw]

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.....

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

it is all your fault tw. If they had hired you they would have never gotten into this trouble..

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

[TheMercenary]

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.

[God]

Originally Posted by tw

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

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