I just saw on the news that the General Accounting Office found seven significant errors in the way the Air Force conducted the bidding process for the new many billion dollar tanker contract, and has recommended that the Air Force re-open the bidding process to give Boeing another shot at it.

Fish on...

Todd

Good for our region.

Well, I speculated on some stocks from one of Lockheeds main steel part fabricators after that whole fiasco. Looks like I should get ready to drop it. Thanks for the info.

I'm surprised that the news was silent today about the fact that McCain and those connected to his campaign have received several hundred thousand dollars in contributions from Airbus/EADS, and that McCain has been defending the Pentagon's decision to sell the contract to the French all along...

I wonder if he'll have anything to say about it tomorrow? I'm guessing not...not unless someone asks him, which would frankly be a serious breach of journalistic integrity to give him a free pass on.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. How many Boeing employees are planning on voting for McCain? Does it matter that he received a pile of money from Airbus, lobbied for Airbus to get the tanker deal, and defended the deal when they got it?

McCain...Mister "Fighting corporate interests, lobbyist dollars, and pork spending."

Ha!

While price is a big part of the selection process it is not the only criteria. They can also look at past performance and what they propose. Sometimes the lowest bidder doesn't offer the best value. Sometimes the low bidder doesn't win and the company with the superior technical product or service will win. Often the unsuccessful bidder will protest.

In the tanker deal the Air Force wanted Boeing to change their proposal to a smaller tanker with more range. What hurt them was the scandal with Col. Druyun. I think this reflected badly on Boeing and the Air Force wanted to save face by looking at the Airbus group after being embarassed. Then they changed the specification to a larger tanker. So Boeing was proposing what the Air Force told them they wanted.

Tanker

Todd, they are all dirty. It happens once they get elected. Doesn't matter which party.

Good luck Boeing!

I am not an expert on the Federal Acquisition Regulations but I've been involved on the government end of the source selection process before. There are different types of contracts and the source selection process determines how they "weigh" different factors including price. Once the high bidder was selected and the low bidder protested and the government award was upheld. Past performance had something to do with it and also the technical proposal. Nobody went to jail. It's a little different if the bidder has no experience or is determined that they cannot do the job or have little understanding of what is required.

Anyway getting back to Boeing here is a more recent article that explains more.

Air Force Tanker Contract

The way around the using American companies is to just hire a company like Northrup Gruman and say you're going to assemble it in the US like the parent company for Airbus. Foreign countries are not disqualified from the bidding process. If there were security concerns they could hire US workers.

Anyway I'm glad for Boeing.

McCain and Airbus:

http://www.campaignmoney.org/pressroom/2...ist-airbus-deal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christy-hardin-smith/mccains-cronies-all-ab_b_94190.html

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/dem-bac...2008-06-09.html

http://www.capitaleye.org/news/2008/05/fifth-mccain-adviser-steps-dow.html

http://www.capitaleye.org/news/2008/03/mccain-staffers-lobbied-for-ai.html

http://www.realmccainblog.com/2008/03/appearance-of-impropriety-john-mccain.html

Whether anything illegal or not happened remains to be seen, but even if McCain's efforts on behalf of Airbus (from France...remember, the country all the RWWJ's were blasting for not believing Dubya's made up justifications for invading Iraq? I thought McCain was a firm supporter of the US and of "Freedom Fries"...maybe not?) were legal, shouldn't Washington State citizens take that into consideration when casting their votes?

The contract that McCain helped Airbus get with the Air Force means A LOT of money for our local economy, not to mention dozens of jobs at Boeing that will go away if Airbus gets the contract.

I can't see how any who works at Boeing, or for a Boeing contractor, could justify voting for McCain.

Fish on...

Todd

"WILKES-BARRE, Pa.--As Europe's Airbus and its American partner Northrop-Grumman launch a lobbying and public relations offensive this week in favor of the muti-billion-dollar deal they secured to replace a fleet of U.S. Air Force tankers, count Barack Obama a skeptic.

"I would think that we would want to prioritize US companies that are employing U.S. workers," Obama responded when asked about the deal at a town meeting in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., this afternoon.

"I don’t mind the Pentagon procuring from other countries. But when we you’ve got such an enormous contract for such a vital piece of our U.S. military arsenal, it strikes me that we should have identified a US company that could do it," he continued."

Seems pretty clear which company Obama would rather see get the contract.

I really want to hear from those here who were bashing the French, but now defend McCain being bankrolled by a French company, and lobbying on their behalf to send what may end up being a contract worth over $100Billion to France, rather than sending it right here in our neck of the woods.

Freedom Fries, anyone?

Fish on...

Todd

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with voting with your pocketbbook, and if you derive your income from Northrop, then it would make sense.

It's the tens of thousands of Boeing employees, especially the machinists who stood to lose their jobs, that I'd like to hear from...especially the ones who were all hot at France when they told Bush to take his bogus war and shove it...where do they stand on this?

It's quite a dilemma...your war-mongering McBush clone taking money from the French to send $100 Billion of taxpayer dollars to Airbus, rather than to your local economy through Boeing.

Come on, Boeing guys...I know you're here...let's hear how you are feeling.

Fish on...

Todd

DanS-

Is it coincidence that you posted that photo and your current tag line is from "Shot Down In Flames"?

Mike,

Simply a coincidence.

A customer of mine who works at Boeing sent it to me, and I figured it was fitting to put it in this thread.

I'm kind of lukewarm on both the candidates. Call me 'undecided', I guess.

Aunty!

I'm pleased to inform you that I pulled off the trifecta today - have you noticed the "Viva Jueves" thread yet? I'm waiting for one of your photo contributions! Somebody has got to post that fake Dave Vedder photo!

4:20 here - sadly, no, and not likely anytime soon. But I am going trout fishing at my favorite lake this weekend - I guess that explains it. Or maybe I'm just coming out of my "shell"

I said this before....all depends on which party you are for. The same people on here that complain about the no good haliburtin and that SOB cheney(I agree with that) getting no bid contracts now complain that Boeing did not get the contract after being under bid. Hypocr at its finest. I too hope Boeing get the contract, it helps my buisness but to complain about getting under bid by a better product one day and complain the next that they did not take bids to give it to thier cronies is trying to have the cake and eat too. But lastly, Go Boeing!

I should have dumped that stock when the AF fired all its top guys. I wonder if that is going to be somehow linked to this deal?

The bidding process should factor in what country our tax dollars are going to benefit and at what percentage.

"As if Obama would be good for Boeing or any other defense contractor? Not bloody likely."

If you truly voted your wallet and work for a defense contractor you'd vote for a war monger like AuntyM is going to do. All of that blood is good for business as long as it's not your own.

As far as the product goes, I recently flew on an a-300 series AirBus and it was very nice. The 757 we were on on our return was like a bad-side-of-town Motel 6 by comparison.

I hate seeing our dollars continue to go overseas - the dollar was supposedly starting to show signs of life internationally....

1st off underestimating the French is a big mistake. They make a fine plane and there is a reason the A330 is taking the 767 to the woodshed on the commercial side. The French are supplying both the wire bundles and the avionics for the 787. That's about 10-20% of the value of the plane. They are also extremely good at politics and back room bargianing. The fact this is an industry of "National importance" to them I wasn't surprised at the effort they put in to winning this or the outcome. Especially since they had McCain bought and paid for!

The problem for the Air Force is that the A330 is simply too damn big and expensive. No matter how you run the numbers the 767 is a better airframe especially in mission capability. The fact that the initial reward was extremly flawed is not only obvious but to see the GAO come out and just shred the Air Force is also not a surprise to me. The GAO report basically reads like the Boeing talking points of the last several months.

Does this now decade old debacle lay right on the lap of McCain hell yes! He knows he'll never win Wa. so screw us. He's Scum.

Politics is no longer an exchange of idea's but is all about winning at all costs. Screw us!

Check it out, Greg...we agree point by point!

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I flew on a AA 757 earlier this week...it was less comfortable than flying on one of SWA's 737's. I've never been on a 767, or a 777, but I look forward to international flights on the 87, that's for sure.

Rarely do these appeals work.

The fact that the GAO recommends reopening the bid means there was some bullsh!t going on.

Simple as that.

No he didn't.

Yeah, being the son of an admiral who was the son of an admiral, thus being guaranteed a seat in Annapolis (which he proudly graduated 5th from the bottom), is SO much less fortunate than a guy being raised by a single mother and then putting himself through college and law school on his own with student loans.

My question to the Boeing workers, and to everyone else who lives around here, is does McCain's support by and support of Airbus affect the way you will vote this election cycle?

His support of Airbus may still cost many hundreds, if not thousands of Boeing employees their jobs, and the local economy billions and billions of dollars.

I'm not asking if McCain is a war monger (he is), or if he did something illegal or unethical in supporting Airbus.

I'm asking about the absolute fact that he is in fact receiving money from them and is in fact actively seeking to get them the tanker contract in direct opposition to local jobs and our local economy.

Fish on...

Todd

Otherwise, there would be NO POINT to the constant attacks.



http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/135520.asp?from=blog_last3



Did everyone forget, the Boeing lobbyist, during the lease/buy screw job for the benefit of BOEING and only BOEING, was the wife of Former Senator Tom Dashel

The question is:

Does the fact that McCain actively seeks to send a $100B contract away from the US, more specifically away from a local company that employs thousands of people, affect your vote in the presidential election?

It's clear that for you, Marsha, it does not.

How about the rest of you? Why or why not?

Fish on...

Todd

You should study Geography.

The other bidder is partners with an american company and would for the most part be built in the US.

Boeing builds its planes in several states and set up production in other countries. This is not a mom and pop airplane company.

Heres a question. How come boeing was ONLY interested in the lowest cost to the AMERICAN TAXPAYER, when it was required to bid against another supplier. The lease deal was just fine when they didnt have to bid against anyone else. Leasing the planes was insane and much more expensive to line the pockets as you quote, of the rich.

That doesnt seem to bother you.

Airbus was to deliver the airplanes (fly them ) to Alabama to be finished. They would not be assembled here only finished just like Boeing does in Wichita. They fly the unfinished airplane in to be completed.

It would be tough to find information to validate that. Im not buying the story, But, if that were to happen, then we have serious oversights in congress to allow a foreign country, or an amercian company fullfill the contract with equipment, built overseas. Thats not JUST McCain. I know he was one of the people who mentioned, there should be a competitive bid, but they could have changed the law to keep all the bids domestic along with the manufacture.

It's not surprising, though..........they're the 4th largest employer in the state.

Airbus is a huge company everyone. Just like Boeing. If you look at it closely, these companies give money to everyone. Took about ten seconds to find that OB got money in donations from five different lawyers that work for them. Clinton got money from two executives. The house and senate have scarcely a member that is not connected in some way through the donations and contributions. Same thing with Boeing. You dont like it, then write your congressman and complain(if you put up enough cash you might get the law changed).
This is not controlled by one man as some like to pretend. This was not McCain standing up and saying this goes to Airbus as some pretend. This was a contract bid forced after all hell broke loose when it was given in without bids in the first place. The bids were taken and shiat....Boeing could not match the bid with as good of a product. Now that they lost they are cashing in on all their donations and pushing for inquiries. Surprise surprise.
Dont pretend McCain had any more to do with it than ten other senators on the other side of the isle. The process was taken and Boeing lost. They are not good losers and with political "contributions" we all hope it gets overturned but to say it was McCain smells of something from the north end of the south bound bull.

