On Tuesday, the Boeing Company formally submitted its protest of the NorGrum/EADS tanker award to the Government Accountability Office. The process takes like 60–90 days supposedly, but have we yet to resolve the CSAR-X protest? No. So I don’t have much hope for this one ending any time soon.
And that’s a shame, because more than a new CSAR, the Air Force has got to replace the oldest of its KC-135s very soon, or metal fatigue will seriously hamper aerial refueling ops. It seems that this argument has been firmly planted in the political arena and that Boeing’s arguments on the technical flaws they find in the award are an outgrowth of prodding from Capitol Hill and the unions.
I could be wrong, of course, and maybe there was a grand conspiracy here to award the deal to Airbus. But it seems to me — and call me crazy — that after the last tanker fiasco (which cost an Air Force Secretary his job) the Air Force would have been SUPER careful about its award. I mean, the Air Force has professional acquisition officers who do nothing their entire careers but buy stuff and work contracts to the “T.” With such a high-stakes contract and its shady history, don’t you think the folks who decided this worked the angles backwards and forwards? It doesn’t make sense to me that the Air Force would have been slip shod on this one.
Secondly, I need to say outright here that Sue Payton, the Air Force’s top acquisition official, is about as professional and honest as any civil servant can come. I interviewed her a couple times over the years and have found her honest, forthright and enthusiastic about her service and responsibilities. I just don’t see her letting anything be taken to chance.
And lastly, I find it humorous that Boeing is using the same argument to protest the tanker award that Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are using in their protest of Boeing’s win in the CSAR-X contract: that the service asked for a medium-sized tanker and awarded a heavier one.
Here’s a release from Boeing forwarded to me yesterday after a conference call with reporters (that I missed because my email server was down dammit!) explaining the logic behind their protest:
- The contract award and subsequent reports ignore the fact that in reality Boeing and the Northrop/EADS team were assigned identical ratings across all five evaluations factors: 1) Mission Capability, 2) Risk, 3) Past Performance, 4) Cost/Price, and 5) Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment. Indeed, an objective review of the data as measured against the Request for Proposals shows that Boeing had the better offering in terms of Most Probable Life Cycle Costs, lower risk and better capability.
- Flaws in this procurement process resulted in a significant gap between the aircraft the Air Force originally set out to procure — a medium-size tanker to replace the KC-135, as stated in the request for proposal — and the much larger Airbus A330-based tanker they ultimately selected. It is clear that frequent and often unstated changes during the course of the competition — including manipulation of evaluation criteria and application of unstated and unsupported priorities among the key system requirements — resulted in selection of an aircraft that was radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to the Boeing 767 tanker offering.
- Because of the way the Air Force treated Boeing’s cost/price data, the company was effectively denied its right to compete with a commercial derivative product, contrary not only to the RFP but to federal statute and regulation. The Air Force refused to accept Boeing’s Federal Acquisition Regulation-compliant cost/price information, developed over 50 years of building commercial aircraft, and instead treated the company’s airframe cost/price information as if it were a military-defense product. Not only did this flawed decision deny the government the manufacturing benefits of Boeing’s unique in-line production capability, subjecting the Air Force to higher risk, but it also resulted in a distortion of the price at which Boeing actually offered to produce tankers.
- In evaluating Past Performance, the Air Force ignored the fact that Boeing — with 75 years of success in producing tankers — is the only company in the world that has produced a commercial derivative tanker equipped with an operational aerial-refueling boom. Rather than consider recent performance assessments that should have enhanced Boeing’s position, the Air Force focused on relatively insignificant details on “somewhat relevant” Northrop/EADS programs to the disadvantage of Boeing’s experience.
- Boeing offered an aircraft that provided the best value and performance for the stated mission at the lowest risk and lowest life cycle cost,” said McGraw.
“We did bring our A-game to this competition. Regrettably, irregularities in the process resulted in an inconsistent and prejudicial application of procurement practices and the selection of a higher risk, higher cost airplane that’s less suitable for the mission as defined by the Air Force’s own request for proposal. We are only asking that the rules of fair competition be followed.
Come on, everyone, including Boeing, knew from the VERY BEGINNING that Airbus was going to offer up the A330. It seems a little strange for Boeing to complain about some misconception of the criteria now.
