Appel d'offre USAF pour avions ravitailleurs

Bonjour à tous

Des nouvelles

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/19/business/business-us-usa-tanker.html?_r=2

PARIS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Airbus parent EADS is poised to bid alone for a U.S. refueling plane deal valued at up to $50 billion after failing to recruit L-3 Communications Holdings or another major company as a key supplier, sources familiar with the matter said.

EADS will still be backed by a big team of suppliers in its challenge to Boeing Co, including engine maker General Electric Co, Honeywell International Inc and Rockwell Collins Inc to name a few, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

But the team will not include -- at least for the time being -- a U.S. company that would have done some classified work on the A330-based tanker and helped to manage the huge program, the sources said.

"EADS will be on its own for now," one source familiar with the matter said, following weeks of debate triggered by the loss of its original partner Northrop Grumman Corp

An announcement was expected this week, possibly as early as Tuesday, said the sources.

Guy Hicks, spokesman for EADS' U.S. arm, said the company continued to examine its options and declined further comment.

EADS, spurred by Pentagon officials to consider a solo bid, had talked with L-3 and other companies after Northrop withdrew from the politically-charged competition last month, arguing that revamped rules favored Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker.

EADS and Northrop, which had been the prime contractor, won the last tanker contract in February 2008, but the Pentagon canceled that deal after government auditors upheld a Boeing protest and faulted the Air Force's handling of the contest.

EADS has a separate U.S. unit that can do classified work on the program, but had hoped to find a large U.S. partner with security clearances and certifications for some of the detailed work involved, especially given the tight deadline for submitting its bid, the sources said.

But EADS was forced to rethink its plans when L-3 cooled on the deal, with at least one source suggesting that L-3 had come under political pressure to skip the deal.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions on Monday accused Norm Dicks, a Democratic congressman from the big Boeing state of Washington, of trying to intimidate EADS' would-be partners.

"I am deeply disappointed that the Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Norm Dicks, would publicly engage in political intimidation to restrict competition on any contract," said Sessions, who comes from Alabama, the state where EADS would assemble the tankers if it wins the latest contract.

Dicks last week was reported as saying that he hoped U.S. firms would not team with EADS, although his spokesman said Dicks was merely questioning why other companies would see the business case differently than Northrop had.

Dicks and other Boeing supporters argue that the Pentagon should not extend the bid deadline for tankers given a recent World Trade Organization ruling that Airbus received unfair civil subsidies for its airplanes, including the A330.

Several sources said EADS remains in contact with all potential parties pending a bid.

"I would not rule out that they will get a partner at a later date, but at this point, they really needed to give the Pentagon and the world an indication of what their intentions are," said Scott Hamilton, aerospace analyst with Leeham Co.

The Pentagon has said it will extend the current May 10 deadline until July 9 if EADS agrees to enter the competition.

That gives EADS executives limited time to prepare its proposal, a document that could wind up being 20,000 to 30,000 pages, although Boeing has argued that even a 60-day extension is unnecessary.

Defense consultant Jim McAleese said EADS had little choice but to bid for the work. "The reality is that that there will not be another opportunity of this importance in the lifetimes of that management team," he said. "This is the biggest opportunity they will have."

EADS Seul
Avec des fournisseurs US (dont GE...) qui ont sont moins soumis à la pression
Réponse officielle peut -être ce mardi

Bonne journée

Bonjour

Un commentaire de lecteur sur le Seattle PI ! Concerne les interventions classified, Intéressant !

---------------- l'intervention --------------

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/202573.asp#extended

Eads North America would have to work under a SSA (Special Security Agreement). Eads in Europe would not have any technical leverage concerning the the classified work.

The North American operation would have to work under a special shell corporation that is owned by EADS Europe.

The technical work would be performed by US Citizens with the proper clearances. The management and workers here would be forbidden to discuss technical issues with the people in Europe as far as the Classified/controlled information is concerned.

All communications between the EADS North America workers and the EADS in Europe would have to be logged and reported to the US Government.

Eads in Europe would have control of Business issues. They would have very limited direction to no direction on the "Sensitive Work"

I think they have an uphill battle. The North American branch would have to hire the people with the Domain knowledge.

How are they going to submit a knowledgeable informed bid in such a short time when they do not now have the expertise.


----------------------------------------------------------
Et un conte Thai, presque vrai de Richard Aboulafia !
Quand ses publications, sont accessibles, faut en profiter !

--------------L'article, en PDF --------

http://leehamnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/tealapr10ac.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------

Et une info de Scott Hamilton

-------------------- Extrait -------------------

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/eads-to-bid-on-tanker/#more-2873

From strictly a taxpayers’ point of view, the EADS competition should result in better pricing for the Pentagon whoever wins. The past competition has already seen the price driven down compared with the original Boeing lease deal from 2002-2004 and an improved airplane offering from Boeing.

Boeing’s KC-767 NewGen appears to be a still-better offering compared with the KC-767 Advanced Tanker offered in the 2006-2008 competition. The 767NG has a 787-based cockpit (vs one based on the 767-400/777) and winglets, for additional fuel savings. Boeing is offering yet another version of the refueling boom compared with the 767AT. It’s not clear whether the 767NG incorporates a wing from the 767-300ERF as did the 767AT, but industry sources believe this to be the case but Boeing hasn’t commented one way or the other.

---------------------------

Pour le reste, tout le monde attends une annonce d'EADS today !
va ou va pas !

JPRS

Bonsoir !

La participation EADS, c'est comme si c'était fait pour les Américains, bien que non officiel !
Noter que des barrières douanières vont être levées !

---------------- Extrait Reuter -------------

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J3T320100420


Boeing had no immediate comment, but the company is likely to be very concerned about changes the Pentagon is making to facilitate an EADS bid, said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.

Thompson said U.S. defense officials had agreed to waive duties on imports into the United States that EADS would need to build its A330-based tanker, although they were insisting the change was part of a package of export reforms that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is due to unveil on Tuesday.

Officials had also agreed to waive a defense acquisition rule that limits a foreign company's ability to provide classified communications equipment for U.S. weapons, he said.

"The Pentagon said it would not change the terms of the solicitation in order to encourage EADS to participate, but it appears that is precisely what they are doing," he said.

A source familiar with the matter said EADS North America, the company's U.S. unit, had informed the Pentagon on Tuesday that it would compete for the tanker contract.

EADS North America confirmed it would make an announcement on the competition at 1800 GMT, without giving further details.

-----------------------

Ce que dit Loren Thompson du Lexington Institute (Pas de lien direc, faut payer)

Boeing had no immediate comment, but the company is likely to be very concerned about changes the Pentagon is making to facilitate an EADS bid, said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.
Thompson said U.S. defense officials had agreed to waive duties on imports into the United States that EADS would need to build its A330-based tanker, although they were insisting the change was part of a package of export reforms that Defense Secretary Robert Gates is due to unveil on Tuesday.

-----------------------

Donc, 9/10 que c'est parti, bien que rien d'officiel !
Du grain à moudre pour qq mois !

