GAO sustains Boeing’s protest

In another stunning twist in the USAF tanker contract, the GAO sustained the Boeing protest over the award to Northrop Grumman. In a three page press release, the GAO sustained Boeing on key elements of the protest while rejecting other unidentified elements.

One of the complaints that Boeing had was that the Air Force didn’t communicate well on the competition. This is the crux of the NA KOA complaint we’ve written about as well.

We’re swamped with media calls and e-mails, so we’ll be digesting this a bit more when we have time. But this doesn’t look like the “close call” that either side expected; it looks like a clean victory for Boeing.

The Air Force doesn’t have to follow the GAO’s decision and recommendation to reopen the bidding, but politically we don’t see how it can’t.

If we’ve got this figured out, here’s the three page press release. press-release-final-boeing-decision-6-18-08

More, 245 PM EDT: We’re going to be very interested to read the 69-page redacted GAO decision when it becomes available. It has to be sanitized for proprietary information first.

One of the things that we find stunning about this decision is that given how the Air Force screwed up the first time around 2001-04, in which people went to jail and and lost their jobs, you would have thought the USAF would have avoided screwing up this time. The Air Force even created a “shadow” group to oversee the process, yet the GAO concluded the service screwed up anyway.

What happens now? The Air Force has 60 days to decide what it will do. As mentioned, it is not legally obligated to follow this decision. In fact, on a previous GAO protest a over tanker maintenance contract, the Air Force ignored the GAO upholding the loser’s protest over the award to Boeing.

An interesting element is that the new chief of the Air Force, who assumed this office after his predecessor was unceremoniously by DOD Secretary Robert Gates, is the former chief of the Air Mobility Command–in other words, a cargo guy. What, if any, bearing this will have going forward is a matter of speculation.

More, 430 PM, EDT: Although Boeing and its supporters are understandably overjoyed by the GAO decision, and assuming the USAF does undertake a recompete, this hardly means that Boeing will win the recompete. This is going to be another uphill battle for Boeing. Any assumptions on the part of Boeing-boosters that this knocks Northrop out of the game is simply wishful thinking.

One of the questions we were asked by the media is whether the award to Northrop was the Air Force’s way of simply stuffing it (our word) to Boeing as a result of the 2004 tanker scandal, or whether the Air Force simply a bunch of bumbling idiots (the broadcaster’s words).

My response: Well, this is the government, after all, and bumbling idiots are not incompatible with government. But in all seriousness, we really won’t get the full picture until the redacted GAO decision is issued for public consumption.

Tanker update, June 17

It’s Wednesday and we’re here in Washington, DC. Tomorrow is the deadline for the GAO to issue its decision in the Boeing protest over the USAF tanker contract to Northrop Grumman, but the buzz here is that the announcement could come between 430-500pm EDT today.

Meantime, there have been a number of stories on the tanker that may be found via Google News. This one in the Wall Street Journal is the most interesting, although it’s reporting something we exclusively wrote about months ago: that Boeing will be out of the tanker business for 20 years or more if it loses the USAF business, including its troubled international tanker program. This is the program begun with the orders by Japan and Italy for the KC-767. The two tankers delivered to Japan still aren’t in service, due to operational troubles, according to Northrop Grumman, which is tracking Boeing’s progress. Two other tankers for Japan haven’t been delivered and none of the Italian tankers have, either, which now three years late.

This story by George Talbot of the Mobile Press-Register gives a good wrap of the the issues, the GAO process and the “what’s next.” George also includes a comment from the USAF that it would like to boost production from the planned 12-18 tankers a year to 26. Perhaps this is floating the trial balloon along the lines of what we’ve been advocating: double production and split the buy. There simply are some missions for which the KC-767 will be better suited than the KC-30, and others for which the KC-30 is better than the KC-767.

Months ago we were told a story that the Air Force selected the KC-30 because it knew the ensuing controversy would erupt and this was the only way the Air Force figured it could get the appropriation in the amount needed to get a higher replacement rate. We were never able to confirm the story (one person we asked responded he didn’t believe the Air Force was that smart). So with this strong caveat, we throw this conspiracy theory out there.

NA KOA’s protest

We previously wrote about an obscure second protest over the tanker award by an obscure company called NA KOA (na-ko-a) (June 2 on our Corporate website). We don’t expect a decision on this protest today or tomorrow; the deadline listed on the GAO website for this one is in July.

New, 1125 AM EDT: The USAF redacted copy of its filing in the GAO protest is now available here. It’s 154 pages in a PDF file.

Waiting with bated breath

It didn’t take long for one of our readers to e-mail us that the headline for our Corporate Website update today (June 17) had a misspelling: Waiting with baited breath.

