Thompson: Tanker spat is taking a toll
Boeing Co. has pulled few punches in its protest of the Air Force’s February decision to give a hotly-contested contract for mid-air refueling tankers to Northrop Grumman and EADS.
But now Boeing’s aggressive approach may be damaging relations with its biggest military customer - the Air Force itself - says Loren Thompson, a respected defense analyst with The Lexington Institute.
In a piece posted today on the Institute’s website, Thompson compares the situation to both a divorcing couple and to Balkan politics, and argues that mutual irrational suspicions pose a long-term threat to both the company and the service.
Boeing has shown no signs of slowing its PR campaign on the tanker protest. As recently as Thursday, it issued a press release accusing the Air Force of “numerous irregularities” in the contracting process, and, in choosing the Northrop/EADS KC-30, essentially buying a plane that is more expensive and riskier than Boeing’s 767-based offering.
But few analysts give good odds to Boeing’s protest, which is now under review by the Government Accountability Office and will be ruled on by June. Keeping the heat so high, Thompson argues, could hurt Boeing more than it helps.
FROM LOREN THOMPSON / LEXINGTON INSTITUTE: I would like to point out that my issue brief does not question the merit of Boeing’s tanker protest. The Air Force believes the protest is baseless, but I share Boeing’s view that some facets of the tanker selection process are hard to fathom. My main focus in today’s brief is on the stridency of statements from both sides, and how such comments are eroding a relationship between Boeing and the Air Force that has endured for three generations.
Why should Boeing let up? USAF changed requirements during the bidding process. Boeing hasn’t been a USAF favorite since the days of the B52 and KC135. Lockheed has been the love of USAF’s life since the early 1960’s. They didn’t even want the F4 but McNamera forced it on them. It wasn’t a Lockheed plane. With only two large manufacturers capable of fighter and bomber manufacturer, USAF needs Boeing much more than Boeing needs USAF. Besides the current decision makers in USAF will be gone and forgotten shortly but Boeing will be around a long time.
We here at Boeing are hearing rumors of a 10%-20% layoff rate in St. Louis by fall, all because of not winning the Tanker contract. I wonder if Boeing had a major hub in AZ instead of MO, would John McCain have been so against it? If this was an Apache program–assembled in Mesa–would McCain have been so against it? I vote Republican but no Tanker for Boeing equals no vote for McCain. Reap what you sew.
Why should Boeing let up on its protest - because they lost and now misrepresenting the facts. Lets not cry for Boeing just yet - they are after all are prime on the F18 and their sub-contractor NG who builds the fuselage. Lets not forget Boeing teamed up to sub-contract with NG as the prime on CEV to NASA. Teaming histroy is there with Boeing and NG who builds the B2 stealth bomber while Boeing is late on the 787 and two foriegn countries tankers. Perhaps the Air Force histroy with Boeing and NG loss of CEV sent both the USAF and NG looking for a better answer than Boeing could provide.