TANKER USAF - Appels d'offres

Jeannot a écrit:Je suis assez d'accord avec vous Trim2 mais cela montre que certains se battent encore et quelque part cela fait chaud à l'âme.

L'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) doit rendre en juin son jugement sur certaines aides de Washington accordées à l'avionneur américain Boeing, dénoncées par l'Union européenne, a-t-on appris mardi auprès du gendarme du commerce mondiale.
"Le groupe d'experts (de l'Organe de règlement des différends) prévoit de transmettre son rapport intérimaire aux parties en juin 2010", indique l'OMC sur son site Internet.
Il s'agira du deuxième volet de la "guerre commerciale" qui oppose depuis des années l'UE et les Etats-Unis à propos d'aides versées à leurs avionneurs respectifs, Airbus et Boeing.
Selon des sources européennes et américaines, l'OMC a déjà jugé illégales certaines aides accordées par des gouvernements européens à Airbus dans un premier rapport intérimaire diffusé aux parties concernées en septembre 2009 et qui n'a pas encore été rendu public.
Le conflit commercial entre Washington et Bruxelles, qui représente le dossier le plus lourd du gendarme du commerce mondial, a été porté devant l'OMC par les Etats-Unis le 6 octobre 2004. Ces derniers accusaient l'UE de verser des aides non conformes aux règles du commerce mondial à l'avionneur Airbus.
Washington a chiffré à quelque 205 milliards de dollars (148 milliards d'euros) le montant du préjudice, dont une partie versée sous forme d'aides publiques par l'Allemagne, l'Espagne, la France et le Royaume-Uni. Ces estimations ont été jugées totalement irréalistes par Bruxelles.
Réagissant du tac au tac à la plainte américaine, Bruxelles avait déposé le même jour à l'OMC un dossier dénonçant des aides américaines à Boeing. L'UE a chiffré à 23 milliards de dollars des subventions déguisées, selon elle, derrière des contrats d'armement. Le montant passe à 305 milliards en utilisant la méthode de calcul américaine (avec les intérêts fixés par des banques).

Jeannot a écrit:L'OMC rendra en Juin son jugement sur les aides de Washington à Boeing.

L'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) doit rendre en juin son jugement sur certaines aides de Washington accordées à l'avionneur américain Boeing, dénoncées par l'Union européenne, a-t-on appris mardi auprès du gendarme du commerce mondiale.
"Le groupe d'experts (de l'Organe de règlement des différends) prévoit de transmettre son rapport intérimaire aux parties en juin 2010", indique l'OMC sur son site Internet.
Il s'agira du deuxième volet de la "guerre commerciale" qui oppose depuis des années l'UE et les Etats-Unis à propos d'aides versées à leurs avionneurs respectifs, Airbus et Boeing.
Selon des sources européennes et américaines, l'OMC a déjà jugé illégales certaines aides accordées par des gouvernements européens à Airbus dans un premier rapport intérimaire diffusé aux parties concernées en septembre 2009 et qui n'a pas encore été rendu public.
Le conflit commercial entre Washington et Bruxelles, qui représente le dossier le plus lourd du gendarme du commerce mondial, a été porté devant l'OMC par les Etats-Unis le 6 octobre 2004. Ces derniers accusaient l'UE de verser des aides non conformes aux règles du commerce mondial à l'avionneur Airbus.
Washington a chiffré à quelque 205 milliards de dollars (148 milliards d'euros) le montant du préjudice, dont une partie versée sous forme d'aides publiques par l'Allemagne, l'Espagne, la France et le Royaume-Uni. Ces estimations ont été jugées totalement irréalistes par Bruxelles.
Réagissant du tac au tac à la plainte américaine, Bruxelles avait déposé le même jour à l'OMC un dossier dénonçant des aides américaines à Boeing. L'UE a chiffré à 23 milliards de dollars des subventions déguisées, selon elle, derrière des contrats d'armement. Le montant passe à 305 milliards en utilisant la méthode de calcul américaine (avec les intérêts fixés par des banques).

Un peu tard pour le contrat des ravitailleurs... Non ?

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

The European plane maker and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman, have said they would withdraw from the competition if the rules are not revised.

