What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
107 Comments
- greyrat, on 06/19/2008, -5/+31Interestingly, if you look at the protest and the analysis, Boeing really does have a case. What a country. We can't even do corruption right anymore.
- bskerr88, on 06/19/2008, -3/+18Doesn't mean Boeing gets the contract automatically. They are just looking at them again to see if its better.
- DDDavinnn, on 06/19/2008, -7/+21Honestly, the best plane for the job should win, whether it is a Boeing or not.
- HouseofEl, on 06/19/2008, -14/+28So let me get this straight. Boeing lost the contract but basically says "No! You did it wrong. We should win." I'm sorry but that just seems, for lack of a better word, retarded.
- gjokkel, on 06/19/2008, -1/+14Actually 37% of the Boeing tanker would be manufactured in Japan. Provided that Airbus builds an assembly site in Alabama 45% of the Airbus tanker would be outsourced to the EU. Not a big difference.
As far as 100% designed in US: Boeing generally outsources a lot of design work to European contractors like BMW (e.g. 787). - jayman488, on 06/19/2008, -8/+20It was an unfair contest. Extra points were given to Northrop for exceeding requirements when the rules of the contest said that no credit would be given for doing so. Also operating costs were calculated incorrectly, giving Northrop an edge in certain places where it shouldn't have, among other things. Boeing does not automatically get the contract, there will just be another contest for it.
- ixid, on 06/19/2008, -20/+30Pathetic, Boeing get caught cheating on the acquisition process the first time and then question the most open and fair procurement that's ever taken place.
- JimMayJr, on 08/06/2009, -1/+9Some of the Boeing tanker is built using foreign engineered and manufactured parts too.
- harlowsmonkeys, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8GAO's statement, listing the many things they found wrong:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/G ... - harlowsmonkeys, on 06/19/2008, -3/+10Where did you get the notion that it was fair? The GAO says the Air Force didn't stick to its own rules and miscalculated costs in at least half a dozen significant places. The GAO said the procedure was so botched that the Air Force should reimburse Boeing for its legal costs in challenging the award.
Here's GAO's statement: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/G ... - nomad255, on 06/19/2008, -0/+7actually there will be a EADS plant with american workers in AL, they will build the commercial plane then Northrop will militerize it.
- lisa3711, on 06/19/2008, -1/+8There is actually more to this story. As ixid said, the contract originally went to Boeing, then was cancelled because it was corruption filled: From the NYT:
"...the Pentagon canceled a $23 billion deal to lease tankers from Boeing, after the disclosure that the Air Force’s top procurement officer, Darleen Druyun, had favored Boeing in contracts before being hired by the company."
That's right, she awarded the contract, then got a job with Boeing.
It gets worse. The man who replaced her in the Pentagon was Charles Reichers.
Coincidentally, Reichers committed suicide, supposedly bereft, from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story ... :
-------------------------------------------------
"Last week, Riechers faced new pressure over a procurement program he oversaw to provide maintenance for a fleet of refueling tankers. In September, Pemco Aeroplex of Birmingham had written to the Government Accountability Office to protest a $1.2 billion contract awarded to Boeing to provide the maintenance, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details were confidential.
The source said a Pemco lawyer cited The Post article in a second letter to the GAO, raising the possibility that Riechers had a conflict of interest in awarding the contract because Commonwealth Research Institute's corporate parent, Concurrent, claims Boeing as a client.
The GAO and Pemco declined to comment. Boeing said it was confident it will prevail in the appeal.
Riechers spent 20 years as an active-duty officer in the Air Force. Riechers, who served in the Persian Gulf War, retired in 2002. He is survived by a wife and son."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes, Boeing was confident.
I knew Chuck, he was honest and a good person-- what do you think?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/us/16contract.ht ... - godzillaWax, on 06/19/2008, -2/+8Nice journalism. How do you mention something in title and first sentence -- presumably establishing what the article is about -- and then never mention it again? Yes, the back history on why Boeing is pissed is necessary, but shouldn't the article actually delve into the US Government Accountability Office's response?
- MaynardJK, on 06/19/2008, -1/+6"Best for the job" is not how government acquisition works.
- ixid, on 06/19/2008, -8/+13A lot of posters seem to be unaware of some of the history. This is the second time that this procurement has been run, Boeing won the first go round which was then exposed as having been setup so that Boeing would win. That meant that the second process was, by the standards of major military deals, squeaky clean.
The idea of supporting American jobs by giving Boeing the contract may seem appealing but in the long term it's more likely to harm the American economy as European nations retalliate by cancelling orders of American military hardware such as the F-35. - JasonCox, on 06/19/2008, -2/+7I have mixed feelings about this. Firstly I want the government to spend less damn money so if outsourcing to the Euro's saves us some money, then I'm all for it. But then again our economy is in the proverbial ***** right now and the last thing we need to do is outsource this huge contract to Europe when we have an American company and American workers right here who could do the job with proven high quality aircraft.
- jedicurt, on 06/19/2008, -2/+6did you read the proposals a few months ago??? EADS has the better solution
- NTolerance, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4This isn't the first time Boeing has cheated on a military aircraft contract. If you're bored read about the procurement process for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.
- nosecohn, on 06/19/2008, -0/+4And the Alabama plant will also build the commercial version of the plane, which is currently assembled in Europe.
- dsmx, on 06/19/2008, -2/+5He doesn't have a source. The moment he put "some" in that sentence was the moment he realised he had no evidence to back up this claim and is hoping that people don't look into it to much.
- nomad255, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3no there will be a EADS plant with american workers in AL, they will build the commercial plane then Northrop will militerize it.
- nomad255, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3The U.S. Air Force's KC-45 Tanker aircraft will be assembled and militarized in Mobile, Alabama, and will employ 48,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states. It will be built by a world-class industrial team led by Northrop Grumman, and includes EADS North America, General Electric Aviation, Sargent Fletcher, Honeywell, Goodrich, Parker, Knight Aerospace, AAR Cargo Systems and Telephonics.
The aircraft is based on the A330 Multi-role Tanker Transport, which was selected in all five tanker competitions; to support the air forces of the United Sates, Australia, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. - unjustend, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3I love when you talk about free markets, then neglect to mention that EADS receives large cash infusions from European Governments and there is a case against EADS in the World Trade Organization for unfair practices.
Free market eh? - nomad255, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3does boeing not subcontract to other countries?
- kero552, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Yup, we should do it USA way. Award overpriced military research contracts to EADS.
- Porbeagle, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3I noticed that. Boeing has some very good points. It will be interesting how this turns out.
- jayman488, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3"Democratic Party leaders said the Air Force should consider the U.S. jobs at stake in the contract decision. While Northrop would assemble its tanker in Alabama, more of its work, compared with Boeing, would likely be done overseas."
http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121380978064785085.ht ... - nosecohn, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3Possibly the most significant part of the GAO's report is the part where they recommend that "if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors."
Meaning that if they really believe the EADS plane meets their needs better, they should restate their needs in a more accurate way before going back to the bidders. If the Air Force takes that advice, it essentially means starting over. Both bidders will look over the new requirements and adjust their offers to fit, meaning an even longer wait for the much-delayed new tankers. - ixid, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3I hope you realise it cuts both ways, the US government acts as an interest-free loan bank for Boeing customers.
- dsmx, on 06/19/2008, -7/+10The factory to build the plane is being built in Alabama, the factory will be filled with american workers how is it bad for the US economy?
- bunki8, on 06/19/2008, -0/+3I have no idea why you're getting dugg down and my guess is neither do the people actually digging you down. They read the headline and go off on a rant about how the tax payers money is going in the wrong direction / corruption / etc. Apparently that's not enough though. Anything that resembles facts about *why* something happened get dugg down.
Thank you for your background at any rate, and just know that there are some people that appreciate it.
*sigh* - maasox74, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Well... could you please remind me where I suggested that EADS was blameless? Somehow I can't find it in my post.... (or where I religiously praise free market, for that matter?)
- jpwhitmore, on 06/19/2008, -6/+8you're an idiot. The plant that was going to make these planes was planned to be located in Mobile Alabama. It was to create thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into the local economy.
- rufus2, on 06/19/2008, -6/+8because 100% of the Boeing tanker would be engineered and built by American workers. Some of the EADS assembly would be done in Alabama but the vast majority of work (and money spent on work) would be in Europe.
- FairDinkumMate, on 07/12/2008, -0/+2What makes you think anyone needs F-35's?
In fact, many of the countries that originally invested are considering withdrawing from the project because the plane will not provide the air superiority it was supposed to. Even the F-22 Raptor(which the US won't sell to other countries) looks as though it may not have air superiority against the Sukhoi SU-47(S-37 Berkut).
There are many other viable options already available such as the Saab Gripen, SU-27, SU-37, EuroFighter and many more. The F-22 has these beat but the F-35 doesn't look like it will. The F-35 will also become ridiculously expensive for the remaining partners if one or two pull out & is so many years behind in development that countries may be forced to buy other aircraft if it isn't in production soon!! - dsmx, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4Yep never quite understand that, free market is constantly shoved in our faces but constantly we see examples of this not happening.
- anillop, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3Actually 60% of the plane is built in Europe and then shipped to the us for assembly.
- dsmx, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5Yes I can see how building an entire new factory in Mobile Alabama would create less jobs than boeing using it's existing factories.....
- sodade, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2First off, I said "new military spending."
I'm sure you white collar "defense" industry wanks can get other jobs. People who are straight enough to get security clearance are pretty rare in the civilian world so there is a lot of demand. Maybe one day, making offensive death tools will be like being a fortran programmer.
Good job being part of the MIC - thanks for stealing so much of my tax money to make me less safe. Imagine what a great country we would be if we kept defense spending down to just defense for the last 60 years and let the taxpayer keep the money or spent it on infrastructure and non-military technical development. In 1976, we should have dumped all that money into alternative energy.
What good has 60 years of massive military spending done for us? (if you say it kept us safe, you're an idiot) - ixid, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4"The most open and fair procurement that's ever taken place." That doesn't make it fair in absolute terms, only relative ones.
- Extracheese, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Don't let it get to you, you're more than aware that your comments were appropriate. Like bunki, I'm glad i read your comment, compared to the other 95% of comments that i regret reading.
- FrapFreak, on 06/19/2008, -2/+4They might cancel F-35 orders at first, but will likely buy more later, anyway. There is no other upcoming plane within the next couple years that holds a candle to the F-35s stealth and versatility.
- Ovalteen, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3If Europe cancels you might not get very many of them. The US is planning to buy 2,400 F-35s, whilst European partner nations are planning to buy roughly 500. The UK is also set to contribute about 10% of development costs. If those nations change their mind, you'll have to amortize R&D costs over a much smaller base, jacking up the unit price quite considerably. There's also the possibility that other non-Euro nations may change their minds as well.
- Boeing, on 06/19/2008, -3/+5Who are you calling retarded?
- nomad255, on 06/19/2008, -1/+3
@jayman Whoa Northrop Grumman is not a European company - kero552, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2Could you provide link to some of the large programs you talk about? I only know about A380 (subsidy of EADS) = rather long delays and A400... delayed.
I am not too familiar with it. - insomniac8400, on 06/19/2008, -0/+2If the need those planes, fortunately they have no other choice. We are the only ones making them.
- jameskong15, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2@dsmx
Simply stating they are building a new factory is not really adequate because it's only one part of the equation. At minimum you need to compare the amount of jobs created by said factory to the number lost by Boeing not getting this deal. If you want to get more into it, look at how much these jobs will pay, what benefits, economical impact, etc. - nomad255, on 06/19/2008, -0/+1At least 58 percent of the aircraft's content - from engines to avionics and systems - will come from American companies
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is