Comments on: NorGrum/EADS Fights Back

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:47:20 +0000

On a lighter note, the link in the article now works and leads the viewer to an NG website. So it was NG that was spamming me? They must read Defense Tech because after I griped I stopped getting unsolicited e-mail from them.
If they are STILL reading here: now all you have to do is put some ‘content’ there. May I suggest a Fisking of Boeing’s protest summary? (I know, the lawyers will say “no” — I understand.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:27:13 +0000

“by your criteria nearly every company on the planet needs to has executives be fired & go to jail and the company fined.“
Who cares about my criteria? This is not about my criteria. By the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S criteria, Boeing was crooked as hell, and was deservedly punished. Can’t understand why you think gross corruption is no big deal, though. Your dismissive attitude towards Boeing’s past crimes certainly destroys any claim you may have of objectivity regarding the tanker competition. A guy who doesn’t believe Boeing did anything wrong back in 2001 is simply not credible on the merits of the 767 vs. the 330 or on the fairness of the process.
“The very simple issue is that it is the SYSTEM which is corrupt (& WAY too politically motivated) & singling out Boeing is disingenuous AT BEST.“
Absolute rubbish! “The system” did NOT make Boeing systematically bribe Darleen Druyun. Boeing KNOWINGLY committed criminal acts.
As soon as you can cite which other companies have been punished for bribing Darleen, and which other companies have had their executives jailed in a corruption scandal, then your argument that “singling out Boeing is wrong” may have some merit. The fact is that Boeing is the ONLY company that has been punished for bribing Darleen, so it is ENTIRELY PROPER to single out Boeing!
“It is also disingenuous to blame an ENTIRE company for the actions of a few individuals.“
More rubbish! Entire companies are rightly held responsible for what their CEOs and CFOs do.
“attempting to get a better price for a program which YOU are assuming all the risk is NOT trying to pull a fast one.“
Absolute tripe! Do you think the ends justify the means? There is nothing wrong with trying to get a good price for a product, but HOW Boeing did so was entirely improper. There is no doubt whatsoever that Boeing’s methods for “trying to get a better price” were improper — and they were trying to pull a fast one — that is why people went to jail!
“Yes Congress did “order the Air Force to pay a grossly inflated price for the tankers” by legislating a lease rather than a purchase.“
More total garbage. Congress authorized the Air Force to lease aircraft. Congress did NOT set a specific price for doing so, least of all a grossly inflated price. Indeed, Congress mandated that the Air Force should NOT pay an excessive price for the lease (“The present value of the total payments over the duration of each lease entered into under this authority shall not exceed 90 percent of the fair market value of the aircraft obtained under that lease.”) The final, grossly inflated price negotiated with the Air Force was SOLELY the product of Boeing’s greed and bribery of government officials, NOT anything Congress did.
“Congress was willing to provide the USAF with the money needed to do so…“
Hello, Congress did NOT tell the Air Force to pay whatever inflated figure Boeing asked! How can you possibly imagine that Congressional intent was to allow the Air Force and the taxpayer to be ripped off?
“Don’t confuse the UK, Australia, UAE & Saudi Arabia with the US. The US has VERY different tanker requirements than they do.“
Yeah, and if one had to guess, one would guess that these countries would be MORE likely than the US to pick a 767 than a 330. The fact that they didn’t is very telling about the quality and price of the 330 relative to the 767.
“The USAF DOES (& did) know what it wants.“
You are right! It wants the KC-45A, because that is what it chose in a free and fair competition.
“It chose what it wanted (which ws not difficult given what it wanted) YEARS ago but BECAUSE OF the scandals (which by your criteria the USAF was just as guilty as Boeing) that choice was taken away from them.“
When the Air Force “chose” to lease the 767 years ago, that was NOT a real choice! Firstly, Boeing improperly influenced the choice — they twisted arms in Congress and they bribed Darleen, remember? Secondly, the Air Force did not have a real choice at that time because the 330 tanker was not yet sufficiently mature and because Boeing’s Congressional lackeys prevented proper consideration of the alternatives. When they had a real choice, the Air Force chose the 330, quite fairly and properly!
“Sorry but the KC-30 was only competative AFTER changes were made to the criteria.“
Sorry, but the competition was free and fair, and the USAF got what it wanted. As SSgt Mac correctly observes, so-called “changes” that occur before the final RFP is issued are totally irrelevant, and Boeing only keeps yammering about these “changes” in order to delude the ignorant.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:11:42 +0000