But, again, I think this is getting more political than contractual. We’ll see. And keep an eye out for more coverage here on the attempt to hang the lost contract on the Republican presidential nominee…
– Christian
> in reality, with KC-767 you WILL have more booms in the air & have MORE total fuel to transfer in most theaters.
this is just flat out wrong
the KC-30 can operate from more airfields and can stay on station longer
on station longer = less time in transit = more booms in the air
> The UK DID NOT study all airfields, only ones they regularly operate from
of course they didn’t study all, but they studied hundreds
not finding a single one that the KC-767 had an advantage at should tell you something
> It is a 100% FACT that 767–200 can (because of their smaller size &
> lower weight) operating from airfields that the A330-200 simply can not
no one’s found one yet
don’t think that just because it’s smaller it has better takeoff performance, that is absolutely not true
the ginormous wing of the A330 generates a ton of lift and allows it takeoff at slower speeds
theoretically, there could be some taxiway that supports the 767 but not the A330, but again no one’s found one yet
> When you look as real-world scenarios the KC-767AT puts more booms in the air woth an overall greater total fuel offload capability
simply not true
the KC-30
1. can operate from more airfields
2. carry more gas
3. stay on station longer
4. operate from bases further away
the ONLY area where the KC-767 has any sort of ‘advantage’ is parking footprint, and even that isn’t that big. Again i don’t have the exact numbers, but at someplace like Kandahar it was 12 KC-767s vs 11 KC-30s
and the extra capacity, range and endurance of the KC-30 more than makes up for that
for booms in the air, you can’t beat the KC-30
> They strengthened & enlarged infrastructure
again no one has found a taxiway that will support the KC-767 but not the KC-30
> placed their aircraft closer together than they are in the real world.
nope, the AF does park aircraft that close which is why they allowed that change
irtusk,
No the KC-30 can NOT operate from more airfields than the KC-767AT. The KC-767AT can operatate from ANY airfield the KC-30 can operate from but the opposite is not true — there are airfields who’s infrastructure can accomodant the KC-767AT but not the KC-30 due to its size &/or weight.
And the KC-30 carrying more fuel does not neccessarily mean it can stay on station longer — it depends on how far/long it had to fly to get on station plus every minute a KC-30 is in the air it burns ~25% more fuel than a KC-767AT…
on station longer =/= less time in transit =/= more booms in the air
And I guess you need to tell the airlines that the A330-200 can operate from any airport that can operate the 767–200 then… But since you are under the illusion that no such airfields can be found I will give you oa couple — Invercargill Airport, NZ & Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, USA.
RE: “The KC-767AT can operate from ANY airfield the KC-30 can operate from but the opposite is not true.“
Well if both NG’s and Boeing’s websites are to be believed, the 767 tanker can ‘use an 8000 ft runway’, and the A330 tanker can ‘takeoff in 7000 ft’. Both numbers are for fully-loaded aircraft, and I assume this is best perfomance at sea-level, standard day. So it would seem that the A330 can at least perhaps use some airfields that the 767 cannot? Even if this is just the same performance expressed in different ways, the point that NG makes with the number of airfields is that for any given scenario, the A330 can operate out of more distant fields (adding numbers of options) than the B767.
The higher fuel burn of the A330 is only to the Boeing’s advantage if it is higher per payload unit per mission mile or mission hour, with payload unit being expressed in pounds of off-boardable (for lack of a better word) fuel, numbers of passengers or patient litters carried, and of course pounds or pallets of cargo (depending upon if volume or mass is the constraining factor). Example: If the 767 burns 10% less fuel, but you can fly either 1 fully loaded A330 or 2 B767s, then I’d say chances are pretty darn good that you will be burning more fuel flying 2 767s. Even if you can balance the load to make the 767’s fuel burn rates even lower individually, unless each 767 now burns half as much fuel as the A330 (highly improbable given the similarity in powerplants and thrust ratings) then you are burning more fuel using 767s than the A330 for the same mission. There’s a whole pile of other considerations and questions concerning the AF needs thet the AF knows and we don’t. Things such as how many tankers are needed to support one-way fighter drags? How important is what capability to which mission? How important is the ability get to and to stay on station? How important is cruise speed (the A330 is nominally faster) or best loiter time? What’s the lowest manpower option? The AF knows what is important to them and we don’t. It also sounds like Boeing is telling its Customer that they know better than the Customer what the Customer needs. This was a mistake my company used to make and I remember a lot of lost contracts during that timeframe.
