Originally Posted by sandebr00
This will be my last post on the Air Force Tanker contract (at least until the contract is re-awarded!), since we can continue to debate this forever, but it will ultimately be the Pentagon/Air Force which makes the decision (hopefully in the next 5 months).
Let me begin by reiterating that I want the best plane for our soldiers and our taxpayers. If it is Boeing's plane, then so be it. On the other hand, it sometimes appears that some Boeing supporters are not interested in the United States getting the best plane for its soldiers, but only that the United States get a Boeing plane, regardless of the two planes' merits. If it is true that Boeing's plane is superior, and N.G.'s is inferior, then perhaps the Senators and Congressmen from Washington and Kansas will kindly consider withdrawing their support for the bill that they introduced that either gives the contract to Boeing, or forces the Pentagon to consider new criteria that places Boeing at formidable advantage in the new competition? Obviously there's no need for such a bill if Boeing's plane is superior on the current merits.
I also wanted to add that my original post was not meant to imply that scandals are limited to Boeing. Rather, it was meant to point out that Boeing's latest attempt to portray itself as the protector and defender of the American taxpayer, and its current argument that cost to the taxpayer should be the overriding concern in this competition, is disingenuous to say the least. In the not so distant past, Boeing admittedly ripped off the American taxpayer systematically, and did so with apparent impunity (until it was caught).
Cost is, and should be, a valid consideration in the competition. But, there are other considerations, too, and, if the totality of the criteria favor N.G., then N.G. deserves the contract. Period. If, by contrast, Boeing's plane wins a majority of the criteria, then Boeing should be awarded the contract.
We all know, at this point, that the Air Force erred in calculating the life cycle cost of Boeing's plane, and that Boeing's plane actually offered the lower life cycle cost after proper recalculation. However, what we do not know is how this one criteria affects the overall competition. For instance, to my knowledge, we (the public) don't know the true difference in life cycle costs at this point, because that information was redacted in the final GAO report. We also do not know, at this point, whether the other benefits of N.G.'s plane, if any, outweigh this sole factor. If we did know this, then (i) it would be unnecessary to rebid the contract, or, at the very least, (ii) it would be unnecessary for the competition to last another six months. The new competition will answer these questions, and then we can all find out which plane is best for the Air Force.
The final point that I would like to make is that Boeing supporters have been much, much more vocal in disparaging N.G. and the Air Force than Alabamians have in disparaging Boeing. Instead of letting the appeals process work as it should have, Boeing and its supporters in Washington and Kansas, among other states, made the conscientious decision to wage a P.R. battle in newspapers, in print, and on Capitol Hill. (Incidentally, N.G. does have a presence, albeit minimal, in both Kansas and Washington. One must wonder how concerned the Senators from Washington and Kansas are about these jobs). Speaking of jobs gained and lost, time will tell if Boeing's decision in this regard will have any adverse implications for future contract opportunities with foreign governments (which, in turn, would affect future job opportunities for American workers in Washington and Kansas). There has certainly been some indications in the press that foreign European governments are upset by Boeing's actions after the contract was awarded to N.G. For Boeing and its workers, and for the American public in general, let's hope there will be no future adverse implications.
I hope that I speak for all Alabamians in saying that we welcome and appreciate Boeing here in AL. We also understand that Boeing is vital to our continued economic success. But, many here feel that N.G.'s plane is superior on the merits, and of course feel somewhat slighted by the efforts of Boeing supporters to ensure that Boeing wins the tanker contract, notwithstanding lipservice to a free, open, and fair competition.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