Et si EADS montait des GEnx sur ses A 330 ? Coûts d'exploitations peut être moindres (En fuel du moins, entretien qui sait, peut être au moins sur le papier ?)

JPRS

Et cela du Seattle PI, avec un communiqué d'EADS (Pas vu ailleurs)


http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/202682.asp

If EADS can get its price within 1 percent of Boeing's, the Air Force would consider 93 extra criteria, including the EADS tanker's larger capacity. But offering the larger plane at such a competitive price would raise the already intense heat about Airbus subsidies.

A World Trade Organization panel found earlier this year that European governments improperly subsidized Airbus programs, including the A330.

In anticipation of EADS' announcement Tuesday, Boeing pointed to a recent study it funded of European subsidies to Airbus. Author Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the non-profit Lexington Institute, echoed a line from Boeing and its supporters, writing:

The U.S. government must incorporate some redress of unfair Airbus subsidies into current plans for acquiring a new Air Force aerial refueling tanker. The modified Airbus A330 that was offered by a team competing against Boeing in the first round of competition for the tanker contract would not have been developed in the absence of over $5 billion in improper aid. To contemplate making an award without compensating for the unfair advantage the Airbus plane has received would in effect reward bad behavior and penalize Boeing for not engaging in similar impropriety.

The WTO has not yet publicly released the ruling, which almost certainly will be appealed, and a European counter-claim about U.S. aid to Boeing is pending.

--------------------------------
Here is EADS' entire release:

EADS North America announced today that it intends to submit a proposal on July 9, 2010 for the U.S. Air Force's tanker modernisation programme and will offer the KC-45 -- the most capable, American-built solution that is flown, proven and in production now.
EADS North America is progressing in discussions with potential U.S. partners to build a winning team in order to provide the most capable, best value solution to the Air Force.
The KC-45 is the only aircraft flying today that meets the U.S. Air Force's tanker requirements as outlined in its KC-X Request for Proposal (RFP). The KC-45 builds on the EADS-based tanker that was previously selected in 2008 by the Department of Defense and that has won the last five consecutive tanker competitions worldwide.
"We will offer a modern, more capable tanker in response to the Defense Department's decision to encourage competition for this major taxpayer investment," said EADS North America Chairman Ralph D. Crosby, Jr. "Our KC-45 is the only real, flying, low-risk solution that today meets the demanding Air Force air refueling requirements and is actually in production now. That fact is critical because our warfighters deserve a true best value solution."
EADS North America will build and modify the KC-45, along with A330 commercial freighters, at an EADS North America/Airbus production facility to be constructed in Mobile, Alabama. The KC-45 programme and aircraft production/modification center will create and support tens of thousands of high-value American jobs while making a long-term investment in the nation's economy at a time when other aerospace companies are outsourcing production overseas.
"This tanker competition is all about the warfighter and the aircraft that most successfully meets their requirements. The KC-45 offers what the Air Force
needs today: a modern military tanker that is in production now with deliveries beginning this year," said Sean O'Keefe, EADS North America Chief Executive Officer. "Not only does the KC-45 offer the best value and a huge capability advantage over the competition, it also will support tens of thousands of jobs across America by expanding our nation's industrial aerospace capacity."
The KC-45 is the U.S. military version of the proven A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT). To date 28 aircraft have been ordered by four U.S. allies. The MRTT has transferred more than 265,000 lbs. of fuel to a range of military aircraft – from F-16 and F/A-18 fighters to the E-3 AWACS – using the same refueling systems offered on the KC-45.
"Our aircraft has demonstrated its unparalleled capability by refueling a variety of military aircraft utilizing both boom and hose and drogue systems, as well as by operating in the receiving position. That's a statement our competition can't make," said Crosby.
The Royal Australian Air Force will receive the first A330 MRTTs later this year. Additional aircraft are in production or undergoing mission-equipment outfitting for the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
"We're progressing forward in discussions to expand the ranks of our nearly 200 current U.S. suppliers, some of which are joining us for today's announcement," continued O'Keefe.
At the heart of the KC-45 is the most capable aerial refueling system operating today. The aircraft's fly-by-wire Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS) has a demonstrated fuel offload rate of 1,200 U.S. gallons per minute – the only system which meets the U.S. Air Force's requirements without further modification. The system's proven all-electric fly-by-wire technology ensures enhanced controllability and safety that greatly aids the boom operator and receiver aircraft's pilot.
The KC-45 also carries an all-digital hose and drogue system for probe-equipped aircraft. The under-wing refueling pods are the most modern in service today, with the capability to deliver up to 420 gallons of fuel per minute through 90-ft.-long hoses at refueling speeds from 180 to 325 knots. The KC-45 will also feature a modern fuselage refueling unit, common with that of allied MRTT users such as the United Kingdom.

--------------------

JPRS

Conf de presse sûrement en cours !

EADS North America and Airbus have scheduled a press conference for 2pm EDT today. EADS NA CEO Sean O’Keefe, former EADS-NA CEO Ralph Crosby (who remains in charge of obtaining the KC-X contract) and Airbus Americas Chairman Allan McArtor are scheduled to appear.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/eads-kc-x-announcement-today/

Résumé EADS pour bientôt !

JPRS

Bonsoir

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/04/20/340878/eads-to-offer-kc-45-tanker-to-us-air-force-as-prime.html

Ils y vont seul

Avec

General Electric, AAR Cargo, Eaton, GKN, Goodrich, Hamilton Sundstrand, Honeywell, RTI, Vought and Cobham.

Bonne nouvelle

Bonjour

Une bonne compil de divers analystes, réalisée par Dominique Gates, Seattle Times !

Ca va quand même être trés dur, s'l faut inclure l'agrandissement des hangars, et les sur conso d'un avion plus grand et de peut être 20 tonnes de plus !

Mais s'ils font bouffer le plancher à Boeing, ce serait une bonne motivation Et ça plaira à l'USAF !

Peut être aussi y retourner dans qq années !

------------------------ Extrait, c'est long !-------------------

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011653707_eads21.html

Analysts skeptical EADS can beat Boeing on tanker price

EADS said it expects to undercut Boeing in bidding for the Air Force refueling tanker, but the European company will have to overcome some major hurdles in a price war.

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Roaring back into the Air Force tanker competition, executives at Airbus parent company EADS said Tuesday they plan to offer the U.S. a bigger, more capable refueling tanker. And they claim they'll do that for a cheaper price than Boeing.

The renewed competition will increase pressure on Boeing to lower the proposed price for its forthcoming bid on the estimated $40 billion contract, which could mean thousands of jobs here.

But EADS would have to overcome some extraordinary hurdles to undercut Boeing, which plans to offer a tanker based on the 767 jet built on its existing assembly line in Everett.

If it wins, EADS would ship large A330 airplane sections across the Atlantic, then assemble and convert them into refueling tankers at a not-yet-built airplane production center in Mobile, Ala.

In addition, the larger Airbus airplane will have higher fuel costs, and additional construction costs to provide larger hangars and more airfield space at military bases. The Air Force will factor those into its cost assessment.

----------------------
Et ...

Le press release de EADS, en PDF !
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2010/04/20/2011653696.pdf


JPRS

Salut Beochien

Message déplacé ici

Le talon d'achille pour EADS est peut-être l'implantation à Mobile à créer de toute pièce, mais est-ce réellement un critère de jugement de l'offre? Les performances passées le sont ?
Mais ça ?
C'est un risque pris par EADS qui au pire en cas de gros problèmes devra rapatrié des avions entiers depuis l'Europe pour honorer les délais contractuels.

Me trompe-je ?

Bonjour Poncho ...

Si par hasard, EADS gagnait !

Je crois qu' EADS se débrouillera en "Souplesse avec Mobile" Le A 330, c'est pas le A380 ! Ils doivent maîtriser, depuis le temps chez Airbus !
Le nouveau pour eux, EADS, sera la part spécif à l'USAF, qui ne devrait pas trop voyager en Europe, sauf intégration dans la même structure de l'avion ! Antennes ect...

Je ne suis pas sûr qu'il faille imputer tous les coûts de Mobile au budget Tankers, il y aura les 200F, et surtout un pied aux US et en $ au cas ou les changes recommencent à compliquer la vie à Airbus !

JPRS

Ouaip

Ma question était fondamentalement : est-ce que le fait qu'EADS doive construire une usine ex nihilo peut être un critère de jugement de l'offre ?

Pour le reste je suis plus que d'accord, et je suis même persuadé que l'A330 reste bien placé

Pour info les critères

https://www.fbo.gov/download/35b/35b679422f290de448bbbb8a282fc527/Sect_J,_Atch_1_-_SRD_25_Sept_09.pdf

Mobile, pour les Tankers Je ne crois pas que ce soit un critère ni un passage obligé du RFP ! Un plus politique, c'est tout, mais comme c'est parti !

Sauf que cela peut abaisser les coûts, et surtout les réguler !
Hedging sur le $ en gros !
Et il y à des aides locales à tout les coups ... terrains free ou autres !

Par contre, s'il faut en plus du prix d'un plus gros avions, ajouter 10-15 000 heures de coûts d'exploitation, (J'ai pas lu le RFP) et des hangars à agrandir !

Je ne vois pas EADS s'en sortir !
Ils peuvent égaler ou être moins chers sur les avions, pour emmer... Boeing ! mais sur l'exploitation, une fois additionnés les frais, sans reconnaître la différentielle de capacité!
C'est sans espoir !
C'est le côté pervers de ce RFP !

Et je crois que EADS va bien intoxiquer Boeing jusqu'à la fin ..... histoire de leur faire perdre qq milliards !

JPRS

Toute cet effervescence politico-industrielle m'amène à cette question:
Si l'Europe, avec forte dominante française venait à gagner, que va-t-elle faire de tous ces dollars qu'il faudra bien convertir en Euro et quelle sera la perte de change?

Bonjour à tous

Quelques analyses à froid sur le retour d'EADS dans la course


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2010/04/26/AW_04_26_2010_p27-221527.xml&headline=EADS, Boeing Squaring Off Again Over Tankers&channel=defense

With little to lose and much to gain, EADS is now pursuing a solo bid for the U.S. Air Force’s $35-billion KC-135 replacement program.

This path seemed virtually unthinkable a few months ago; however, a win would be the single most significant step in boosting the company’s revenue in the U.S., which is largely dependent on commercial sales.

Just six weeks after Northrop Grumman dropped out as prime contractor and following a series of failed negotiations attempting to secure another major U.S. partner, EADS announced that it will lead its own bid.

The company had been in talks with L-3 Communications and Raytheon to install specialized communications and defensive systems, though no agreements were reached. “The scope of work is not something we would typically do,” said L-3 CEO Michael Strianese. “The door is not closed, and we wish EADS well in the competition.”

EADS officials argue that their team includes 200 U.S.-based suppliers.

In a sense, this is the throw-down long desired by Ralph Crosby, the first CEO of EADS North America who now serves as chairman. As prime contractor, EADS will be able to call the shots, and this may be a private relief for company executives. The arrangement with Northrop Grumman to propose the Airbus A330-based tanker was always a marriage of convenience, and it ended abruptly with EADS lacking a cohesive team and with only a few months to submit a massive proposal to build 179 tankers. During previous KC-X contests, the tension was sometimes evident between Northrop, which lacked experience developing and selling tankers, and EADS, its primary subcontractor.

EADS would never have chosen to enter the fray as a prime after so many fits and starts and with only 11 weeks to assemble a bid. But the company finally has an opportunity to directly challenge Boeing in its own backyard and in the world’s largest defense market.

After losing Northrop Grumman as a prime, EADS could be better postured to compete with Boeing on price, which is a major determining factor in the forthcoming selection. Some industry sources suggest a prime contractor adds 10-15% on top of the cost of a proposal for management duties. However, now EADS will have to bear the cost to bid, which is likely to be above $100 million. Because the A330 is a larger aircraft than Boeing’s 767, price will be a difficult point for the company.

Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush says he abandoned KC-X because the fixed-price development and procurement profile would leave the winner little room for profit and the request for proposals favored the smaller Boeing aircraft.

However, Crosby and EADS North America CEO Sean O’Keefe say the strength of their proposal lies in the risk that has been reduced during the KC-X saga. EADS is now conducting flight trials of the first two Multirole Tanker Transports (MRTT) and the new refueling boom for Australia. “Our aircraft exists. It is flying,” Crosby said during an April 20 press conference. “The Air Force shouldn’t be forced to buy an aircraft that only exists on paper.” He is confident the fixed price proposed by EADS will be realistic based on the company’s experience thus far with the aircraft.

Boeing has released little detail on its 767 design. The aircraft will likely include structurally enhanced, larger wings as well as a 787 digital cockpit and a new design boom. However, a flying prototype does not exist. The challenge will be to build enough margin in its price to avoid cost overruns that could make this an unprofitable program, but to also come in under EADS’s pricing.

O’Keefe says his company is in a much stronger position to be a prime now than when it signed the earlier teaming agreement with Northrop Grumman. Northrop brought experience as a major U.S. defense contractor and systems integrator to the team. “Today, it is a different case,” says O’Keefe, adding that the company is prime contractor on the Army UH-72A light utility helicopter. “We do have systems integration capability.”

However, managing KC-X would be far more complex. Crosby has admitted that the Army’s requirements were serendipitously in line with the attributes of the commercial Eurocopter EC145 baseline model.

EADS also faces sjpeg political headwind here. One thorny issue will be how to handle critics who brand the A330 tanker as a European product that could rob Americans of much-needed jobs. The rhetorical volleys have already begun.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)—whose home state is where EADS plans to assemble the tankers—claims that Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), House Defense Appropriations subcommittee chairman—whose home state is where the 767 is built—engaged in “political intimidation” to dissuade U.S. companies from joining the team. Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, however, says that “any company that is interested and qualified to participate in this important program should do so.” He says he does not want any U.S. company “to be left with the impression that it would be a mistake to partner with EADS” on the bid.