Speaking of airlines and the ‘B767 vs the A330-200′ battle. It is interesting that this is one airframe market competition where EADS seems to be beating Boeing. A person on an earlier thread was insisting that the A330 just HAD to be in a different class and Boeing was sputtering about the A330 being so much bigger (heavy vs medium argument). It took very little research to find that the A330-200 is a direct competitor to the 767-300ER and 767-400ER. While I personally would describe the two aircraft as being of different ‘classes’ (both smaller than a B777 or B747 ‘class’ BTW) the airliner market is what has declared these two airframes competitors.
Since the A330-200 is a shortened version of the A330, I’m wondering if Boeing is kicking themselves over electing to not come out with a shortened version of the 777 and instead opting to stretch the 767. History would have given them confidence in such a decision at the time they made it, since the A330-200 has been the only really successful ‘shrink job’ I can think of. All others that come to mind have not been very successful (sales wise) — a good example would be one of my all-time favorite airliners: the B747SP.
One has to wonder if Boeing has the audacity to tell its commercial customers that they can’t buy A330s intead of B767s because they are ‘too different’.
SMSgt Mac,
The devil is in the details reguarding runway length.
Once again…The KC-767AT has the airframe of the 767–200 (smallest & lightest 767) with the wings, landing gear & higher thrust engines of larger/heavier 767. The KC-30 may have superior take-off performance tha the “basic” KC-767 previously sold but the KC-767AT (as some are so keen to point out) IS NOT the same aircraft.
Boeing is not kicking themselves over electing to not come out with a shortened version of the 777 and instead opting to stretch the 767. Boeing proposed what it believes (which had previously been confirmed) is the right sized airframe to replace the KC-135.
The 767–300 & 767–400 are “direct competitors” to the A330-200 in some markets but the 767–200 is not.
Boeing doesn’t have to tell its commercial customers that they can’t buy A330-200s intead of 767-200s because they are ‘too different’, customers know every bit as much as Boeing how different the two are. The “competition” that has done the most to reduce demand for the 767–200 are stretched versions of Boeing’s own 757.
irtusk,
hypothetical situation…
KC-767AT operating from an airfield ~500 miles from designated refuelling point.
KC-30 being too big &/or heavy can not operate from said airfield & thus has to operate from an airfield ~750 miles from designated refuelling. point.
OR
KC-30 operating from an airfield ~500 miles from designated refuelling point can only do so at a significantly reduced take-off weight thus negating (or even reversing) it fuel offload advantage.
If A330-200 are operating from Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport then significant improvements to the airfield infrastrutcure have been made to support heavier aircraft or the A330-200 operating from there are doing so at a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced take-off weight.
It is actually quite common to see in many areas a single (or few) large airfield(s) which can operate “virtually anything” supported by a larger number of smaller airfields which can only operate aircraft up to a certain size &/or weight limit. There are also areas where there are NO “large” airfields & even the largest airfields around can only operate aircraft up to a certain size &/or weight limit.
Keep in mind that the KC-30 carries less than 50,000 lbs more “maximum offloadable” fule than the KC-767AT BUT is more than 100,000 lbs heavier. Also keep in mind that some airfields are limited by weight (thus a A330/KC-30 could technically operate from their but ONLY at reduced take-off weights) while others are limited by hanger &/or ramp space (which a A330/KC-30 could only operate from after improvements to the infrastruture). Of course (as I ahve said before) the same is true for the 767 BUT the size & weight threshold for the 767 are significantly lower.
