Lawmakers Protest $35B Air Force Tanker Deal
Valor Studios, home of the world's finest military artwork and collectibles!
Support the community!
Paratrooper.net Commo Room
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On
Welcome Guest ( Login | Register )
        


12»»

Lawmakers Protest $35B Air Force Tanker Deal Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted 4/20/2008 4:54 AM


Regular Joe

Regular Joe

Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 5/3/2008 2:14 PM
Posts: 200, Visits: 172

WASHINGTON - Lawmakers from Washington state and Kansas joined labor leaders on Thursday to protest the massive Air Force tanker contract that Boeing Co. lost to a European rival, and vowed to stymie the deal in Congress.

Organizers of the Capitol Hill rally said the contract would subsidize foreign competitors at the expense of U.S jobs in the aerospace defense industry, particularly in those two states, where much of the work on the tanker would have been performed had Boeing won.

"The Air Force process was so badly flawed that it was skewed to favor one bid," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. "What should have been a boon to American taxpayers is instead an embarrassment to American taxpayers

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., called the Air Force's decision "an insult to our workers" and also raised questions about the fairness of the selection process.

"The rules were changed on Boeing time and time again in order to keep a foreign competitor at the table," Murray charged.

Congressional members from the two states have proclaimed outrage ever since the Air Force's decision in February to award a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers to Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman Corp.

The award came as a shock to Boeing, which has supplied tankers to the Air Force for nearly 50 years and was widely considered the favorite to win the deal. Boeing filed a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office on March 11 and expects a ruling by June.

Roberts, Murray and six other senators on Thursday sent a letter to President Bush claiming the award sends the wrong signal when at the same time, the U.S. is protesting unfair foreign subsidies to Airbus before the World Trade Organization.

Union leaders on Thursday focused on the potential loss of American jobs.

http://www.military.com/news/article/lawmakers-protest-35b-af-tanker-deal.html?col=1186032320397



militarysignatures.com

I took the road less traveled and that made all the difference.......

Post #257113
Posted 4/20/2008 11:00 PM


Regular Joe

Regular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular Joe

Group: Registered User
Last Login: 6/30/2008 7:41 PM
Posts: 326, Visits: 1,051
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, I think Boeing may win, and force a rebid with Boeing putting the 777 against Airbus.

I can't help but think Airbus won because McCain challenges every Boeing contract.

Post #257158
Posted 4/21/2008 5:30 AM


Stare Master

Stare Master

Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 12:43 PM
Posts: 9,311, Visits: 41,160
From what I understand the Airbus was a larger plane that better met the AF needs.  McCain has challenged Boeing over this contract because of the bribery scandal they were involved with.  From what I have read Boeing lost fair and square and unless Boeing can get enough political pressure to change it.

Organizers of the Capitol Hill rally said the contract would subsidize foreign competitors at the expense of U.S jobs in the aerospace defense industry, particularly in those two states, where much of the work on the tanker would have been performed had Boeing won.

The fact is that it will be built here in the states by Northrup Grumman.  Those jobs aren't going overseas, just some of the money under the contract.

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI.  One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS

Post #257161
Posted 4/21/2008 6:26 PM


Hard Charger

Hard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard Charger

Group: Registered User
Last Login: Today @ 11:21 AM
Posts: 1,524, Visits: 5,759
A f-ng tanker is a tanker is a tanker....my question is does supporting a domestic manufacturer outweigh the benefits of having superior equipment? Why didn't Boeing just build or convert what the brass wanted in the first place? It's not like they just started designing big grey busses is it?