EADS still plans to assemble the tankers and A330 freighters in a new Mobile, Ala., facility if it wins. The maximum anticipated capacity is 44, roughly 15 per year of which would be for tankers. Although only 66 freighter orders have been secured, EADS is viewing the Mobile facility as capacity to handle future buys while the Toulouse plant will continue with its passenger aircraft assemblies. Mobile also could be a site for work on other aircraft, such as the Airbus A350 or a next-generation narrow-body transport.

Crosby says the company has not yet decided how many aircraft must first come off the assembly line in Toulouse and the modification facility in Getafe, Spain, before shifting operations stateside. Under the KC-X contract won in 2008 with Northrop Grumman, the sixth aircraft (the second production version) would have been the first to roll off the assembly line in Mobile (AW&ST March 3, 2008, p. 22). The company dashed plans to break ground on the first building there shortly after winning a $1.5-billion development contract when Boeing filed a protest. The Government Accountability Office later uncovered acquisition missteps that led to contract termination and a new contest.

Bids are now due by July 9, a 60-day extension from the earlier May date. The extra time was offered by the Pentagon if EADS entered the competition.

Synthétiquement :
1) finalement EADS en y allant tout seul dispose de plus de marge de marge de manoeuvre et se dispense surtout des frais de pilotage qu'auraient empocher NG
2) depuis l'appel d'offre initial EADS a fait ses preuves comme mandataire avec le Lakota (surtout qu'en ce moment des programmes à l'heure et dans les clous y en a pas bcp)
3) le MRTT est désormais testé dans son intégralité ce qui permet de maîtriser les risques de développement (un bon point pour optimiser une offre financière, un bon point pour la crédibilité auprès du client)

EADS n'a rien à perdre...

Bonne lecture

Bonsoir !

Les congressmen Us, favorables à EADS, reçoivent actuellement une anti-sèche, un argumentaire disons, particulièrement agressif, oeuvre du lobbying EADS !
Ca commence à chauffer contre les parlementaires du Washington State !

EADS Lancé dans une vraie campagne (Guerre) !


-----------Commentaires de Stephen Trimble dans Flightglobal ! ----------------

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/04/tanker-battle-heats-up-with-ea.html

Tanker battle heats up with EADS smack-talk
By
Stephen Trimble
on April 29, 2010 7:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis
EADS North America, newly-unmuzzled as their own prime contractor for KC-X, has gone on attack. Bullet-style talking points circulated to allies in Congress -- and obtained by this blog -- reveal a level of aggression never quite shown by EADS' former overlords at Northrop Grumman.

The one page set of talking points, for example, takes aim at the reliability of their rival's refueling equipment: "Boeing's KC-767 boom doesn't meet the Air Force's requirement, and its hose pods don't work. So far only their art department has fixes." [Ouch.]

And this: "An aircraft that has never been built is not 'combat ready'." [Zing.]

Talking points are intended to guide friendly lawmakers as they make public comments on issues.

Read the full list of talking points on the jump. :

-------------------------------------------------------------

Rien que celà :

Our aircraft is real, proven and ready today. It is competing against an unproven design that has never been built or flown.

- Boeing wants to make the discussion about anything other than tankers, because they don't have one.

- The Air Force shouldn't have to take an expensive gamble on an aircraft that only exists on paper.

- If staying on cost and on schedule matter, buy an aircraft that's flying now, proven and ready. Buy the KC-45.

- Unlike Boeing, the aircraft we have flying today meets the Air Force's requirements NOW, without years of redesign and development.

- An aircraft that has never been built is not "combat ready."

- Boeing's KC-767 boom doesn't meet the Air Force's requirement, and its hose pods don't work. So far only their art department has fixes.

- An award to Boeing is a gamble with taxpayer money and the warfighter's future.



· The KC-45 will be made in America by tens of thousands of American workers, and build the U.S. economy for today and tomorrow.

- Our aircraft will create and support American aerospace jobs across the country at a time when Boeing is sending jobs overseas.

- Our aircraft is an investment in the future of U.S. industry, bringing manufacturing to our shores when Boeing is sending it away.

- We're fighting to build up the U.S. economy. Boeing is fighting to preserve a monopoly.

- EADS supports 200,000 American jobs and contributes $11 billion to the US economy each year. It is the largest purchaser or American aerospace exports.

- We believe in the American worker. Our tanker will be built in Alabama, by the same workforce that our competitor trusts to build rockets.

- We will not only build the KC-45 here in America, we will build commercial A330 freighters, creating or supporting tens of thousands more American jobs.



· We are a proven and trusted prime contractor, with a model program that is on time and on budget.

- We have proven our reliability as prime contractor for the Army's UH-72A Light Utility Helicopter, identified by the Defense Department as one of its Top Five performing programs.

- We have delivered every Lakota - more than a hundred so far - on time and on budget. We deliver more than promises.

- We are a trusted corporate citizen, providing aircraft and defense technologies to every branch of our armed services.

- As the largest aerospace company in the world, EADS has unequalled experience and expertise.







· We have built the best plane at the best value. The warfighter and taxpayer deserve the best.

- This is the best plane, with more of everything that matters to the warfighter: more fuel, more range, more efficiency, more cargo, more passengers.

· "More" means greater efficiency and lower operating cost across missions

· "More" means flexibility in mission planning AND in the air

· "More" can be the difference between a pilot flying home or having to eject.

- Our aircraft will transform how the tanker fleet operates and save money.

- Our warfighters should never have to settle for second best. Never in our history have we willfully given them the lesser capability. Now is no time to start.

- Boeing is afraid to compete airplane against airplane. That's why they are trying so hard to deprive the Air Force of competitive choice.

- Our aircraft has won the last five head-to-head competitions with Boeing tankers, and is in production for four nations.

- We have the industrial know-how to build tankers anywhere in the world.


JPRS

Bonjour !

Et le contre feux de Boeing le Lendemain !
Il y en a pour trois mois encore, cela va être dur de compter les coups !

_________________ Du seattle PI Extrait ---------------

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/204047.asp#extended


Boeing returns EADS' fire in tanker fight

UPDATE: EADS response added at bottom.

Boeing has fired back at an incendiary list of talking points that EADS North America gave its allies in the U.S. Air Force's aerial refueling tanker contract fight.

"Yesterday EADS sent Members of Congress information on the KC-X tanker program -- a key national security program of the United States -- that is false and misleading," Timothy Keating, Boeing's senior vice president of Government Operations, wrote in a letter the company has distributed. "This is just the latest in a long line of attempts by Airbus and EADS to distort the truth and muddy the waters."

EADS has lied or distorted the truth about a recent World Trade Organization ruling that European Union governments improperly subsidized Airbus programs and about whose tanker would create more U.S. jobs, Keating wrote.