The manufacturing guys over at Evolving Excellence have also been taking Boeing to task, first in terms of the hypocrisy of whining about losing the tanker deal to NG/Airbus at:
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/boeing-whiner-e.html
Then the even greater hypocrisy of the politicians that are siding with Boeing:
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/so-whos-more-pa.html
Ken
> The “competition” that has done the most to reduce demand for the 767–200 are stretched versions of Boeing’s own 757.
the 757 hasn’t been in production for 4 years and the 767–200 still isn’t selling …
> KC-30 being too big &/or heavy can not operate from said airfield
except in real life that just doesn’t happen
> KC-30 operating from an airfield ~500 miles from designated refuelling point
> can only do so at a significantly reduced take-off weight thus negating (or
> even reversing) it fuel offload advantage.
again not going to happen
here’s a hypothetical:
the runway at some podunk field (like say MILDENHALL) is too short for the KC-767AT so it has to takeoff with a reduced fuel load
except, it’s not a hypothetical
> There are also areas where there are NO “large” airfields & even the
> largest airfields around can only operate aircraft up to a certain
> size &/or weight limit.
sure there are weight limited airports
it’s just that generally if they’re strong enough to support a 767 they’re also strong enough to support an A330
you are simply going to find more fields where the KC-767 is limited by runway length than the KC-30 is limited by weight restrictions
you can’t deny it
and another thing to consider is that it’s not just weight, it’s weight distribution (ie weight per tire)
both have 2 double twin main landing gear and a twin nose gear BUT the KC-30 is also fitted with the center-line twin gear from the A340 family
the extra tires help distribute more of the weight and allow it to use runways you would otherwise think it couldn’t
> while others are limited by hanger
1. you can operate without a hangar
2. lots of the KC-135 hangars don’t accomodate the KC-767 either, so they will have to be redone whatever the case
> ramp space (which a A330/KC-30 could only operate from after improvements to the infrastruture)
ramp space isn’t nearly as big an issue as you think plus since the KC-30 can put more booms in the air, there will be fewer planes sitting at the base (as opposed to the more more-booms-on-the-ground KC-767)
an interesting quote from the comments here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/03/10/boeing-experiences-drag/
who knows how credible it is, but interesting nonetheless …
> My spouse worked on the original tanker proposal (the one that
> was awarded to Boeing, then taken away). When the government/Air
> Force first came to Boeing about the tanker idea, Boeing shoved
> the 767 platform down their throats about as calmly as a car
> salesman will sell you the lot-lemon. The Air Force asked for a
> quote on a 777 platform, and Boeing countered that
> Would you sign (another) contract with these folks ?
if they had the best product at the best price, absolutely
they’ve served their time (paid their fine), it’s time to move on
they bring too much to the table to simply ignore
that said, i would scrutinize any dealings very carefully
irtusk,
You lack of understanding of real life is pathetic.
There are NO airfields or runways which the KC-30 can operate from where the KC-767AT can not. But there ARE runways & airfields which the KC-767AT can operate from where the KC-30 can not.
The KC-767AT IS NOT a 767-200ER nor is it a “basic” KC-767 sold to Italy & Japan.
> The KC-767AT IS NOT a 767-200ER nor is it a “basic” KC-767
> sold to Italy & Japan.
no kidding, let us compare the specs
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html
“The ability to take off at NEAR maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway“
in other words, it is limited from an 8000 ft runway and who knows what ‘near’ means
now let us compare to the KC-45
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/deploying.html
“The aircraft’s excellent takeoff performance allows it to depart from a 7,000-ft. runway fully loaded.“
so there we have it:
KC-767AT — 8000′ at LESS THAN MTOW
KC-45 — 7000′ at MTOW
irtusk,
Ha, ha, ha.
That is the problem with only getting your infomation from the internet…
Note how nearly all the “data” on the KC-767AT on the internet is rather vague.
Take a wild guess where the “8,000ft” figure comes from. I would tell you but you obviously don’t believe FACTS others present that disagree with your misconceptions.
RE: Would you sign (another) contract with these folks ?
if they had the best product at the best price, absolutely
they’ve served their time (paid their fine), it’s time to move on
they bring too much to the table to simply ignore
that said, i would scrutinize any dealings very carefully
Well said although the best product & price is of no value without delivery !
With regards
Dave
I honestly do not thing that the United States government should be awarding a 100 billion dollar stimulus package to France. Regardless of mild performance differences between the two companies, I think it’s time to reconsider the number of jobs that would be generated in the United States as a result of our government investing in Boeing. I do not work for Boeing, I do not work in the aviation industry. I work in healthcare. It seems incredibly short sighted. How can they EVER encourage us to “Buy American” after something like this? It smacks of hypocrisy.
Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings