For all the spin back-and-forth Monday (Jan. 31) on the final, but still confidential, ruling on illegal subsidies to Boeing, little was said about the long-running (and overly-politicized) effort by Boeing and its supporters to have Congress force the USAF to take into consideration the previous WTO ruling on illegal Airbus subsidies for the KC-X competition.
Before we start our discussion today, let’s remind readers of our long-standing position that the USAF can’t do so for a variety of practical reasons and one major one: countries can only do so after the WTO authorizes sanctions, and unless the USAF postpones a decision on the tanker contract (or, more likely, screws it up yet again), the award date will come years before any WTO authorization is granted. We need not recount all our reasons nor the process; we’ve done this many times and a search of our Archives will yield postings from recent times on this.
Having stated this disclaimer, one of our reasons for opposing the effort by Boeing and its supporters was that the final Boeing decision had not yet been issued.
The decision is done, even if it is yet confidential for a few more months pending translation. However, with a final decision, the US Trade Representative could share a definitive ruling with the USAF for calculation.
Again, setting aside all the objections, here’s the interesting part that nobody has yet focused on, including Boeing (and this is really inexplicable):
Update, Feb. 2: Flight Global has this very good analysis about the WTO fight between Airbus and Boeing.
Original Post:
In this issue of Odds and Ends, we talk about the 777, a CNN interview with Jim Albaugh and a variety of other things.
Update, Jan. 28, 6:30am PST: Predictably, Sen. Cantwell wasn’t satisfied. She said the Senate Hearing didn’t get at the “core issue,” and called for an investigation by the USAF Inspector General. EADS said today that’s fine; here is Chairman Ralph Crosby’s statement:
“We would welcome an investigation by the DoD Inspector General—if such an investigation does not delay the decision on acquisition of new tankers.
“Scandal and protest have kept this badly needed system out of the hands of our service men and women long enough. We are interested in illuminating unambiguous facts, not in a tactic for delaying the decision process.”
Update, 4:30pm: Here is the archived Hearing web cast; thanks to Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times for the link.
Update, 3:45pm: Boeing delivered the first KC-767 to Italy. See the article here.
Also: While the Hearing was pretty much a sham in our view–partisans on both sides were more interested in scoring political points than in fact-finding–one thing did come out of it and that is the allegation by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Boeing/WA) that EADS had the data more than a month appears to be wholly unsupported. EADS received the data Nov. 1; it opened the disks that night, discovered the error and secured the disks the same night. At USAF direction, they (as did Boeing) returned the disks Nov. 8 2, during which time the relevant disk was secured.
Update, 9:15 am: Our take on the hearing:
(Boeing statement follows EADS; a link to download the EADS timeline follows Boeing; and a link to FlightGlobal’s running blog follows the EADS timeline.)
EADS released the following statement to the Senate committee, chaired by Carl Levin (D-MI), hearing information about the USAF inadvertent release of proprietary information on the KC-X procurement.
The hearing was called at the request of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Boeing/WA).
Sean O’Keefe
Chief Executive Officer
EADS North America
Statement for the Record
To the Senate Armed Services Committee
January 27, 2011
Chairman Levin, Senator McCain, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to provide a statement to the Committee concerning the U.S. Air Forces’ inadvertent release of Integrated Fleet Aerial Refueling Assessment (IFARA) data in the KC-X tanker procurement. The facts surrounding this incident, and the responsible actions taken by EADS North America, are straight forward and deserve to be clearly understood with full transparency. We are pleased to contribute in any way to that full understanding.
Update, Jan. 28: Think again, Heidi, Airbus says. The company said no way. See this story.
Original Post:
Heidi Wood at Morgan Stanley predicts Airbus may have 1,000 orders by the Paris Air Show and that Boeing will have to respond earlier than its long-talked about 2019-2020 EIS of a new airplane to replace the 737. Here is what Wood says in her report, issued this morning the bold face is hers:
What’s new: Airbus could announce between 500-1,000 new NEO orders by Paris air show (June), which adds pressure for BA to come up with a new 737 replacement. We believe BA could announce a new narrowbody by Paris Air show; re-engining makes less sense, in our view. Crucially, management discussed a new plane by 2019+ however we believe these sizable Airbus’ new orders changes the game & could cause BA to accelerate plans. Our 2013-2014 model contemplates rising R&D vs. the Street, as we reason the new narrow has to occur by 2017/18 for BA to retain its most important customers.