Well, be that as it may–we said it was a fish story and we may not really be all that far off–we take a final look at the USAF tanker protest in advance of the decision by the Government Accountability Office on Boeing’s protest. The deadline for issuing the decision is Thursday, June 19. The buzz here in Washington, DC, where we are, is that it might come down after the stock market closes tomorrow.

We also posted on our website four big PDF files of redacted documents filed by Boeing and Northrop Grumman with the GAO in April.

Whether the GAO decision comes out tomorrow or Thursday, we’ll be in DC.

Casey at the bat

We’re traveling and have limited access to reading things about the tanker, but we’ve seen the news about the USAF admitted a calculation error in the life cycle costs for the KC-30 vs the KC-767.

This reminds us of Casey Stengel, the iconic New York Yankees player and manager who later became the manager of the expansion team the New York Mets.

Although the Mets later went on to become world champs, the initial team was so bad that Stengel lamented, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”


We can’t hlep but ask the same question of the Air Force. After all the scandal involving the first tanker award to Boeing in 2004, in which illegal activities canceled the award, sending the Boeing CFO at the time to jail as well as a former Air Force procurement official who went to work for Boeing; and causing the end of several careers of ranking Air Force civilians and military men; and after recognizing the scrutiny that would be on this competition; and after having a “shadow” group over-see the competition, you’d have thunk that the USAF might avoid such a basic mistake.

This certainly falls under the “Good grief” category.

via BBC

This one seems appropriate, too:


On the road

We’re on an extended travel schedule, so there won’t be much in the way of updates on this site.

In advance of the anticipated June 19 GAO decision on the tanker competition, we’ll have some documents to post to our Corporate Site June 17.

Airplane crossing

St. Maarten landing. Via

The landings at St. Maarten in the Caribbean are notorious for being close to the beach. This is the best photo we’ve ever seen of just how close.

Lots of Boeing, Airbus, tanker news

It’s been a busy 24 hours. In no particular order:

Boeing drops out

Boeing has dropped out of its participation to build the Joint Cargo Aircraft, called the C27J, because it could not reach a financial arrangement with the European manufacturer. This report from from the publication, The Hill.

The C27J is a small, twin-engine turbo-prop.

Why is this interesting?

  1. Boeing teamed with Alenia of Italy to offer this airplane to the Army after EADS teamed with Raytheon to offer a competing C-235 and C-295.
  2. The Alenia-Boeing team won the competition.
  3. The C27J is to be assembled in Florida even though it’s a European airplane.
  4. If this sounds familiar, it is. While Boeing was complaining about Northrop teaming with Europe’s EADS with plans to assemble the KC-30 in Alabama, Boeing was following the same business model for the C-27J.

Grounding 737s

Continental Airlines yesterday followed United Airlines in announcing the grounding of a whole bunch of Boeing 737 “Classics” because of the current price of oil. Wednesday, United said it will ground 95 737-300s and -500s. Thursday Continental said it will put down 65 -300s and -500s. Some media, seeing only the name “Boeing 737,” jumped to the conclusion that Boeing will be hurt.

This isn’t true, of course, at least not in the direct sense. The 737 Classic is not the current-production 737NG, so no harm there. But what these actions do suggest is that none of the US legacy carriers will order replacement aircraft any time soon as they preserve cash to see them through this crisis.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

The pro-Boeing website Tanker Blog Wars was the first to report a study by a liberal think tank examining the jobs claims of Boeing and Northrop Grumman for their respective tankers. The 11 page report says Northrop’s selection will mean the loss of 14,000 US jobs compared with Boeing, a far cry from the 44,000 jobs Boeing’s supporters recklessly claim.

This is the first report we’ve seen anywhere that details how Boeing claims 44,000 jobs will be created by its KC-767. (Boeing has refused to say.) Thousands of them come from a principal called “re-spending.” The report explains just what this means. The take-away, however, is that when this principal–which we think is a stretch to include after reading the explanation–when excluded from the computation means Boeing will have “only” 28,000 direct and indirect jobs for the tanker, a number far closer to the 22,000 and 25,000 jobs we’ve consistently pointed to in previous reports.

The 22,000 comes from the jobs created by the 767 program at its peak production of 36 a year in 2001, when 36 airplanes a year were delivered. The 25,000 figure comes from the jobs claimed by Boeing for its C-17 program, which at its peak delivered 18 planes a year–the same number proposed at the top end for the tanker program–and the C-17 has higher US content.