Lugo,
Whatever, by your criteria nearly every company on the planet needs to has executives be fired & go to jail and the company fined.
The very simple issue is that it is the SYSTEM which is corrupt (& WAY too politically motivated) & singling out Boeing is disingenuous AT BEST. It is also disingenuous to blame an ENTIRE company for the actions of a few individuals. Besides attempting to get a better price for a program which YOU are assuming all the risk is NOT trying to pull a fast one.
Yes Congress did “order the Air Force to pay a grossly inflated price for the tankers” by legislating a lease rather than a purchase.
What is MORE important, however, is that Congress was willing to provide the USAF with the money needed to do so…Even though it would cost more overall, the funds would be easier to obtain because funds for leasing tankers would not have to come from/go to the USAF procurement budget…
Don’t confuse the UK, Australia, UAE & Saudi Arabia with the US. The US has VERY different tanker requirements than they do.
The USAF DOES (& did) know what it wants. It chose what it wanted (which ws not difficult given what it wanted) YEARS ago but BECAUSE OF the scandals (which by your criteria the USAF was just as guilty as Boeing) that choice was taken away from them. And BECAUSE OF the scandals, the USAF had to go out of its way to appease the only possible competition (which had previously lost) JUST SO that there would be a competition.
Sorry but the KC-30 was only competative AFTER changes were made to the criteria. Changes specificly made so that it COULD be competative!

By: Lugo

Lugo — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 04:02:54 +0000

“BOEING didn’t try to pull a fast one over anybody.“
Oh good grief, are you still insisting on this? Talk about ludicrous denial. BOEING TRIED TO SCREW THE GOVERNMENT. They quite deliberately bribed an official to inflate the price and break the rules. People went to jail for this, so there really isn’t any doubt about it. Your efforts to shift the blame to Congress and Darleen Druyun are just absurd. Yes, Darleen was corrupt. But who corrupted her? BOEING. Perhaps the tanker lease was not the only program she “helped”, but she pleaded guilty to helping many other Boeing programs, and did not plead guilty to helping any other company (she admitted to awarding Boeing a higher than deserved price for the tankers, for AWACS, for C-130J avionics modernization, and for C-17s). In short, Boeing was very dirty. And anyway, so what if she helped a lot of programs other than tanker? How does her broad pattern of malfeasance prove Boeing did not try to pull a fast one on the tanker lease, as seems to be your claim?
As for Congress wanting to lease tankers to get them into service quickly, well, number one, that legislation reflected the slimy hands of Boeing lobbyists and Boeing’s Congressional lackeys. Number two, did Congress order the Air Force to pay a grossly inflated price for the tankers? No, it did not, that was Boeing, and nobody else but Boeing, trying to pull a fast one.
“Pointing out that scandalous actions (whether military related or not) are more common than the anti-Boeing crown wants to admit DOES NOT diminish the importance or distract attention from the Boeing scandal“
That is clearly your intent.
“The lease scandals were actins by a select few individuals NOT the Boeing company or the USAF.“
Absolute rubbish! The inspector general’s report on the tanker lease scandal quite clearly shows that the TOP BOEING LEADERSHIP — not some low-level executives exceeding their authority — was involved in trying to pull a fast one on the tanker lease. The likes of Sears, Condit, and Rudy de Leon, among others, are not simply “a few individuals” — they pretty much ARE (or were) Boeing, and their actions are properly viewed as the company’s actions. With authority comes responsibility, after all. As for the USAF, it was not just Druyun, but many other officials (Roche, Aldridge, Sambur) were critical in moving the lease deal forward without following the proper procedures.
“Since their HAD to be a new competition but a A330-based tanker is/was NONCOMPETATIVE the entire “competition” had to be steared away from what the USAF wanted just so that the would be a competition since the only other competator was not going to compete for a contract it new it could/would not win.“
The A-330 clearly IS competitive, since it won. Indeed, it has beaten the 767 FIVE TIMES (US, UK, Australia, UAE, Saudi Arabia). Do you argue that all of these competitions were somehow improperly influenced by Airbus? Do you argue that not just one but FIVE different air forces somehow don’t really “know what they want”? Once again, the idea that the whole Air Force and OSD acquisition bureaucracy doesn’t really know what it wants — but you do — is simply preposterous.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:52:18 +0000