European Aeronautic Defense & Space said Tuesday that the U.S. Air Force's latest specifications for a $50 billion contract to build aerial-refueling tankers would not yield any significant technological improvement on the capabilities of America's already outdated tanker fleet.

The European plane maker and its U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman, have said they would withdraw from the competition if the rules were not revised, a position that Sean O'Keefe, the new head of EADS's North American operations, reiterated Tuesday.
"The current draft request for proposals is not a tanker modernization program, it is just a replacement program" for the existing fleet of Eisenhower-era U.S. tankers, Mr. O'Keefe told journalists.

Thomas O. Enders, the chief executive of Airbus, said that the company's decision on whether to remain in the bidding for the tanker depended on "whether we get a fair and balanced chance in a highly politicized competition."
"If I had a wish free for the new year, it would be for the Pentagon to come up with a fair" bidding contest, he said.

Advocates for Boeing in Washington have argued that Airbus should be disqualified from consideration for the tanker contract after the World Trade Organization found last year that the European plane maker had received billions of dollars in illegal subsidies for several of its airplanes in the past.
"The U.S. government cannot reward illegal market actions that have harmed U.S. manufacturers and stolen U.S. aerospace jobs," Representative Norm Dicks, a Democrat from Boeing's home state of Washington, said in September.
The W.T.O is expected to rule this spring on a counterclaim by the European Union that argues Boeing, too, has received illegal government support in the form of tax breaks and generous U.S. government contracts.
In an interview, Mr. Enders dismissed the trade disputes before the W.T.O. as "anachronistic" and irrelevant to the tanker competition.

"The aerospace world of tomorrow will not be bilateral anymore," he said, noting that China, Japan, Brazil and Russia were among the countries aspiring to challenge the Boeing-Airbus duopoly in commercial aircraft.

(c) 2010 International Herald Tribune. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

Publication Date: Arrival Time: 2010-01-12

The Pentagon's draft aerial refueling tanker request would not modernize the Air Force's [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] fleet, EADS' North American chief said on Tuesday.
"The current draft request for proposals is not a tanker-modernization program, it is just a replacement program," Sean O'Keefe told journalists, according to a New York Times [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].
EADS is partners with Northrop Grumman against Boeing in the tanker contest. Northrop officials have said they would not bid on the request as written because, among other things, it favors Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker over its Airbus A330-based offering. O'Keefe and Airbus Chief Executive Tom Enders endorsed that position Tuesday.
The draft request would award the contract to the cheapest plane that meets 373 mandatory requirements, with no additional points for exceeding the basic requirements, assuming the price is more than 1 percent lower, after certain adjustments.
That "means there is no evaluation of any capability that exceeds the baseline requirements," O'Keefe said in the NYT story. "Anything bigger, better or longer in range is of less value."
Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale responded to O'Keefe's comments by noting that Boeing Defense, Space & Security Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg reiterated Monday that his company is "not questioning" war fighter requirements but will "respond with the best offering to meet those requirements."
"Obviously Boeing and Airbus are on two very different paths as we wait for the KC-X Tanker final RFP to be released," Barksdale wrote. "While it's unclear what our competitor will do next, America can count on the Boeing Company to provide a combat-ready tanker featuring max capability at lowest cost."
As for me, I understand O'Keefe's point, but I think it's silly to say the current request wouldn't bring modernization, given that it would replace Eisenhower-era planes. And there's no point in paying significantly more for "bigger, better and longer in range" if you don't have much need for those capabilities. And, in the current request, that's what the Air Force is saying.

Months after celebrating the groundbreaking for a massive jet assembly facility in North Charleston, state officials credited with luring Boeing to the Lowcountry say they still don't know what all the incentives offered to the aircraft giant are worth.

And they don't necessarily care.

As details of the top-secret deal slowly trickle out, a Post and Courier analysis has found that the incentive package promised to Boeing is worth more than $900 million, at least double the highest estimate first circulated by state officials.

In fact, the incentives' value will easily exceed the $750 million the aviation giant has agreed to spend on building its plant near the Charleston airport.

In interviews during the past week, the legislative leaders who negotiated directly with Boeing each said they couldn't say what all the incentives are worth, but each defended the deal as a good investment for South Carolina.
"I'm not sure I've ever seen a number that's been compiled because you have the county involved and the statutory incentives," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh Leatherman said. "What I do know is, this is a tremendous deal for our economy that will impact our economy and provide jobs for generations."