According to the think tank, Northrop’s KC-30 will produce 17,000 jobs if 60% US content is assumed and 14,000 jobs if 50% US content is assumed, excluding the re-spending. Northrop initially projected 25,000 jobs and later revised the prediction to 44,000 jobs. The former was using a Department of Commerce formula and the latter using a Department of Labor matrix and also based on talking to its sub-contractors.

The think tank talks about the Commerce formula but doesn’t address the Labor one. Still, this is the first outside study we’ve seen and it’s completely devoid of the histrionics employed by Northrop’s critics.

One note: the labor union International Association of Machinists is on the think tank’s large board of directors, as are several other unions. The IAM is one of Boeing’s unions and it has been highly critical of the tanker award.

Countdown to GAO decision

June 19 is the deadline for the Government Accountability Office to render its decision on the Boeing protest over the tanker award to Northrop. This Reuters report quotes the Pentagon’s top buyer as saying small errors in the process shouldn’t undo the award. In legalese, these would be known as “harmless errors.”

Boeing is cautiously optimistic, though it notes that only 25% of the protests to the GAO are successful. Wall Street analysts are split on predicting the outcome, with some saying it will succeed and others saying it won’t.

And then there is the NA KOA Aviation Partners protest we’ve been writing about.

We’re making this definitive prediction: the protest will either be affirmed or denied.

Airbus vows to avoid Boeing mistakes

James Wallace at The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has this interesting interview with Airbus COO John Leahy about the A350, the A380 and the Boeing 787. Leahy says Airbus not only learned from its own mistakes on the A380 production, it’s been carefully watching Boeing’s problems with the 787 production and vows to avoid them with the A350.

Top Air Force officials “resign”

Reuters just moved this report:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley intend to resign, a congressional source told Reuters on Thursday.

The resignations come after a series of concerns about recent Air Force matters, including a controversial award of a contract for the Air Force’s elite Thunderbirds flying group and the service’s mistaken shipment of fuses for nuclear missiles to Taiwan in 2006, the source said.

“There has been a lack of accountability that raised concerns,” said the source, who had been informed about the matter.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; editing by John Wallace)

NA KOA Aviation Partners, whose obscure protest in the KC-X tanker competition we reported about Tuesday, tells us that Gen. Moseley’s possible role in the tanker procurement is an element in its protest to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). NA KOA says that it believes Moseley may have had some role in how Boeing came to believe the USAF preferred the KC-767, and this was part of NA-KOA’s protest to the GAO as well as its protest to the USAF KC-X contracting office. NA KOA asked Gates’ office to look into this prospect and when a Freedom of Information Act request was denied, went to the GAO.

In a story moved by Wired, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is quoted as saying the Air Force chiefs’ preoccupation with a surging Chinese military and a resurgence of Russia was mis-guided considering the active wars at hand. We previously reported, citing an Aviation Week news article, that the KC-30s better capabilities across the Pacific in anticipation of a Chinese conflict was one element of the USAF decision selecting the KC-30 over the KC-767.

NA KOA believes this development will have a direct bearing on the Boeing protest and its own.

Airbus slightly ahead in YTD orders

Airbus and Boeing have released their orders through May (June 3 for Boeing) and Airbus remains slightly ahead in net orders for the first five months of the year, 435 to 418.

By category, the statistics stack up like this–all data is net orders, allowing for cancellations.

  • A320 family vs. 737: Airbus, 312, Boeing 301
  • Medium twin-aisle: A330P, 62; A350-800, 15 (total 77); 787-8/9: 79; 767, 0.
  • Large twin-aisle: A350-900, 32; A350-1000, 0; 777-All, 36.
  • Very Large Airplane: A380, 3; 747, 2.
  • Cargo: A330-200F, 11; 767, 0.

As you can see, this year is neck-and-neck in all categories.

Lockheed praises Tanker Decision

In what can only fall into the “wow” category, Lockheed Martin–the USA’s #1 defense contractor–praised the US Air Force for looking beyond the US shores in awarding the KC-X tanker contract to a consortium consisting of Northrop Grumman and France’s EADS, the parent of Airbus.

In a speech, yes, before a European audience, Lockheed’s chairman had this to say:

“The decision by the USAF to purchase Airbus tankers reinforces the openness of U.S. markets and is the most recent example of the growing willingness of the United States to look to global sources of supply for vital equipment.   While our company is not involved in the Tanker program, Lockheed Martin is involved in a number of significant transatlantic programs.”

The full text of the speech may be found here.  A press release may be found here.

The highly unusual nature of one US defense contractor praising a decision like this can’t be considered anything but a blow to Boeing’s long-running campaign about the USAF awarding this contract to a “French” company (notwithstanding that the contract is actually to Northrop Grumman).