GAO sez USAF screwed Boeing in the tanker deal!

[SoonerStormchaser]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/18/news/companies/usaf_tanker_bid/index.htm?cnn=yes


I hope they get it right this time...and stick it to Airbus!

[Scott D]

so lemme get this straight. if they reopen this, and it's still decided that the Northrup Grumman project is still the 'better' one. Senators with Boeing plants in their constituency are going to fight this project until it dies? Brilliant. Shouldn't the two washingtonians fight another losing battle and go ahead and side with the city of Seattle over the NBA franchise also?

[reevie]

If you read the GAO report they did not validate Boeing's 4 month propoganda machine in that the Air Force changed requirements in mid-stream. The GAO hammered the Air Force on 7 valid source selection screw-ups. I'm surprised the Air Force made such significant errors in judgement in evaluating the proposals. On the other hand, Boeing is losing major contract after major contract right now. If they're serious about staying in the game, they've got to correct whatever is wrong with their business department.

[SoonerStormchaser]

The fact of the matter is that Boeing is cheaper to buy...AND operate when compared to fuel economy and maintenance costs.

[Scott D]

individual maintenance costs or overall lifetime costs?

[SoonerStormchaser]

both

[reevie]

Cheaper doesn't make an option the best option. You've heard the negative connotations with low-bidders. The question is what is the best value? The Air Force can choose a higher option based on that option's capabilities and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Scott D]

both

and if the data shows that the Airbus breaks down less often than the Boeing?

[SoonerStormchaser]

Well...we know the tails on Airbus's don't break less than Boeing.

[Scott D]

and the mechanical failures?

[mdklatt]

Well...we know the tails on Airbus's don't break less than Boeing.

Are you sure about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAir_Flight_427) that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_585)?

[Scott D]

then there was Aloha Airlines Flight 243 on April 28th, 1988.

[mdklatt]

then there was Aloha Airlines Flight 243 on April 28th, 1988.

That was metal fatigue and maintenance issues as much as any design problem. The airplane had a lot of cycles on it due to the short-haul nature of flying in Hawaii, so it was "older" than its total flight time would have suggested.

[Sooner_Havok]

From what I have heard, people cried foul cause Boeing kept getting AF contracts, even if they weren't the best bidder. So this time, AF went with Northrop Grumman who was not the best bidder to shut people up. In other words, they went with the "not Boeing" option to make it seem like they was playing fair. Problem was, this time Boeing actually had the better bid. Oops

[Scott D]

That was metal fatigue and maintenance issues as much as any design problem. The airplane had a lot of cycles on it due to the short-haul nature of flying in Hawaii, so it was "older" than its total flight time would have suggested.

oh I know about all the problems. Hell, I saw the plane after they brought it back to Honolulu to examine it (kind of hard to miss the one plane with a giant tarp collection over the area the roof should be. I remember it being the lead to the nightly news in Honolulu.

actually this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_on_commercial_airl iners) link is more interesting. The first 'terrorist' attack on a plane was in the US..in the 1930s....by a white guy ;)