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.