They're not good loser because the contract bidding process was f*cked up.

Argue it wasn't all you want...........the GAO doesn't see it that way. And I'll side with the GAO's take on it rather than some apologist for McCain.

And all the f'n shenanigans Boeing pulled to get the first contract is NO reason to accept MORE f'n shenanigans with THIS contract.

And all else being equal, if anyone is going to benefit from shenanigans being played, I'd rather have Boeing reap the benfits than Airbus/EADS. It would be nice if the shenanigans were just avoided, but somehow I don't think many multi-billion dollar contracts are awarded without some funny business taking place.

For me this has little influence for how I will vote because I've already decided I won't vote for McCain.

The bidding process as it is now...if an American enitity bids $100 and a foreign entity bids $99 we need to add a factor of how much benefit the deal is to this country. Maybe they decide it's 10%. That would make the $100 bid the lower bid all things considered.

Again, I didn't say McCain did anything illegal or unethical in pushing for Airbus to get the contract.

I asked a simple question...does the fact that McCain lobbied for Airbus in getting the tanker contract, which could send $100 Billion and lots of jobs to somewhere else in the country or world, rather than having them here in our area, affect how you may vote for him, or not, in the election.

For the McCain apologists, no need to reply anymore...I'm asking the people who may not have made up their minds yet.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. Again, not necessarily anything to do with McCain, but the GAO brought up seven fatal errors in the bidding process that required them to recommend that the USAF redo the awarding of the contract.

The USAF did not have to take the recommendation, but after receiving the GAO's report, the USAF agreed that serious errors were made and stepped up and re-opened the bid.

This is not a "sore loser" situation...this is a local company fighting for a potential of ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in contracts, much of which will be spent here in Washington to build planes and hire workers.

Airbus and Boeing will both bid again, and hopefully the process will be legitimate this time, and then we'll see who gets the contract.

Anyone who lives around here and complains about that doesn't have much interest in the local economy.

Allowing a foreign company to bid on this, is really no different than puting your job on world wide bidding process, based on the lowest wage. Only problem is the standard of living in Mexico, Russia etc is much lower. If Gruman wasnt big enough to build the plane too bad. Perhaps the lockheed Douglas / Boeing merger should have been denied.

Yes it IS different.

It's a MILITARY contract.

This isn't the same as outsourcing an automaker's job. Our entire Air Force is dependant on air tankers.

I'm all for the world economy, specialization ol labor, and free trade. Shopping out huge military contracts to foreign manufacturers concerns me, though.

You arent by chance signed up to count chads in Florida this year. McCain apologists need not reply. Oh, like the survey guy who hangs up on people with the incorrect answers.

What you essentially endorse is screwing the public on the cost of the planes as long as they are built here. And during the reelection of president McCain you would be all over the rippoff. You spent the last four years banging your drum about Haliburton no bid contracts. Mostly americans working overseas, supporting the local economy in texas. No different than seattle except the politics. You cant say he broke a law, but character assassination is just part of politics. Others have recieved donations and lobbied and you only name McCain. I dont even like McCain, but, Im not carrying a chip on my shoulder. Accusing people who dont like taxpayer abuse of being anti local economy, goes to your credibiilty not ours.

I hope someone will look at all the airline jets being retired and look at the cost of conversions. As they should. Four airlines are projected to go into bankruptcy next year.


Everyone else, just agree with Todd and give him a hug.

better hope we dont bid out national health care. Its a long drive to mexico. Canada already has a waiting list and come down here.


I know its a military contract, but if its built overseas, its still jobs lost here because the standard of living in china or france is lower and or subsidized by their taxes to industry. Actually our tax dollars would subsidize Frances economy if it was built there. Thats not a tough decision.

Our tax dollars paid for it. We should build it here. Anyone who advocated this bid, including McNixon needs his head examined. A private company has the right to employee people and facilities in other countries. All the jigs you fish with are made overseas. (Most )