Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-10-2020, 04:09 PM   #21  
Gets Mon-Sun Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Up Front
Posts: 3,218
Default

Ah, yes, my old friend (not really) Mike Sears. If I recall, he had the illegal discussion while sitting in the terminal at Lambert Field in STL.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 10-11-2020, 09:38 AM   #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bababouey View Post
remember, Airbus won the initial contract until Boeing called in favors.
No, Boeing didnít call in ďfavors.Ē The USAF unfairly executed the proposal and Boeing protested the decision. SNAFU. The GAO didnít agree with every protest that Boeing had but they did say this:

Specifically, we sustain the protest, because we find that (1) the Air Force did not evaluate the offerors' technical proposals under the key system requirements subfactor of the mission capability factor in accordance with the weighting established in the RFP's evaluation criteria; (2) a key technical discriminator relied upon in the selection decision in favor of Northrop Grumman relating to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements subfactor, was contrary to the RFP; (3) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker'compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures, as required by the RFP; (4) the Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing with respect to whether it had satisfied an RFP objective under the operational utility area of the key system requirements subfactor; (5) Northrop Grumman's proposal took exception to a material solicitation requirement related to the product support subfactor; (6) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate military construction (MILCON) costs associated with the offerors' proposed aircraft consistent with the RFP; and (7) the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Boeing's estimated non'recurring engineering costs associated with its proposed system development and demonstration (SDD).
PurpleToolBox is offline  
Old 10-11-2020, 10:44 AM   #23  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox View Post
No, Boeing didn’t call in “favors.” The USAF unfairly executed the proposal and Boeing protested the decision. SNAFU. The GAO didn’t agree with every protest that Boeing had but they did say this:

Specifically, we sustain the protest, because we find that (1) the Air Force did not evaluate the offerors' technical proposals under the key system requirements subfactor of the mission capability factor in accordance with the weighting established in the RFP's evaluation criteria; (2) a key technical discriminator relied upon in the selection decision in favor of Northrop Grumman relating to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements subfactor, was contrary to the RFP; (3) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker'compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures, as required by the RFP; (4) the Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing with respect to whether it had satisfied an RFP objective under the operational utility area of the key system requirements subfactor; (5) Northrop Grumman's proposal took exception to a material solicitation requirement related to the product support subfactor; (6) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate military construction (MILCON) costs associated with the offerors' proposed aircraft consistent with the RFP; and (7) the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Boeing's estimated non'recurring engineering costs associated with its proposed system development and demonstration (SDD).

And yet none of the KC-46s yet delivered actually meets any of those requirements,

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...vision-system/

And the long delayed decision on full rate production has now been delayed ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.

Quote:

Boeing Sees $44 Billion Tanker Decision Delayed by Four Years


Tony Capaccio

10/06/2020(Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Air Force has delayed by four years a decision on whether the $44 billion KC-46 tanker program should be approved for full-rate production while contractor Boeing Co. tries to show it has fixed the flawed camera system used for the plane’s midair refueling mission.

An Air Force statement issued late Monday said the decision will come in July to September of 2024. It was previously planned for this September, Ann Stefanek, a spokeswoman for the service, disclosed on Tuesday.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/tops...w6?li=BB12J2Hy

while the competition has been flying now with full capabilities for over a decade:

https://www.time24.news/2020/09/norw...us-tanker.html

By way of comparison, the KC-135 program was started in 1954 based on the Dash-80 that would eventually become the 707.

The first tanker aircraft first flew in 1956, and had initial operational capability in 1957. The KC-46 contract was signed in 2011. It was based on the 767, an aircraft that first flew in 1981 and was FAA certified in 1982.

The KC-46 program has, IMHO, now exceeded the criteria for SNAFU and is closely approaching FUBAR.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-11-2020, 03:43 PM   #24  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,100
Default

Yep. Impending FUBAR...



Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-14-2020, 12:40 AM   #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Grumble's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
And yet none of the KC-46s yet delivered actually meets any of those requirements,

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...vision-system/

And the long delayed decision on full rate production has now been delayed ANOTHER FOUR YEARS.



https://www.msn.com/en-xl/money/tops...w6?li=BB12J2Hy

while the competition has been flying now with full capabilities for over a decade:

https://www.time24.news/2020/09/norw...us-tanker.html

By way of comparison, the KC-135 program was started in 1954 based on the Dash-80 that would eventually become the 707.

The first tanker aircraft first flew in 1956, and had initial operational capability in 1957. The KC-46 contract was signed in 2011. It was based on the 767, an aircraft that first flew in 1981 and was FAA certified in 1982.

The KC-46 program has, IMHO, now exceeded the criteria for SNAFU and is closely approaching FUBAR.

Shack. McD-Boeing is a dumpster fire on all fronts, commercial, defense and space. The entire front office should take a ride on a Max being refueled by a KC-46 and IF they arrive, take a ride on the Starliner.
Grumble is offline  
Old 10-14-2020, 06:47 AM   #26  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
take a ride on the Starliner.
I think they should be the ops-test crew on the starliner... to mars.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-14-2020, 07:32 AM   #27  
Gets Mon-Sun Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Up Front
Posts: 3,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Shack. McD-Boeing is a dumpster fire on all fronts, commercial, defense and space. The entire front office should take a ride on a Max being refueled by a KC-46 and IF they arrive, take a ride on the Starliner.
Would make life interesting.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 10-18-2020, 06:13 AM   #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tnkrdrvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I think they should be the ops-test crew on the starliner... to mars.
This! Boeing has been driven off a cliff by its C suite.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 10-18-2020, 02:22 PM   #29  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr View Post
This! Boeing has been driven off a cliff by its C suite.
indeed it has...





Quote:
Itís not the first time the Army has suspended Apache deliveries. From March to August 2018, the service halted acceptances after finding a flaw in a part that holds the helicopterís rotors to the aircraft.

Boeing quality-control practices have been called into question by both the commercial industry and the military. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating potential manufacturing issues on 787 Dreamliner aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force had to halt deliveries of KC-46 tankers on numerous occasions after military inspectors found trash, parts, and tools left inside the aircraft. In March 2019, Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, blamed the companyís assembly line culture for the issues.

The coronavirus pandemic has only made things worse for Boeing and its suppliers as air travel evaporates and airlines cancel plane orders. Earlier this year, executives said the companyís $34 billion defense business would outperform its typically lucrative commercial business for the first time in more than a decade.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-18-2020, 04:35 PM   #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
firefighterplt's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 392
Default

Itís a burning house...
firefighterplt is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Couple more problems in Chicago inky13 Major 0 12-24-2008 09:37 PM
Boeing Confirms More Nutplate Problems FBEDCOM Major 8 12-01-2008 10:11 PM
Anybody have problems with Eldee 2 arrival DCA ERJ135 Regional 26 01-24-2008 12:39 PM
Mesa and its staffing problems N2rotation Regional 20 11-07-2007 09:05 PM
Alaska Air problems.... Sir James Major 1 07-17-2005 08:47 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:05 AM.