Comments on: Boeing Dives into the Blogosphere

By: Brendan P.

Brendan P. — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:50:22 +0000

Even sports

By: security systems

security systems — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:01:30 +0000

Newhouse introduces a fleet of issues: international sensitivities, cost overruns, governance structure, missed deadlines, the U.S. airline crisis, purchase negotiations, engine mechanics, government subsidies, the economics of plane size, the composition of airplane wings.

By: lansdale life insurance

lansdale life insurance — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 10:36:55 +0000

Boeing Airplane Co. last week supplied a sad example of how jittery the stock market is these days, especially in reaction to offhand remarks of Administration officials.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 05:32:13 +0000

You haven’t refuted anything. As more than one person has said, you just keep repeating the same things over and over. No matter how many times you say them, it doesn’t make them true.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:04:50 +0000

Lugo,
Itis YOUR refuted & preposterous claims that just don’t fly.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:29:17 +0000

"Thats right it wasn't Boeing. Boeing was just the manufacturer of the chosen aircraft...It was not Boeing's (no the USAF's) idea to lease them - nor do so at that particular time." I have addressed and refuted your preposterous claims about this at length in the other thread. The leasing scandal was a Boeing scandal, and only a Boeing scandal, from end to end, period. You want to blame it on Congress for some absurd reason, but sorry, that just doesn't fly. (As if Boeing's lobbyists had NOTHING to do with the FY02 legislation that mandated a lease - yeah, right, pull the other one.) "And contrary to what you & those like want people to believe scandalous activity IS NOT all that uncommon..." Contrary to what you seem to believe, ONLY Boeing has been caught and punished trying to bribe Darleen Druyun, and ONLY Boeing is guilty of trying to screw the taxpayers and the government by "leasing" tanker aircraft at grossly inflated prices. Even if it is true that "everybody does it" (and I will point out that you have not specifically cited what other companies are guilty of "scandalous behavior", and if this behavior is so common you should be able to give many examples), contrary to what you want people to believe, this IN NO WAY excuses Boeing or diminishes Boeing's guilt. "It was also not Boeing (no the USAF) who then demanded that the program be recompeted (as apposed to renegotiated) which forced the USAF to change the criteria JUST SO THE ONLY OTHER COMPETITION (which had already lost) COULD/WOULD COMPETE." Actually, yes, it was Boeing that forced a recompete (which was not truly a recompete but a competition in the first place as opposed to a Boeing sole-source screwjob). If Boeing hadn't been so greedy and criminal, there would have been no "recompete". Boeing has nobody but itself to blame for the fact that the government insisted on a tanker competition.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:44:42 +0000

Lugo,
Thats right it wasn’t Boeing. Boeing was just the manufacturer of the chosen aircraft…It was not Boeing’s (no the USAF’s) idea to lease them — nor do so at that particular time. And contrary to what you & those like want people to believe scandalous activity IS NOT all that uncommon…
It was also not Boeing (no the USAF) who then demanded that the program be recompeted (as apposed to renegotiated) which forced the USAF to change the criteria JUST SO THE ONLY OTHER COMPETITION (which had already lost) COULD/WOULD COMPETE.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:40:30 +0000

“How could Boeing possibly have a plot “to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one” when THAT already happened YEARS ago (& not by Boeing)… ;)“
You mean it wasn’t Boeing that plotted to subvert the normal acquisition process back in 2001, and replace it with a purely political (and criminal) effort to get the USAF to lease 767s at vastly inflated prices? Hmmm. Is there some _other_ tanker leasing scandal besides the Boeing one?

By: irtusk

irtusk — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 05:03:57 +0000

> they are obligated in the interest of being “fair & transparent“
> of making sure the that the necessary parties are informed of the
> “problem” & given the opportunity to correct it.
the story is that they were told several times that what the provided was unacceptable, yet they flat out refused to provide the cost buildup data the AF wanted
ie it wasn’t a surprise that the AF rejected it, it was just that Boeing and the AF didn’t agree on what was required
> What REALLY sets off a red flag on the cost issue for me is that
> BOTH teams received the same “score” on Cost/Price for reasonableness,
> realistic & balanced offer. Such scores are IMPOSSIBLE with “insufficient
> cost data”.
it was possible because the AF bumped up the Boeing bid by $4.2 billion dollars to account for that risk

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:43:39 +0000

SMSgt Mac.
How could Boeing possibly have a plot “to seek the subversion of the whole process and replace it with a pure political one” when THAT already happened YEARS ago (& not by Boeing)… ;)
And don’t forget that BECAUSE OF the problems with the cancelled tanker lease & the resulting “demands” for a “fair & transparent competition” such misundertandings were NOT supposed to happen.