tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post7668206261677835854..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: Blame McCainGeorge Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-53969732701661168162008-03-12T11:19:00.000-04:002008-03-12T11:19:00.000-04:00According to an 11 Mar 08 article in Business week...According to an 11 Mar 08 article in Business week titled Boeing's Trouble with Tankers,<BR/><BR/>“As a hungry newcomer, EADS was more willing to make concessions to win customers. For example, in Britain it agreed to assume much of the financial risk in building the planes, and then lease them to the government. Boeing, accustomed to traditional procurement contracts, never offered such an arrangement.”<BR/><BR/>The competition the article is talking about occurred in 2004, about three years after Boeing was raked over the coals for offering to lease 20 767s to the USAF with a follow-on sale of 80 more. So let me get this straight, in 2004 EADS was "making concessions" by offering a lease option, while Boeing was too stuck in its ways to contemplate such a revolutionary idea? On top of that, in 2001, Boeing was trying to pull a fast one on the poor American taxpayer by sticking them with a crapy lease rather than a more desireable purchase? I’m more curious than ever to find out exactly how GAO came up with its $6 billion “savings.”mannakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05458160124690891310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-90369345468282469552008-03-10T18:57:00.000-04:002008-03-10T18:57:00.000-04:00If I may, I think you've taken one step too far. B...If I may, I think you've taken one step too far. By Pelosi, Dicks, etc siding with Boeing, they are siding with jobs. As you said we're now five years removed from the scandal, Boeing's management has changed and current the competition was incredibly transparent. If there was any wrongdoing it was in the last minute changes to the RFP that may have given an advantage to the heavier KC-30 over the KC-767, despite the fact that it was publicized that this tanker was supposed to be medium tanker not a heavy tanker.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05305945742584197841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-77574413717097996582008-03-10T11:17:00.000-04:002008-03-10T11:17:00.000-04:00Mannaka--I can't discount the potential impact of ...Mannaka--I can't discount the potential impact of McCain's past criticism of Boeing and the tanker lease deal on the Air Force's recent tanker decision. <BR/><BR/>Obviously, Northrop-Grumman/EADS offered a better jet, but the specter of Congressional opposition (specifically) from Senator McCain had to be a factor in the decision-making process. Let's be blunt; Boeing's chicanery in the tanker lease made them radioactive in getting future, big-ticket contracts. Look at CSAR-X. Boeing was a late entrant--but offered an (arguably) better chopper in the MH-47, but the deal was scuttled and open for re-bids. No one will admit it, but the tanker controversy played a role in that decision, too.<BR/><BR/>As for McCain, I agree with your comments on taking the high road--and the "cost savings" game. All of us have played it; expenditures are minimized, while savings are grossly inflated, for the sake of budgets--and careers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12712369389411084085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-80561098529673334662008-03-10T00:09:00.000-04:002008-03-10T00:09:00.000-04:00I’m still curious, as I asked in a comment to the ...I’m still curious, as I asked in a comment to the <I> McCain’s Political "Courage" </I> post, whether “…there might be a connection between Boeing losing the tanker contract to EADS … and McCain's attack on Boeing & Speedy a few years ago?” I know it sounds far fetched, but if the Boeing and EADS proposals were both adequate, I wouldn’t put it past the AQ community to purposely choose EADS’ just to cause problems for McCain (as well as Congress & the GAO). As long as there wouldn’t be any significant mission impact, I could easily imagine them seeing it as a way to stir things up a bit.<BR/><BR/>As for McCain’s responses so far to the critisism from the left, I’m not sure if he’s really capitalizing on the high ground very well. At times, he sounds fair and unbiased, coming across as someone who's just looking out for the little guy. At other times, however, he seems to gloat a bit too much and boast about how he saved the taxpayers $6 billion. From where I sit, he really ought to stick to the more modest approach. The whole $6 billion line, to me, is a load of BS. I spent about 15 years auditing the AF, and I can tell you that my agency was always running around tooting its own horn about how much it was “saving” the AF (something we called potential monetary benefit, or PMB). The problem is, audits (like the one performed on the previous tanker contract by GAO), never really identify “true” savings. What they do is string a series of worst case assumptions together (conveniently slanted in favor of negative findings) and compare them to an ideal world outcome that really isn’t practical. They then declare the difference to be “savings.” Since the government doesn’t operate in a profit motivated environment, meat cleaver approaches like this are rarely challenged by management. Believe me, though, when I tell you that any close scrutiny of McCain’s $6 billion “savings” would probably shoot it full of holes. As a result, if I were advising Mr McCain, I’d suggest that he not shine too much light on the issue.mannakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05458160124690891310noreply@blogger.com