Lugo,
BOEING didn’t try to pull a fast one over anybody. Congress wanted to lease tankers in order to get new tankers into service QUICKLY & without tapping into the procurement budget. Darleen Druyun was a corrupt acquisition executive. The tanker lease was NOT the only program she used her position for her own personal benefit & Boeing was not the only company she “helped”.
Pointing out that scandalous actions (whether military related or not) are more common than the anti-Boeing crown wants to admit DOES NOT diminish the importance or distract attention from the Boeing scandal — it puts it into proper perspective! Quite the opposite in fact — those who only mention the 767 lease scandals are diminishing the importance &/or distracting attention from the fact that others (such as competition for the KC-X) are NOT “pure as the wind driven snow”.
The lease scandals were actins by a select few individuals NOT the Boeing company or the USAF.
The same is true for those who point out the delays & cost issues of the KC-767 & 787 but (conveniently) fail to mention the delays & cost issues of NG/EADS. A330 MRTT, A350, A380, A400 all have their own delays & cost issues…
Yes, the USAF DID choose the 767 (YEARS ago). Then the lease deal was cancelled due to the scandals & the USAF was FORCED to recompete the contract (with SEVERAL changes) — because of the scandals Boeing COULD NOT be “given” the contract. Since their HAD to be a new competition but a A330-based tanker is/was NONCOMPETATIVE the entire “competition” had to be steared away from what the USAF wanted just so that the would be a competition since the only other competator was not going to compete for a contract it new it could/would not win.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:22:48 +0000

Where have you denied and diminished the importance of the leasing scandal?
When you said, “Boeing was NOT trying to pull a fast one on anybody during the lease deal. The lease was ALL congress’s doing”, and “Shame on YOU for believing Boeing was trying to pull a fast one on the US warfighters and taxpayers”, you were denying that the scandal was Boeing’s fault.
When you said, “There was both good & bad that went with the lease deal. The lease was going to cost more overall than a straight purchase BUT the funds for the lease did not have to (& were not going to) come from the USAF procurement budget”, you were trying to diminish the importance of the scandal, since in your view “good” would have resulted from the lease deal as well as bad.
When you bring up irrelevant Northrop and EADS scandals, you are trying to diminish the importance of the Boeing scandal (by implying that everybody does it) and to distract attention from the Boeing scandal.
All of this is shameful.
“a 767-based tanker IS MUCH CLOSER to what the USAF wants & asked for than a A330-based tanker“
It is manifestly not true that the Air Force wants a KC-767, since THEY DID NOT CHOOSE IT. Geez. Are we to believe that YOU know more about what the Air Force wants and needs than Sue Payton and the entire USAF acquisition team?

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:51:20 +0000

Lugo,
Where have I denied &/or diminished the importance of the leasing scandal?
Hell, I have been quite vocal that it is BECAUSE of scandals in the leasing deal that we are in the mess we are in now (in fact if the lease had continued & was on schedule we would already have taken delivery of the 20 leased KC-767 with the 1st batch of 80 purchased KC-767 being delivered THIS YEAR). Druyun, Condit & Sears got what they deserved for their unethical conduct but do not be so naive as to apply what THEY did to the ENTIRE Boeing company.
Do some research on past NG & EADS/Airbus scandals & put the Boeing lease scandals into a more realistic perspective. ;)
BUT despite what you & others appear to want people to think, the scandals in the leasing deal DO NOT change the fact that a 767-based tanker IS MUCH CLOSER to what the USAF wants & asked for than a A330-based tanker.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:48:37 +0000

“Siting past Boeing scandals while ignoring the past scandals of others is disingenuous & shows a clear bias.“
What is disingenuous is your effort to deny and diminish the importance of the leasing scandal. “Oh, it was all Congress, and a few bad apples, and it wouldn’t have been so bad if the lease went through, anyway.” Yeah, right. And now you apparently want to argue that because other companies have had scandals, we should ignore the Boeing scandal, which is directly relevant to the current issue at hand.
Yes, Boeing tried to pull a fast one, yes, they tried to screw the Air Force, the government, the taxpayer, and the warfighter, and shame on you for trying to convince everyone that this was not the case.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:00:34 +0000

Yes I am very much aware of the scandals with the lease deal. I am also fully aware that the same kind of dealings occur more often than most people even want to know. Siting past Boeing scandals while ignoring the past scandals of others is disingenuous & shows a clear bias.
No I do not work for Boeing. Who actually builds the tankers is a secondary issue with me (not that it is not important but choosing the RIGHT tanker is of MUCH greater importance for me). If it were the NG/EADS who proposed the 767-sized airframe & Boeing who offered the A330-sized airframe I would be posting just as strongly for NG/EADS.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:18:49 +0000

“Boeing was NOT trying to pull a fast one on anybody during the lease deal.“
Very amusing. You don’t consider bribing a government official to agree to pay an inflated price for Boeing products “pulling a fast one”?