If Wood is correct, watch Airbus crow (1) that this is the “fastest selling airplane ever” and (2) “I told you so” to every doubter.
Boeing projects there will be 20-40 deliveries of the 747-8 and 787 this year.
The projection came in its 2010 earnings announcement today, which includes the 2011 outlook.
According to the Ascend data base, 18 747s are scheduled for delivery this year, a figure we believe is reliable because while the 747 has had its issues, the program appears to be in much better shape than the 787. In fact, BCA Jim Albaugh recently told employees that the first freighter without traveled work rolled off the assembly line, an indicator of the program status.
With Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) set to hold the tanker hearing on Thursday (Jan. 27), it is clear the USAF continues to drag on its decision in the KC-X competition, which was expected this month. It now looks like March.
We’re going to ask a question that may be considered by some to be ridiculous on its face (and we’re not entirely sure it isn’t) but which, given all the twists and turns, starts-and-stops, hissy fits and more that’s happened in the painful saga of USAF tankers, we might ask, Why not ask this question?
Is failure an option?
It will be a big week for EADS and Boeing on a variety of topics:
In a press conference January 20 in Everett (WA) at the Boeing factory, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Boeing/WA) leveled a charge against EADS which, if true, would cast a huge question over the handling of proprietary data mistakenly provided by the USAF to EADS and Boeing.
EADS January 21 denied Cantwell’s allegation that EADS had the data for more than a month. The allegation, if it were true, has all sorts of implications, and all of them bad for EADS. Here is Cantwell’s allegation:
What steps were taken to ensure EADS did not gain an unfair competitive advantage by having Boeing data for more than a month before the investigation was completed by the Air Force?
We talked with Cantwell’s press secretary, Janeen Heath, January 22 to ask the basis on the allegation that EADS had the information for more than a month. Heath said, “We received that information from a reliable source, and that’s a question to be answered at the [January 27] hearing.” We asked if the information came from the Air Force or from Boeing, and Heath said she did not have this information.
Here is EADS’ denial, with respect to the charge EADS had the Boeing data for more than a month:
Responsible members of the defense industry understand that when someone becomes aware that they’re in possession of competition sensitive information they must immediately secure it, protect it, and return it to the customer. This was done by us, and according to the USAF, apparently by Boeing as well.
The assertion that EADS held competition sensitive information for over a month is simply untrue and flatly contradicted by the Air Force’s forensic investigation and analysis.
This latest event reinforces our previously stated view that a hearing by Sen. Carl Levin (referred to in the press release below) is appropriate. The Air Force, EADS and Boeing say they each handled the situation according to federal law and Air Force rules, but in the absence of a clear, detailed and full disclosure of the timeline of events and procedures followed, the cloud that hangs over this procurement is dark and threatens the entire process. We believe that all three parties must testify before Levin’s committee to get all the facts and information out in the open. Once this is done, let the chips fall where they may–if there is any reason for any to fall at all.
Below is Cantwell’s full press release. The bold facing is hers. The Levin hearing is January 27 at 9:30 AM EST.
Australian Aviation has this story about an in-flight incident during a refueling test between the Airbus KC-30A and an F-16. Readers will recall a Boeing KC-767J for Japan Air Defense Services had an incident in which the boom wouldn’t retract for landing and was damaged on the runway, the point being both programs have now suffered incidents.
But the KC-30A incident will likely further delay delivery of the plane to the RAAF; it is already two years late. The timing couldn’t be worse for EADS, with the contract award for the USAF only weeks away.
- Bloomberg News followed with this story.
- FlightGlobal has this story.
- Meanwhile, there is this story that Boeing is taking a pass on bidding for the Indian government tanker contract. A second story says uncertainty over the USAF contract outcome is why. A third story has more detail.
Defence Statement, 20 January 2011 from the RAAF:
Read more
Odds and ends: