Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, is correct to have “serious concerns” about the new request for proposals for the Air Force tanker contract. The Government Accountability Office determined that the previous contract awarded to Northrop Grumman and the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. had “significant errors.” But this new process appears to be even more unfair by giving “extra credit” for larger planes. The Air Force’s previous contract specifications indicated it didn’t want a jumbo refueling tanker. Now there may not be enough time for Boeing to rework its proposal based on a larger plane.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
22 Comments
Maybe Tiahrt should show his disapproval by returning all the campaign donations he’s received from Northrop Grumman.
Because this contract is so big and complicated, it should be broken up into a series of smaller pieces to let more companies be involved in it.
I’m starting to think that this Tanker contract will never be fair. Sure, there are a handful of congressmen that support Boeing on this, but, what can they really do. I suppose Boeing could protest the RFP. But, what will that accomplish? Protesting the GAO didn’t accomplish much.
What probably damaged Boeing Tanker most of all was not the aircraft size, but the scandallous relationship between Darlene Druyen (USAF) and Mike Sears (Boeing). It seems that our government is still tryiing to punish Boeing for this.
I doubt that it is possible for it the be “fair”. No matter whet is done (size, etc) one company will have an advantage over the other. It seems to me that much of the perception of ‘unfairness’ comes from the fact that we have a bunch of Boeing people who turned a blind eye to all the corruption in the first place (the lease program) and now whine because someone else might win.
If you read the papers in Alabama you get a VERY different perspective about ‘fairness’
Is this a news item outside the states of Washington, Kansas and Alabama? And did anyone ever figure out how many AMERICAN jobs this would bring from each company?
linda – I have seen figures both ways – claiming that either the Boeing proposal or the Northrup proposal would generate more jobs. Seems to depend on just where the mainframe is built. EADS has said they will outsource theirs from Europe to Alabama. Boeing is outsourcing a lot of their work from the US to China and elsewhere.
I suspect it is pretty much a wash.
IF only Pat Roberts hadnt removed the buy america provisions from the law and Boeing wouldnt be in the mess its in now.
Try looking at it from a current account balance perspective. Will awarding to a foreign company increase or decrease the trade balance.
The obvious answer is it will increase the imports.
Aircraft both civilian and military has historically been one of the few bright stars in the American export area. Why willingly start handing that over too? Can’t even justify it with the old mega-trends ’smoke stack industry’ canard.
Tiahrt has done a great, bipartisan job on this issue.
Tiahrt has helped many Democrat leaders to understand the government defense contract proceedure.
If Roberts can’t push his Senate bretheren to ‘buy American’ in the current economic climate, then he’s worthless. Granted, he and Brownback voted against it, but he could claim, times have changed since then.
Phantom, on your current account balance point. Given the degree of outsourcing to China, e.g., Boeing has done regarding the 767 airframe which is the basis for its (to date) tanker proposal, wonder on net, which proposal is “worse” from that perspective?
Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, as Ben pointed out earlier.
Looks like China does some minor assemblies.
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/aboutus/boechina.html
Thanks for the link, Phantom. From scanning it, doesn’t appear that there is as much done on the 767 as I was led to believe back when the first contract was awarded.
On the boeing side you would have the whole program, minus the outsourced parts.
On the NOC/airbus side, you’d have the whole program minus what was insourced via parts, and some noc assembly.
Don’t think it would even be close.
I think it should be stipulated that China would not be a parts provider for our tanker, who ever gets the award.
Would probably have built in tracking devices!
“Maggotpunk
Posted August 8, 2008 at 6:06 am | Permalink
Maybe Tiahrt should show his disapproval by returning all the campaign donations he’s received from Northrop Grumman.”
LMAO
Well, maybe he does not disapprove thaattt much
I don’t think it would be possible to ensure nothing on an aircraft was made in China, nor would it be possible to ensure it was all American.
There is just too much international trade done at all levels of the international food chain.
Sure the assembly could be done here and subcomponents outsourced to US firms, but who can tell where the parts of the parts that are in the components that are in the minor subassemblies that are in the major subassemblies that are in the sections of each aircraft were made?
I knew Roberts took NOC’s money, and his son Airbus money, wasn’t aware Todd was on the NOC take too.
“Phantom
Posted August 8, 2008 at 10:31 am | Permalink
Try looking at it from a current account balance perspective. Will awarding to a foreign company increase or decrease the trade balance.
The obvious answer is it will increase the imports.”
Not necessarily Phantom. While that IS the conventional wisdom consider: I bought a car that was manufactured in Marysville, Ohio. Honda Civic. On the other hand, many cars sold with the “Big Three” nameplates are manufactured overseas. Stock in all of these companies are held by Americans, japanese, etc etc etc. So, which one puts more dollars in the pockets of the American working men and women?
absolutely enjoyed coming upon your blog. Thank you for sharing.
I went through Tanker Todd’s lists of contributors for the the last four years – I see no mention of NOC, NG, EADS or any of the other ‘fronts’ the French have been using for the tankers.
Do any of you happen to have a link showing that he got money from any of them???