"Their most recent propaganda states that their offering for KC-X (tanker) is ready today," he added. "Their website says that their KC-X entrant is flying today. That is just not true. The tanker that EADS is building for Australia does not meet all of the 372 Air Force requirements for KC-X. I hope they do offer this airplane, because it cannot win the competition!"

Under the heading "Let's Get Real," Keating attached a list of "questions that ought to be asked about the Airbus tanker and its ability to meet the Air Force requirements," including whether it currently meets unclassified Air Force requirements on:

* A freighter floor;
* A cargo door;
* Capabilities necessary to carry hazardous cargo on the main deck;
* A moveable smoke/fume barrier in the cargo compartment;
* A centerline hose refueling system;
* The required hose jettison capability;
* Duplicate displays and a third seat at the aerial refueling operator's station;
* The required quick start and take off capabilities;
* Certified non-ozone depleting substance fire suppression system;
* The required on-board inert gas generation system for fuel tank explosion protection;
* Large aircraft infrared countermeasure system with 3 turrets and ability to handle simultaneous engagements;
* An armored cockpit to improve crew safety and survivability;
* Ballistic protection of flight critical aircraft systems;
* Electromagnetic pulse protection of flight and aerial refueling critical systems;
* Integrated threat avoidance systems;
* Ability to meet stated requirements pertaining to a chemical or biological environment;
* Flight deck display interfaces with aircraft defensive systems.

JPRS

Bonsoir !

Boeing crée une nouvelle division "Transports (et ravitailleurs) militaires"
Pour les C17 et ls tankers !
En plein RFP vital pour cette division, vu que les C17 sont à l'agonie ... Est ce bien le moment de créer une nouvelle branche avec seulement 2-3 mois avant la remise des offres pour les Tankers ???
Et pas beaucoup d'autres projets !

Qui a dit que j'avais une tête de fusible ???
De mauvais esprits sûrement !
Bon, c'est comme ça !

-------------------------- Du Seattle PI, L'Article-------------

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/204575.asp

Boeing forms airlift and tankers division

Boeing has created a new airlift and tankers division, which will take over the C-17 Globemaster III and international and U.S. tanker programs, the company announced Tuesday.

The organizational change will allow the business to "increase productivity to enhance Boeing's competitive position and offer the best available capability, price and risk value proposition for its customers," Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft, said in a news release. "Aligning large, fixed-wing aircraft capabilities under one leadership team will intensify our focus on the warfighter's needs and introduce efficiencies that will result in cost savings for taxpayers."

Boeing has named Jean Chamberlin as vice president and general manager, airlift and tankers, reporting to Chadwick. She will continue to lead Boeing's effort to win the U.S. Air Force's KC-X aerial refueling tanker contract.

Boeing has named Rick Heerdt as vice president of the C-17 Program, reporting to Chamberlin.

JPRS

Bonsoir

Reste à connaître le planning détaillé pour le développement notamment et les préséries pour voir comment boeing peu s'insérer..;

Et l'euro qui dégringole...

Tiens ... Thales et L3 à travers ACSS rejoignent le camp Boeing ! Pour le RFP Tankers ... c'est la vie des affaires !
On comprends que L-3 ait dit non à EADS !
Mais en leur faisant perdre qq semaines au passage !
Un Scoop ! Boeing va peut être monter de pitots de chez Thales sur les 767 !

------------------- L'article UPI -----------------

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/05/04/ACSS-joins-Boeing-tanker-team/UPI-42091273005307/

ACSS joins Boeing tanker team
Published: May 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM

PHOENIX, May 4 (UPI) -- L-3 Communications and Thales' joint venture was selected to join Boeing's team developing an aerial refueling tanker proposal for the U.S. Air Force.

Defense companies L-3 and Thales say their Aviation Communication and Surveillance Systems joint venture will support the Boeing aerial refueling tankers bid with its Traffic Management Computer technologies.

"We take enormous pride in manufacturing avionics systems that will ensure safety and efficiency in every aircraft flown by our courageous warfighters," ACSS President Kris Ganase said in a statement.

ACSS, which has also worked with Boeing on the company's 767 Global Tanker Transport Aircraft and P-8 Multi-Mission Aircraft programs, says it will also provide the aerial refueling tankers proposal with its Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe transponder solution.

The technologies provided by ACSS for the Air Force proposal are part of an effort by Boeing to strengthen situation awareness capabilities for the next-generation tanker.

JPRS

UPDATE 1-Bill would make Pentagon weigh WTO rulings

Tue May 11, 2010 8:29pm EDT

• Boeing workers, lawmakers rally in WashingtonTue, May 11 2010
  
• Boeing workers, lawmakers rally in WashingtonTue, May 11 2010
  
• Exclusive: Pentagon denies easing security for EADS tanker bidFri, Apr 23 2010
  
• Boeing CEO hits Airbus tanker over subsidiesThu, Apr 22 2010
  
• UPDATE 1-Boeing CEO hits Airbus tanker over subsidiesThu, Apr 22 2010
  

* Boeing backs legislation by Kansas senator



Stocks | Global Markets | Industrials * Murray urges Pentagon to consider subsidy ruling * EADS counters: Rallies don't build airplanes
(Recasts with legislation from Kansas senator, adds byline) By Andrea Shalal-Esa WASHINGTON, May 11
(Reuters) - Boeing Co (BA.N) is actively promoting a bill that would force the Pentagon to consider World Trade Organization decisions when deciding on defense contracts like a $50 billion airplane competition between Boeing and its European rival, Airbus parent EADS (EAD.PA). Kevin Rozelsky, Boeing's director of legislative affairs, has approached some U.S. senators about supporting the bill, which Kansas Republican Senator Sam Brownback plans to introduce on Thursday, according to an email obtained by Reuters and verified by a congressional aide. Boeing and its supporters have argued that the WTO's recent finding that Airbus benefited from illegal subsidies should be factored into the U.S. Air Force competition for a 179 new aerial tanker planes used to refuel warplanes in flight. Pentagon officials say they cannot consider
the ruling in the competition because there is a countersuit against the United States by the European Union, and neither matter will be
completely resolved before the contract is awarded. Any move by Washington to penalize one side before all appeals have run their course could be seen as an illegal tariff under the terms of membership in the world trade body, said one official closely following the issue. The
competition between Boeing and EADS has clearly heated up in recent weeks with both companies putting advertisements in The
Washington Post and on billboards in the Washington area. Brownback's legislation would force the Pentagon to factor in WTO rulings when comparing prices for all weapons contracts, not just the tanker deal, according to the Boeing email. If WTO determines that a company benefited from an "actionable" subsidy, the bill would require the Defense Department to add that cost to the bidder's price, it said. BOEING CONCERNED ABOUT BEING UNDERBID Boeing argues that it cannot compete fairly with EADS since EADS has benefited from billions of dollars of past subsidies to the A330 aircraft on which its refueling tanker is based. "We're very concerned that the illegal European subsidies are
going to allow Airbus to underbid Boeing significantly, and then in a fixed-price contract, they win the day," Rozelsky said in the email. But the European Union argues that EADS has long since repaid launch aid for development of the A330, and says Boeing has also benefited from U.S. state tax breaks. One congressional aide, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the email from Boeing raised some eyebrows on Capitol Hill since the company was contacting senators who had not yet even been approached by the legislation's sponsor. About 20 workers joined lawmakers from Washington state for a small rally at the U.S. Capitol building on Tuesday, where Senator
Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, blasted the Pentagon for giving EADS 60 extra days to submit a bid. Murray said the Pentagon should consider the WTO ruling in the tanker competition, and needed to award a contract soon. "Holding this competition up to allow an illegally subsidized foreign company to bid is bad for our men and women in uniform, our workers, taxpayers, and our economy," said Murray, who stood above a sign that said "Fairplanes." Murray, joined at the event by Senator Maria Cantwell and Representative Rick Larsen, both of Washington state, said her state would get 11,000 new jobs if Boeing won the competition. Boeing says its 767-based tanker would
support about 50,000 jobs across the country. EADS, which says its tanker proposal would create around 48,000 jobs, responded to the Boeing rally on Tuesday, saying, "Rallies don't build airplanes."
EADS, then partnered with Northrop Grumman Corp (NOC.N),beat out Boeing to win the last tanker deal but it was canceled after government auditors upheld a Boeing protest. Northrop decided to skip the competition after the Air Force revamped its rules for the bids, saying the Pentagon's new approach favored Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker. After Northrop dropped out, the Pentagon gave EADS 60 more days to prepare a proposal on its own, extending the deadline until July 9. But it still plans to pick a winner this fall.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, editing by Gerald E.McCormick, Phil Berlowitz)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1110365020100512?type=marketsNews

Bonsoir !

Retenez moi ou je m'en vais !

Sur fonds de subsides et WTO !
Boeing joue les Arlésiennes ! Chacun son tour !
Devant la triste pespectve de voir les prix au tapis, avec sur les bras un avion à terminer, sinon à inventer ...
Ben Boeing, tente d'influencer le congrés, et fait l'Ane pour avoir du son ...
Pas Mal !
Au fait, l'objet du RFP, c'était de faire baisser les prix, et diminuer le coût des Tankers pour le contribuable Américain ?
N'est il pas !
Ben, ça marche beaucoup trop bien, au goût de Boeing !
Pas loin de se rouler par terre, et en pleine crise d'hystérie !
Bien, même si Airbus perd, ça va laisser des traces, ils s'en souviendront le Boeing Tankersmen !
Il y a 2 mois, c'est Airbus qui s'en allait ! Et qui est revenu aprés qq concessions !
Maintenant, c'est au tour d'Airbus de menacer ... en attendant le prochain round de ce mauvais feuilleton !

---------------------- Acte I Airbus, Je m'en vais -------------------
---------------------- Acte II Airbus, Je reviens --------------------
---------------------- Acte III Boeing, Je m'en vais / Extrait -------------------

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4627333&c=AIR&s=TOP

Boeing Source: We May Not Bid For KC-X
By VAGO MURADIAN and JOHN REED
Published: 14 May 2010 17:57

Boeing is considering not bidding for the U.S. Air Force's KC-X tanker contract, a company source said May 14.
Boeing CEO Jim McNerney and other executives are privately debating whether their company can even win, much less make a profit, on the fixed-price contract, an executive told Defense News. (Boeing)

That would leave Europe's EADS - which earlier this year had threatened its own pullout - as the sole bidder for the multibillion-dollar prize.

CEO Jim McNerney and other executives are privately debating whether their company can even win, much less make a profit, on the fixed-price contract, one senior Boeing executive said.

"Is it conceivable that we wouldn't bid?" the executive said. "We are proud of the fleet and want it to win the contract so the Air Force keeps flying our planes. Your heart says you have to be part of it, but a CEO's job is to make sure that the heart doesn't make a decision the head can't live with."

Boeing spokesman Damien Mills insisted May 13 that the firm will bid.

But Boeing supporters have long complained that illegal subsidies would lower EADS' bid price, and company officials have said for several weeks that the Pentagon appears to have shifted requirements to favor the European firm.

Earlier this year, DoD officials - eager to avoid a sole-source award to Boeing in the wake of Northrop Grumman's withdrawal - delayed the bidding deadline 60 days to allow EADS to bid. DoD also allowed the European firm to enter the contest without a U.S. firm as a partner.
-------------

----------------------Acte IV Boeing, je reviens ! Extrait --------------

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/205973.asp

Spokesman denies report that Boeing might not bid on tanker

Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale Friday refuted a Defense News report that Boeing might not bid on the U.S. Air Force's aerial refueling tanker contract.

Defense News, quoting an unnamed Boeing executive, said: "Boeing CEO Jim McNerney and other executives are privately debating whether their company can even win, much less make a profit, on the fixed-price contract."

Why wouldn't Boeing bid? Because executives don't want to lose and fear competitor EADS North America can undercut it on price, despite having a larger, more-expensive plane, thanks to European subsidies, according to Defense News.

Boeing and its political allies continue to push the Pentagon hard to penalize the EADS bid based on a World Trade Organization ruling that European nations improperly subsidized Airbus programs, including the A330, which is the basis for the EADS tanker.

Pentagon officials have refused to consider the ruling, saying it has not finished working its way through the WTO process and a European counter-claim about U.S. aid to Boeing is pending. But senators and congressmen from Kansas, Washington and other Boeing-heavy states have signed on to a measure that would force the Pentagon to consider WTO rulings in defense contracts.

The unnamed executive said talk of not bidding was not a negotiating tactic by Boeing, although Pentagon officials have repeatedly stated their preference for a competition and delayed the bid deadline by 60 days to give EADS more time after former lead tanker partner Northrop Grumman pulled out of the contest. Ironically, Northrop pulled out because its executives believed the Air Force's tanker request favored Boeing's smaller plane.
---------------------
Quelqu'un de sérieux à l' USAF pour arrêter ce cirque ---- a moins que ce discrédit ne les amuse, car il retombe sur les politiques !



JPRS

Bonsoir !
Et le commentaire de Scott Hamilton, chez Leeham!
C'est un extrait, et c'est long !
Bonne synthése !
Bon courage !

------------------------ Leeham Extrait --------------------

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/hoisted-on-own-petard/#more-2983

So how might Boeing be in danger of being hoisted on its own petard?

Boeing and its supporters pushed the Pentagon very hard to have this round of KC-X competition be a best-price competition, while Northrop Grumman wanted a best-value contest.

Both sides believed that if the Pentagon chose a best-price competition, Boeing would have the advantage by offering a smaller airplane that had lower life cycle and lower infrastructure costs (operating costs and Military Construction, or MilCon, costs respectively) and that the extra capabilities of the larger Northrop KC-45 would not count.

The Pentagon’s February Request for Proposal was characterized as a best value RFP by officials, but as Northrop, EADS, Boeing and analysts read the document, it was clear that best price prevailed. The Pentagon made it clear that whoever presented the best price would win if the bid met all 372 technical requirements. Only if the bids came within 1% of each other, including analysis of the life cycle and MilCon costs, would credit be awarded for exceeding the minimum technical requirements.

Boeing asserts its KC-767 has at least a 24% advantage on life cycle costs. Northrop and EADS disputed this figure, but nonetheless were concerned that without initial consideration for the KC-45′s extra capabilities beyond the KC-767 (which are what won Northrop the bid in Round 2, later overturned by the GAO on procedural grounds), the KC-45′s goose was cooked. The additional MilCon costs are figures we have not seen.

Northrop also had concerns about the fixed price nature of the contract, as did Boeing. Northrop withdrew from the contest in April, citing the fixed price provision and the widely-held conclusion that the RFP favored the smaller KC-767.

EADS later decided to make a bid on its own, citing several reasons: it believes it has the best airplane and should go ahead and bid; it has hundreds of millions in sunk costs into the project from the Round 2 bid; the KC-330 Multi Role Tanker Transport on which the KC-45 is a derivative is more mature than it was in 2007 and is about to be delivered to the launch customer, the Australian air force; it is now in production, with the UK’s model now rolled out as well; the Air Force certified EADS as a “qualified” prime contractor, eliminating the need for a lead US company that was necessary with the Northrop relationship; and the Pentagon asked EADS to bid to provide competition for the contract.

Although Boeing’s commercial 767-200ER on which its KC-767 offering is based is some $60m less in list price than the Airbus A330-200 on which the KC-45 is based, Northrop came in lower than Boeing in the Round 2 pricing ($184m vs $200m) largely because the USAF added $5bn to the Boeing cost factor due to risk vs. adding $700m to Northrop. The same risk factor assessment is absent from this Round 3 bidding, which means the USAF’s adding of risk-factor money may not be a significant factor as it was in Round 2.

Boeing’s supporters believe that adding the WTO costs of the illegal Airbus subsidies back into the equation, as discussed in the Defense News article, means an additional $5m to each KC-45. (We don’t know how this figure is derived; $5bn, the amount Boeing and its supporters allege was the illegal subsidy to the A330, divided by 179 airplanes is $28m per airplane according to our calculator.)

But we do note the $5bn figure alleged on the A330 is the same amount the USAF added to the KC-767 cost in Round 2. Flip this figure and it is a swing of $10bn.

EADS is less concerned about the fixed cost provision of the RFP than was Northrop. EADS officials point out that Airbus has been doing fixed priced contracts for decades, competing against Boeing in doing so. Although the same certainly can be said for Boeing-its commercial division has likewise been competing against Airbus with fixed price contracts-the KC-45 is in production and EADS now knows the development costs. Boeing’s KC-767 NewGen is a conceptual airplane. It is not in production and it is a derivative of the troubled Italian KC-767, which is five years late and still undelivered. Developmental costs of the KC-767NG may be much more a crap shoot than EADS believes its costs are for the KC-45, raising more concern for Boeing as outlined in the Defense News piece.

With the withdrawal of Northrop from the KC-45 program, the profit margin associated with Northrop now is out of the financial equation. This enables EADS to offer a lower price. No one will tell us what the Northrop profit margin was other than to say it was “significant.”

EADS also denies that it will low-ball any bid because it can’t afford to. Cost overruns on the A400M and A380 programs, deferred cash flows on the A380 production delays which we estimate to be in the billions of dollars, customer penalties associated with the A380 delays, and R&D funding for the A350 and the A320 re-engine combine to mean that EADS doesn’t have the financial where-with-all to low-ball bids, officials say. EADS also wants to acquire US companies to increase its US footprint.

In addition to Boeing’s belief that the A330 subsidies need to be calculated are aggravated by the elimination of the Northrop profit margin and the development uncertainties of the KC-767NG.

So Boeing is worried that EADS could actually submit the best price, which according to the terms of the RFP–and what Boeing and its supporters lobbied for–EADS would win the contract.

As we noted in our other post, Playing with Fire, you need to be careful what you ask for.

So what’s going on with the conflicting reports out of Boeing?

One observer indirectly associated with Boeing and supporting the KC-767 bid hypothesizes this may be an effort to stir the pot in connection with the bills introduced this week in Congress to force the Pentagon to consider the WTO subsidies. As we previously noted, we think this is playing with fire. Although Boeing believes that any WTO ruling against it with respect to the European complaint about illegal subsidies provided Boeing, this is a big gamble. What if the bet is wrong?

The twists and turns continue in this controversial procurement.

Posted in Airbus, Boeing, EADS, air force tanker | Tags: air force tanker, Airbus, Boeing, EADS, KC-45, KC-767, Northrop Grumman


JPRS

Bonsoir !

Du 12 Mai !
Sponsorisée par EADS
La dernière, c'est promis !
Tout est révisé, d'un seul coup !
Désolé pour la charge !
Dernier pensum!

Une seule conclusion ... Boeing est aux abois ... pour gagner de l'argent , et c'est sérieux .... presque indécent, cela va finir par se remarquer un jour ??


------------------------ L'article, dans Defense-Aerospace --------------
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/114848/eads-takes-the-warpath-in-tanker-wars.html

Real Tanker News: The Boeing Bill

(Source: EADS North America; issued May 12, 2010)

“We listen to our customer. It is not our job to tell our customer what the warfighter needs.”
In defense procurement you’ll often hear that said, because that is the mission of the defense industry – to serve the warfighter. That is why it is most startling, this morning, to read this Reuters story highlighting how one competitor in the KC-X tanker competition has decided to use the legislative process to manipulate the way the Air Force is permitted to manage this $35 billion procurement. That company is Boeing.

At issue is a pair of international commercial trade disputes involving the European Union and the United States over what is and what isn’t appropriate government support for commercial aircraft development. The Pentagon long ago decided this issue is not relevant to a defense acquisition.

Boeing has signaled to the Air Force (the customer) that it refuses to accept that determination or the Department's right to make it.

The Reuters report highlights an email being shipped around Capitol Hill – written by one of Boeing’s employees – seeking co-sponsors for what can only be called the Boeing Bill. The Boeing Bill is a piece of legislation that would direct the Air Force to manage the tanker competition the way Boeing wants it run by factoring in those disputes in a manner favorable to Boeing, rather than running it the way the Air Force long ago said it wanted to.

The goal? To make certain that only one company in the KC-X competition (Boeing) has an opportunity to win. The reason is clear. Only EADS North America has a tanker and refueling system responsive to the Air Force’s needs. Boeing doesn’t have such an airplane and is likely years away from developing it. The aircraft it does have has lost every head-to-head competition against the tanker EADS is offering the Air Force.

By securing passage of the Boeing Bill, the merits of the two company's offerings won’t matter and the KC-X competition will be turned into the largest earmark in U.S. history. Furthermore, without competition, Boeing can charge the taxpayer what it wants with no assurances that the airplane it ultimately does develop is at the level of quality and capability that our men and women in uniform deserve. That’s a bill with a potential cost far too high to pay.

To see the EADS North America KC-45 in flight and to learn more about the tanker competition, visit our website, www.kc-45now.com .

