Tanker Battle: Alabama Strikes Back

By Jamie Burch

M50o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr Tanker Battle: Alabama Strikes Back

Published: Wed, July 30, 2008 - 1:07 pm
Last Updated: Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 1:03 pm

Mobile firefighter Bryan Lee has seen enough. Lee is tired of hearing how Boeing losing the $40 billion taker contract would cost American jobs. So he's doing something about it.

Lee teamed up with a prominent attorney, a real estate developer and a certified public accountant and created a non-profit organization to send a message to Boeing. ‘Alabamians to Build American Tankers’ is trying to educate Congress and others on Boeing’s past failures. The groups says it's ads are as hard hitting as the attacks launched by Boeing supporters.

“The consensus seemed to be; when Boeing punches, you don’t strike back,” Lee said. “That’s nonsense. If you’re going to attack my home town, my friends and other workers you are going to get hit back.”

The Air Force awarded the $40 billion contract to Northrop Grumman/EADS in February. The companies planned to assemble the tankers at Brookley Field in Mobile. But Boeing filed a protest and last month the Government Accountability Office recommended the contract be rebid. The Pentagon said it will oversee the new competition and hopes to pick a winner by the end of the year.

Lee says Boeing has a tainted history includes bribing officials, executives selling military secrets to Communist China and failing to build a border fence after spending $85 million of taxpayer dollars.

“Talk about the pot calling the kettle black,” said Lee. “I never knew how much scandal there was within Boeing until I got involved in this. I don’t understand how they are even allowed to compete for Government contracts anymore.”

ABAT has purchased a heavy rotation of radio ads in the nation’s capitol. It plans to run a series advertisements in the Washington D.C. area as the renewed bidding process gets underway. (Click here to listen to the ads.)

“These ads are tough and I make no apologies for being direct,” said Lee. “I love my home and I love this country. We care for people here and across the United States. I know many emergency workers from Mobile who went on site to the World Trade Center and Louisiana after hurricane Katrina. We travel far and wide to help others across America in their times of need. Many of our citizens are military who have been fighting and dying to protect our country and our freedom. Our Alabama blood lies on the streets of the Middle East right now. We don’t deserve to have our loyalty or our character, questioned by the likes of Boeing.”

News Map

Email to a Friend

Printer Friendly

Starting the tanker process over, with the 2-3 years delay it would entail, shows little concern for the age of the tankers in flight now - and little confidence in Boeing’s team’s ability to compete on a level playing field. Boeing can’t go to a 777 platform without years of redesign and prototype manufacture. Boeing’s 777 line now is back ordered 385 planes and can only produce 7 per month. Do the math and how many years it would take to produce one 777 platform tanker. If Boeing went to 777 they could not bring the price in line. Northrop offers a 777 capably plane at a 767 cost! The square peg is Boeing forcing the Air Force to buy an outdated 767 platform hodgepodge plane that has not even been assembled with its parts from various other planes. Why are Boeing people not analytical but emotional? If I hear Boeing consultants call Northop people “kool aid drinkers” one more time .................

Posted by PeterDaphne on 08/07/08 - 2:22 pm • Report Abuse

Interesting. However, the fact remains that the GAO found nothing wrong with the original RFP, simply the way it was applied. I fail to see how these proposed changes satisfy the GAO rulling other than to justify the initial selection after the fact. Why is ther a need to change the RFP? Why not just apply the criteria from the original RFP as defined to the existing bids? If they have changed their minds an now want a giant tanker, fine! They need to stop trying to shove a roung peg into a square hold and start over.

Posted by michaelc on 08/07/08 - 12:49 pm • Report Abuse

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/08/06/bias-in-new-tanker-bid-boeing-supporter/

Posted by PeterDaphne on 08/07/08 - 12:30 pm • Report Abuse

PeterDaphne,

Could you please provide a link to the source of your quote? I’m curious since the vast majority of Tanker pilots I’ve seen comments on say just the opposite.

Posted by michaelc on 08/07/08 - 12:22 pm • Report Abuse

So much from Boeing supporters are forced attempts to cram down their lower quality and outdated 767 airframe. Why not look at what actual tanker pilots are saying:
From DOD Buzz: “I just hope this gets resolved SOON, I’m a KC-135 pilot and let me tell you if we get these planes today they will be 10 years late. While I love my bird, to say we should’ve had a replacement years ago would be an understatement.

I’m as pro American as they come, but Boeing clearly lost this proposal, the Northrop plane blows it out of the water. Congress should not tell the Air Force what it should buy, and it should not force them to buy “American Only”. Let me share something the Boeing plane has crucial parts contracted overseas not just for their Tanker, but also their commercial aircraft as well. Are we telling Congress to buy Chevys and not buy Volvos? Like I said I’m a red blooded American but I drive a BMW, and with any luck I’ll be trading my Boeing Tanker for a Northrop plane.

Posted by PeterDaphne on 08/07/08 - 9:47 am • Report Abuse

Let the shadiness of the recompete begin!!! I wonder just how different the “amended RFP” is from the original. Obviously, they know Boeing meets the original criteria hands down over EADS, and so they amend the RFP to tailor so EADS might have a chance??? What kind of BS is that! If this is the case, it is amazing how requirements criteria for such an important defense piece of equipment could change drastically in a mere couple of months! I hope the GAO and congress stomps a mud hole in USAF procurement process soon!!! What a croc!

Posted by whatashame on 08/07/08 - 8:06 am • Report Abuse

dear michael c, i think you have a lot to loose with this contract going to eads, i think you have just set a record with your post on this board. now you know boeing lost this contract, they did manage to show the world they can not compete in the global market. the Links clearly show boeing has a history of corruption, i do believe they were given the honor of porker of the year with american tax dollars. if nothing else listen to what the last inspector has to say.
he was one of your own.

Posted by rosepetal on 08/01/08 - 4:33 pm • Report Abuse

I guess—that means I am like Boeing either we are going to build it or no one is going to build it. I really do hope that they start building them soon I am sure the Air Force is at risk using the old tankers. If Boeing would actually be ethical about the way they do business maybe they would have started construction on them back in 2000.

Posted by asda on 08/01/08 - 3:17 pm • Report Abuse

Once again, head buried in the sand. “They will build it here’ there for it’s ‘OK’.

Well, as much as I’ve enjoyed this little exercise I have better things to do with my time and energy. I wish you and yours well in the future and may God bless and protect you.

Goodbye

Posted by michaelc on 08/01/08 - 2:50 pm • Report Abuse

michaelc - as I read it - it sounds like they are using the money for what it was intended. “Spurring economic growth” a new airplane manufactoring plant would make for alot of economic growth with 1200 new jobs. Not to mention I am sure some of that money is going to the new Billion dollar steel Mill that is currently under construction here. And by it only being 12% that is a very low amount for that much of a boast to the economy.

So yes it is a moot point.

Posted by asda on 08/01/08 - 2:40 pm • Report Abuse