Scbriml From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8430 posts, RR: 25 Posted (3 months 8 hours ago) and read 2860 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Given the length of the original thread and the continued delay in the issuing of the final RFP, please continue discussion of the KC-X bid process here. When the final RFP is issued we will start a new thread.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2569 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 months 7 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
So it seems if Boeing should not be selected for the new RFP, they have the right to appeal that too. Will it ever end?
Boeing also seems to be threatening a non-bid if they don't get a four month extension on the deadline for the current RFP. Clearly that will put the funding decision into the hands of the next Congress. I think that's already true: all that is funded in this year's budget is the four development KC-45As, and those funds haven't been paid out due to the current protest. So what is Boeing gaining? Four months doesn't seem to be enough time to come up with an all-new proposal, or is it?
Maybe they're waiting for the administration of President Palin 8 years hence, god help us?
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8310 posts, RR: 26 Reply 2, posted (3 months 5 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
Quoting Scbriml (Thread starter): Given the length of the original thread and the continued delay in the issuing of the final RFP, please continue discussion of the KC-X bid process here. When the final RFP is issued we will start a new thread.
Indeed became long & everything was said twice at least. Couldn't we adjust the title of thsi thread to :
"New Boeing & NG/EADS tanker proposals, what's in? "
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 1958 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 months 4 hours ago) and read 2794 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 1): Boeing also seems to be threatening a non-bid if they don't get a four month extension on the deadline for the current RFP.
And there is the problem for the AF.
First the AF played some rather queer games and that resulted in the first protest by Boeing in 30 years.
Then the GAO upheld Boeing's protest, roasting the AF rather strongly.
Now the AF is wanting a different tanker (larger, multi-task plane) than they specified in the original RFP. They also want it before Bush leaves office.
All this is resulting in a mad dash to a decision and now Boeing is talking about "pulling a NG/Airbus" and walking away from the game. The AF changed the rules to keep NG/Airbus in the game - will they change them again to keep Boeing in? Or will they blow the deal again.
The other queer thing about the dash - if it is delayed then Airbus will be able to change their proposal to the A330F, which might be a better option in the long run for the AF.
So many choices, so many problems and such poor execution on the part of the AF/DoD.
One way to look at it. I think the USAF always made clear they wanted a multi task platform reading from the original request for proposal. Some refused to read / understand & accept.
Spring 2007, DoD’s top military transportation commanders expressed a strong preference for a multi-role tanker. Gen. Norton Schwartz, Commander U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) :
"What we need is a multi-mission tanker that can do both boom and basket refueling, that
can do passenger lift, some cargo lift, and have defensive systems that allow the airplane
to go wherever we need to take it....if we’re going to war with Iran or Korea or over
Taiwan or a major scenario, the first 15 to 30 days are going to be air refueling intensive.
But what I’m talking about is the global war on terrorism, sir, for the next 15 or 20 or 25
years. That is not an air refueling intensive scenario and that’s why a multi-mission
airplane to me makes sense."
As stated endlessly & ignored / denied as endlessly the requirements were clear & understood. One of the parties however choose to sail another direction maybe because they didn't like the implications of said requirements.
11Bravo From United States, joined Feb 2005, 1491 posts, RR: 28 Reply 5, posted (3 months 2 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
It seems to me it would be wise for the DoD to put this thing in a holding pattern until the new Administration and Congress take office in January. Regardless of whether it's McCain or Obama, we will have lots of new faces in senior leadership positions, and that could result in yet more delays and changes if they aren't getting a deal they're happy with.
In my view this whole tanker thing could have, and should have, been resolved two years ago, but it would be a mistake to try and push it to conclusion now and risk yet more problems.
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (3 months 2 hours ago) and read 2742 times:
Keesje is right. Also, the Air Force has been very careful not to tell the manufacturers what airplanes to offer. This is how you get the best out of the process.
The problem is Boeing decided what airplane they wanted to sell; refused to listen to its customer; and is now playing the part of the jilted lover. They have other and more appropriate alternatives, but offering those would require some actual work.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2569 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (3 months 1 hour ago) and read 2706 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 4): I think the USAF always made clear they wanted a multi task platform reading from the original request for proposal.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 4): As stated endlessly & ignored / denied as endlessly the requirements were clear & understood. One of the parties however choose to sail another direction maybe because they didn't like the implications of said requirements.
What matters is what is stated in the RFP, not what one general (regardless of position) says to the press, and the GAO has pointed out what the issues with the RFP are.
Suppose the shoe was on the opposite foot. Suppose the RFP said that extra credit was being given for tankerage beyond the minimum yet the USAF chose the 767. Wouldn't Airbus be right to challenge the decision?
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 months 1 hour ago) and read 2693 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 7): Suppose the shoe was on the opposite foot. Suppose the RFP said that extra credit was being given for tankerage beyond the minimum yet the USAF chose the 767. Wouldn't Airbus be right to challenge the decision?
The RFP was going to be protested no matter who won.
The issues with the RFP have been corrected and Boeing is not a happy camper. Why? It is in writing this time.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3188 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (3 months 1 hour ago) and read 2679 times:
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 8): The issues with the RFP have been corrected and Boeing is not a happy camper. Why? It is in writing this time.
Well, had it been in writing the last time, Boeing would have had 1 year to come up with a proposal. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same 1 year opportunity this time?
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (3 months ago) and read 2664 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 9): Well, had it been in writing the last time, Boeing would have had 1 year to come up with a proposal. So why shouldn't they be afforded the same 1 year opportunity this time?
Boeing chose the low cost alternative as this was third time they tried to pawn this airplane off on the Air Force. Boeing has known since February what they are biding against. They knew on a fair comparison the NG airplane was better, and hoped that they could marshal enough political pressure to get NG dismissed. That didn't work so now they still want to go the cheap route. Get on with it or pull out.
I could care less who wins. Why should any air force purchase already out-dated technology that has to last another 40 to 50 years? That would only mean the first update sooner rather than later.
Flighty From United States, joined Apr 2007, 3185 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (3 months ago) and read 2646 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 3): such poor execution on the part of the AF/DoD.
They are warfighting experts, not chamber maids for the Boeing company. They already picked the plane they wanted. Did they execute a watertight piss-proof contract... no... but that is not the strong suit of the USAF, it's fighting wars and global security. That's their job and they do it well. Boeing will always be stronger on contract games (better lawyers, etc) and that isn't something that will change.
Me too. I just want the USAF to get the best fleet they can. The best judge of that is the Unites States Air Force and they have already spoken... loudly.
Ken777 From United States, joined Mar 2004, 1958 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): They are warfighting experts, not chamber maids for the Boeing company. They already picked the plane they wanted. Did they execute a watertight piss-proof contract... no... but that is not the strong suit of the USAF, it's fighting wars and global security. That's their job and they do it well. Boeing will always be stronger on contract games (better lawyers, etc) and that isn't something that will change.
The military is pretty good at war fighting, but as the tanker deal (and the DDG 1000 SNAFU) shows they aren't too hot at procurement, plus various ethics problems, poor control of nuclear weapons, etc. present a fairly high lack of confidence of the DoD with the current administration.
Boeing isn't always stronger on contract games. NG as well as other companies have done fairly well over the years. The problem is that it was the job of the AF to run the tanker program at an ethical and legal level that would not result in public humiliation from the GAO. They failed and the people that caused that failure should be replaced before going forward and being humiliated yet again.
Flighty From United States, joined Apr 2007, 3185 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2583 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13): public humiliation from the GAO. They failed and the people that caused that failure should be replaced before going forward and being humiliated yet again.
They failed at a game that is not their strong suit. But let's not ignore that the USAF mostly succeeds at their primary mission, which is controlling the airspace over 90% of Earth. As long as they are not humiliated on the field of battle then I think the USAF is on solid ground.
The procurement scandal of c1996 was an ethical failure at USAF and (primarily) Boeing. The 2007-2008 "scandal" was simple mischief by Boeing and I exonerate the USAF 100% on it. They did their job and then Boeing started trying to play God.
Gsosbee From United States, joined Jan 2005, 623 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2576 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12): The third time? Did I miss an RFP somewhere in the last few years?
The first attempt was a purchase which lead to the failed lease now this one. I count that as three.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12): You're absolutely right: they've known that since February when it finally became obvious the USAF wanted the larger plane.
So what have they been doing since then except pissing and moaning? Nothing evidently. By 01 November they should have 3 proposal's (767-200AT; 767-400 derivative; 74 derivative) in the DoD's hands.
As a Boeing shareholder I am embarrassed at management's handling of the entire process. Unfortunately my meager shares mean nothing to Boeing's management.
Revelation From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2569 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): Me too. I just want the USAF to get the best fleet they can. The best judge of that is the Unites States Air Force and they have already spoken... loudly.
They may be the best judge, but they aren't the only judge. The USAF knows this and they should be able to get their shit together when it comes to procurement.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 14): They failed at a game that is not their strong suit. But let's not ignore that the USAF mostly succeeds at their primary mission, which is controlling the airspace over 90% of Earth. As long as they are not humiliated on the field of battle then I think the USAF is on solid ground.
The fact that they are doing their current mission so well speaks to the fact that in the past they knew how to do procurement well, but now they are failing to do so.
RedFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2005, 3188 posts, RR: 20 Reply 17, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2528 times:
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
The third time? Did I miss an RFP somewhere in the last few years?
The first attempt was a purchase which lead to the failed lease now this one. I count that as three.
Ah, you were counting the yet-to-be-released RFP as the 3rd one.
Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 15): Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 12):
You're absolutely right: they've known that since February when it finally became obvious the USAF wanted the larger plane.
So what have they been doing since then except pissing and moaning? Nothing evidently. By 01 November they should have 3 proposal's (767-200AT; 767-400 derivative; 74 derivative) in the DoD's hands.
As a purported Boeing shareholder, I don't think you want them spending valuable time and money putting together a proposal to an RFP that has yet to be released. It could turn into a cat-herding endeavor, especially since the USAF seems to be having difficulty compiling and releasing what will be the 3rd RFP in this long-running saga.
"I am looking for the owner of that horse - he's tall, he's blonde, he smokes a cigar, and he's a pig."
Speedbirda380 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 281 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2495 times:
I love reading all these never-ending argument's. They just go on and on and on.........
But as a person who has very little idea of what he is talking about on this subject could someone please answer me the following question's?
1. Is the US Air Force not capable of making up it's own mind of which tanker it want's? I mean you read all these GAO ruling's telling the US Air force how bad they have been and you get an image of the US Airforce standing in the corner of the room like a little child as the big bad teacher called the GAO discipline's them for bad behavior! It's like the US Airforce need's a nanny to check on them and monitor everything they are doing! - Is this the cas
Sponsor Message: 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jul 2003, 8430 posts, 
From United States, joined Feb 2005, 2569 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8310 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2008, 281 posts,