The Boeing Bill: Episode 2

(Source: EADS North America; issued May 13, 2010)

As part of what aviation analyst Scott Hamilton describes Scott Hamilton describesas “the strangest marketing campaign we’ve ever seen”, a bill will be introduced today in Congress that is designed to rob the warfighter of competitive choice and force a de facto sole source award to Boeing. Effectively a $35 billion earmark for Boeing, the legislation addresses a wide range of issues except the most important one: Ensuring the warfighter can choose the most capable tanker to meet its requirements.

Boeing and its supporters studiously avoid discussing its proposed tanker – and instead raise a convoluted legislative smokescreen – for one simple reason: Boeing does not have a tanker that meets the Air Force’s needs, and won’t have one for the foreseeable future.

Rather than engage in legislative shell games at the expense of American men and women in uniform, EADS North America is singularly focused on offering the US Air Force our KC-45, a real, proven and ready tanker aircraft. The KC-45 is the only tanker being offered to the Air Force that is certified and flying today. That is why the Boeing Bill seeks to prevent the Air Force from having an opportunity to select it.

As Hamilton asks:

“Why aren’t they talking about the airplane?...That’s what counts for the warfighter. If anybody bothers to remember them.”

We remember, and we support the warfighters’ right to decide which tanker is best for them.

-ends-

JPRS

Bonjour à tous,

Merci Beochien, très instructif.
Au début de l'année, sur le forum et quand Northrop était encore dans la boucle, qu'EADS reste pour soumettre une offre et forcer boeing à baisser son prix vers son plancher, voir en-dessous, était l'une des raisons majeures que nous avions identifiée. L'autre étant de ne pas déplaire au DOD dans l'éventualité de futurs RFP.
Il est clair que Northrop n'avait pas d'intérêt à ce jeu, son seul étant de gagner. D'où son retrait.
L'intérêt d'EADS doit être vu globalement. Il faut englober le marché civil où l'opposition avec Boeing est grande. Voir Boeing arriver avec un tanker pratiquement nouveau a du faire réfléchir EADS qui y a sans doute vu l'opportunité de pousser Boeing à dépenser des fonds importants pour le développer et aussi de mobiliser beaucoup d'ingénieurs. Toujours autant de moins pour développer la gamme civile où deux marchés s'annoncent : le remplaçant du 737 et celui du 777.
Il semble bien que ce retour affole Boeing qui commence sérieusement à avoir peur d'y laisser sa chemise !
Voila l'état de ma réflexion ou de mon !

Amicalement

Oui Julienaline ... on est tous qq part dans le DPO, même l'ex RR Roller connu, qui en abuse un peu en ce moment ... normal, l'opposition , disons plutôt la contestation, sur ses points douteux, est inexistante ou éjectée de son royaume africain !! Obligé en plus de chercher ses ennemis dehors ... m..de ça complique tout, en plus si on n'est même pas sûr que l'"ennemi d'ailleurs, sous d'autres cieux" puisse vous lire ... ben à quoi ca sert de s'appuyer dessus !!

Je vais même aller un peu plus loin ... côté RFP !
Je ne sais pas jusqu'à quel point la séparation d'avec NG n'a pas été concertée, j'ai vu des manœuvres semblables pour des RFP trés loin d'ici !

Qq'un de particulièrement pervers pourrait par exemple penser que Airbus, et NG, sous la table, ce sont concertés, tout en jouant de la guitare pour le publique !
L'objet étant de ; pour un RFP perdu à 99% !

- Forcer Boeing a descendre ses prix sous le plancher ...
- Garder (Ou créer) pour EADS une image de chevalier blanc vis à vis des militaires!
- Faire Bénéficier l'USAF des meilleurs prix, à charge de revanche !
- Et vu les manoeuvres avec le WTO, uniquement destinées à relever de 5 milliards, l'addition pour EADS, donc augmenter la marge de Boeing d'autant ! Ben, c'est faire passer Boeing pour le Villain, pompant indûment, 5 milliards de plus aux contribuables Américains ..;

Je trouve que EADS manœuvre magnifiquement bien sur le sujet, et les pétages de plombs de Boeing, le confirment ! C'est pas fini côté congrès, et les militaires, républicains dans l'âme, morts de rire aussi de voire l'admi Obama s'empêtrer, et bien contents surtout que cela baisse !

Comique !

Feuilleton à suivre !

JPRS

Bonsoir à tous,

On peut même penser qu'EADS à laisser consciemment Northrop décider de ne pas soumettre pour mieux revenir ensuite. Si cette décision avait été annoncée et endossée par EADS, il est clair que celle de revenir dans le jeu aurait été bien mal comprise.

De là à dire que la manoeuvre est machiavélique... Peut-être pas mais c'est vrai qu'EADS manoeuvre bien sa barque car les réactions de Boeing laissent penser que ce retour, Boeing ne l'avait pas prévu.
Développer un nouvel appareil alors que celui d'airbus est pratiquement prêt, bon courage pour rester dans les clous !

Amicalement

Bonjour

Des nouvelles des diverses démarches destinées à Taxer l'offre EADS ...
Ca prospère, mais le timing risque de ne pas fonctionner !
A suivre !

J'ajoute, lu ailleurs ... que à force de jouer, le congrès us et les militaires, pourraient bien ouvrir un large espace pour une nouvelle protestation d'EADS , s'ils appliquent ces discriminations, retardant d nouveau le process d'un an ...
Cela permettrait par exemple à la plainte UE, au WTO, concernant les subsides à Boeing, d'être traitée ... et de remettre éventuellement les parties à égalité ! On dit Backfiring en Anglais ? Non ?

------------------ L'Article du Seattle PI ------------------

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/206499.asp#extended

The Pentagon would have to report on the impacts of illegal subsidies on the Air Force's aerial refueling tanker competition and whether such subsidies provided an unfair advantage to a competitor before the Air Force awards the contract, under a measure U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., proposed Wednesday.

Smith, who chairs the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, proposed the measure as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. The committee approved the amendment Wednesday.

The amendment aims at EADS North America, which is competing against Boeing for the tanker contract. A World Trade Organization panel ruled earlier this year that European nations improperly subsidized programs of EADS subsidiary Airbus, whose A330 is the basis for the EADS North America's KC-45 tanker.

"We cannot allow illegally subsidized foreign companies to take jobs and contracts away from American workers and companies through an unfair advantage," Smith said in a news release. "For example, if it turns out that Airbus is able to offer a lower bid than Boeing on the KC-X Tanker contract because they were illegally subsidized, then we should push the Department of Defense to take those subsidies into account. My amendment offered today will do just that."

The Pentagon already must start a review within 10 days after public release of the WTO ruling (expected this June) but doesn't have to finish the review until 90 days after the appeals process is over and won't report to Congress for another 30 days after it's done the review. That means the report would not be done before the Air Force awards the tanker contract, Smith's office noted.

Smith's measure would require an interim report 60 days after public release of the WTO ruling.

JPRS