"Let's Go Downtown" - Flight of the Intruder
 



http://www.327infantry.org/second/c_co 

Same Mud Same Blood - NBC documentary filmed 1967 RVN, chronicle Frank McGee
IMO
FSGT Nelson P. Henry
101st 2nd/327th -NO SLACK
KIA October 28, 1967 in QuangTin Province RVN
militarysignatures.com
Post #257212
Posted 4/21/2008 7:07 PM


Masters of Hard Knocks from the University of Gravity

Masters of Hard Knocks from the University of GravityMasters of Hard Knocks from the University of GravityMasters of Hard Knocks from the University of GravityMasters of Hard Knocks from the University of GravityMasters of Hard Knocks from the University of GravityMasters of Hard Knocks from the University of GravityMasters of Hard Knocks from the University of GravityMasters of Hard Knocks from the University of Gravity

Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: Today @ 9:00 PM
Posts: 2,342, Visits: 2,490
SMSB (4/21/2008)
A f-ng tanker is a tanker is a tanker....my question is does supporting a domestic manufacturer outweigh thebenefits of having superior equipment? Why didn't Boeing just build or convert what the brasswanted in the first place? It's not likethey just started designing big grey busses is it?




There are no domestic contractors any more. Boeing, NG, GD, Lockheed are all in bed with international companies. I know I work for LM. JSF, the new Presidential Helo, the Space Shuttle, and most every other major program has some international content.

Boeing is whining just like every other bid that they loose on. They protest it. It is part of their corporate culture. Boeing did not have the best choice. I hate to say it but I trust the Air Force on this one. They would not have gone with the Airbus and GD if it were not the better proposed platform. They knew exactly what was going to happen when they selected it.

As far as I'm concerned Boeing should have been banned from government contracts for many years after being convicted of corporate theft from both LM and GD.




"Si Vis Pacum Para Bellum"
If you want peace prepare for war!
Post #257217
Posted 4/22/2008 8:22 AM


Hard Charger

Hard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard ChargerHard Charger

Group: Registered User
Last Login: Today @ 11:21 AM
Posts: 1,524, Visits: 5,759
Arcticabn (4/21/2008)
Boeing, NG, GD, Lockheed are all in bed with international companies.

I chose to leave DOD contracting over two years ago after providing support services for several different GA (cats and dogs $$) contracts for eight years because of this very thing. I am very aware of the corporate greed that exists in gov't contracting.

I'm for chopping off the hands of those that reach into the pockets of politicians that are not controlling our money effectively enough to stimulate more innovative domestic manufacturing techniques and services though....

"Let's Go Downtown" - Flight of the Intruder
 



http://www.327infantry.org/second/c_co 

Same Mud Same Blood - NBC documentary filmed 1967 RVN, chronicle Frank McGee
IMO
FSGT Nelson P. Henry
101st 2nd/327th -NO SLACK
KIA October 28, 1967 in QuangTin Province RVN
militarysignatures.com
Post #257230
Posted 4/22/2008 8:33 PM


Regular Joe

Regular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular JoeRegular Joe

Group: Registered User
Last Login: 6/30/2008 7:41 PM
Posts: 326, Visits: 1,051
Arcticabn (4/21/2008)
SMSB (4/21/2008)
A f-ng tanker is a tanker is a tanker....my question is does supporting a domestic manufacturer outweigh thebenefits of having superior equipment? Why didn't Boeing just build or convert what the brasswanted in the first place? It's not likethey just started designing big grey busses is it?




There are no domestic contractors any more. Boeing, NG, GD, Lockheed are all in bed with international companies. I know I work for LM. JSF, the new Presidential Helo, the Space Shuttle, and most every other major program has some international content.

Boeing is whining just like every other bid that they loose on. They protest it. It is part of their corporate culture. Boeing did not have the best choice. I hate to say it but I trust the Air Force on this one. They would not have gone with the Airbus and GD if it were not the better proposed platform. They knew exactly what was going to happen when they selected it.

As far as I'm concerned Boeing should have been banned from government contracts for many years after being convicted of corporate theft from both LM and GD.

Every contract is challenged, Boeing won the Rescue contract, but Lockheed and Sikorsky challenged it, won, and it's being rebid (with amendment #6 to the RFP).

I think Boeing may win it's bid.  Their main point seems to be the AF's telling them (or strongly suggesting) the go with the 767 vice the 777. Ironically, the argumenys Lockheed and Sikorsky used on the CSAR contract, are the arguments Boeing is using for the Tanker contract.

Post #257271