Report: Boeing may bow out of tanker deal
Update: 12:20 p.m.: Boeing spokesman Dan Beck says no decision has been made on its next step in the tanker deal and that it is “not discussing internal deliberations.”
The company has filed its comments on the new RFP with the Pentagon and will meet Tuesday with top weapons-buyers to discuss them.
“Making any decisions in advance of (Tuesday’s meeting) would certainly be premature and maybe even a final RFP (due to be issued later this month) would certainly be premature,” Beck said in a voicemail to the Post-Dispatch. “But we’re leaving our options open.”
*********
Aviation Week is reporting this morning that Boeing is “strongly considering” bowing out of the competition to build new aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force.
Citing multiple un-named sources, the respected industry trade publication says the company is seriously considering not submitting a new proposal for the massive contract, which it lost in February to a team of Northrop Grumman and Airbus parent EADS, but successfully protested to the Government Accountability Office.
Last month, the Air Force said it would re-bid the contract on an expedited basis, and last week released the specifications of what it’s looking for. Boeing allies in Congress have argued that the new specs and fast timeline will favor the Northrop bid. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country, told the Post-Dispatch that the new guidlines “smack of Air Force bias” in favor of the Northrop bid.
A Boeing spokesman was not immediately available for comment.
If Boeing drops out, it would mean there would be no competition for the contract, worth an estimated $35 to $40 billion and one of the biggest in Air Force history.
It is worth noting that last year, Northrop threatened to drop out of the competition unless the Air Force added specifications that took into account some of the attributes of its proposed plane. Some of those changes were made, and cited by Boeing backers during the protest.
Dropping out….NOW?
Nothing like helping waste tax payer money on an investigation only to say no thanks after it’s all said and done.
good point Jim
I wonder if the new specifications were somehow different and Boeing took one look at them and threw in the towel.
It’s a strategy to tailor the RFP, naif. Exactly akin to what EADS pulled a year ago. Good for Boeing.
Jim- You are missing the point. This is not the same exact bid that Boeing protested. The truth is the Air Force/US Government is wasting more tax payer money by altering the new bid. If it’s the same bid why would there be any additions?
Which is a bigger waste of US Tax Payer money?
1)Awarding a French Government subsidized company(EADS) one of the largest defense contracts ever.
or
2)Boeing deciding the fix is in, and deciding to stop wasting it own money?
Know the facts before you speak Jim!
Most excellent. EADS has given John McCain more French francs than it has given any other U.S. politician, and McCain (in addition to hiring top EADS lobbyists to fill the top positions in his presidential campaign) certainly delivered for EADS, pushing for EADS at every turn in the tanker acquisition process under the guise of supporting “competition”. Well what now, itch? A Boeing bow-out would not only mean no competition, but also mean the virtual giving away of such a key USAF component to the French. That (and the inevitable fallout) should leave McCain stammering and stuttering more than Barack Hussein Obama without a teleprompter.
“EADS has given John McCain more…”
Pheww, I was worried there that Boeing didn’t have Murray, Tihart, Dicks, Brownback & the other Washington & Kansas politicians in their back pocket. Oh wait, they do. Now that I think of it isn’t obamamamma from Chicago? Where’s Boeing’s hq? Why it’s Chicago!!
Steve G,
The Swiss use Francs, the French use Euros
How can this country expect to survive? The government is the biggest employers/spenders in this country. If they quit buying American, what is left?
If that money is spend on American companies, it goes back through the American economy, otherwise it is lost. Lets save a few million, by not putting billions back into our own economy. No wonder Washington is lost!
The million saved will come back in the form of tax dollars revenue. Idiots!
I see multiple posters above have already questioned the wisdom of, for example,”awarding a French Government subsidized company(EADS) one of the largest defense contracts ever.” Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen anyone answer what I think is the real question: Why was a foreign company allowed to bid on the contract in the first place? Did we do it just to have two bidders, and drive the price down? Or was it some sort of foreign-relations quid pro quo (i.e., we won’t buy your stuff if you don’t let us sell you something)? Or was it something else? I don’t know all the facts of who’s cheated more than whom in this matter, and I suspect no one posting here does either. And I don’t have any opinion on who should win the deal. I just wanted to point out that you can’t ask foreigners to BID on a contract if you aren’t ready to AWARD them the contract.
I keep seeing a lot of the alarmists saying that EADS won this contract and never see Northrop’s name even mentioned. The fact is that NG is the prime contractor and most of the money stays in the States. What’s wrong with a little competition between developed countries? With one or two planes rolling down the runway each month, this contract represents only a drop in the bucket to either Boeing or EADS - less than one percent of Boeing’s current bottom line. The real threat is the trade deficit we’re running with China.