Senate leader Glenn McConnell, House Speaker Bobby Harrell, both Charleston Republicavns, and a spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford made similar comments.
Though top leadership couldn't speak to the incentives details, officials at the state Commerce Department did give The Post and Courier a copy of a cost-benefit analysis that estimated that for every $1 in so-called "public cost," the community and state will benefit with a return of $14 dollars.
That study, however, did not factor in the property and sales tax money that Boeing won't be paying from generous breaks.

The reasoning? If the company didn't come here, it wouldn't be paying it anyway.

Boeing's North Charleston expansion is expected to boost the Charleston economy with thousands of jobs and provide millions of dollars of state and local taxes for generations. Beyond that, Boeing could become the center of a thriving hub of aviation companies.
Coming during a time of recession, Boeing was in a peerless bargaining position.
But of the 163 state and county officials who voted on the deal, it was difficult to find a single person who claims to know what the incentives were actually worth.

How could the state use incentives to lure Boeing, or any company, if the state's negotiators could not put a value on those incentives? How could the state consider the costs and benefits if the costs were largely unknown?

What $450 million?
Until now, the incentive deal has been widely reported to be worth $450 million, a value first put forth by Leatherman during a question-and-answer session with reporters immediately after state lawmakers approved a handful of deals at a special session in October.
Now, no one seems to be taking credit for that estimate.
"I don't know where the $450 million came from," Leatherman, a Florence Republican, said Thursday.
A state Commerce official also denied putting a number on the deal.
The Post and Courier's analysis, which relied on conservative figures, put the incentives-package value at more than $900 million, and it could easily be worth more.

The bulk of the incentive package comes in the form of property tax breaks in Charleston County worth at least $306 million over the next 30 years, and up-front money to be given to the company through state bonds at a cost of roughly $399 million.

Some items, like exempting Boeing from paying sales taxes on computers, jet fuel and construction m
aterials, are difficult to value and were not included in The Post and Courier's estimate.

This much is clear: For every dollar Boeing has promised to invest, the state has promised Boeing more than $1.25 in benefits, either in up-front cash or in future tax breaks.

Most of the incentives were directly offered by the state or already existed in state laws designed to attract large industrial investments.
The promises are conditional: If Boeing does not uphold its end of the bargain, there's a claw-back provision for the state's up-front money, Leatherman said. And most of the tax incentives are performance-based, so Boeing doesn't get them unless it invests the money and creates the jobs.

But other incentives are Boeing-specific, such as a 10-year property tax exemption on the two Dreamlifter freighters that Boeing will use to transport massive aircraft parts. Such aircraft sell for about $250 million each, so the 10-year property tax exemption could easily be worth more than $100 million.

Charleston County Council approved that part of the deal, along with a $50 million incentive that will give back half of Boeing's already-reduced property taxes on the assembly plant for 15 years.
And if Boeing invests the agreed-upon $750 million within 10 years, some of the property tax breaks could remain in force beyond 2060.

Only the state is putting money out of pocket. It plans to foot the bill for the $33 million in training costs for future Boeing workers.
And it's borrowing $270 million to help pay for Boeing's new facility. With interest, the state expects to spend $399 million paying off that debt.
"I see the $270 million as an investment for the state," Leatherman said. "It will have a transformative effect on our economy."

Ben Fox, press secretary for the governor, said Sanford agrees with the Legislature and Commerce Department that "it was a large investment by the state, but there's a massive payoff for the taxpayers."
"While it's easy, in the wake of the deal, to downplay it and dwell on the details, it's worth remembering that this is the biggest economic investment ever in our state," Fox said.

Fox and several lawmakers suggested to The Post and Courier that state incentives available to any company that invests enough money and creates enough jobs shouldn't be counted when adding up the Boeing incentives.

They also noted that the value of the performance-based incentives would grow if Boeing invested more and created more jobs than planned, which is the purpose of such incentives.

For example, for each additional job created, Boeing could get a tax credit worth up to $12,500.
The Post and Courier's conclusion that the incentives are worth more than $900 million tops any tally Harrell has seen. But without the deals, Boeing would have gone elsewhere, he said.

"You shouldn't lose sight of the fact it's not the amount of incentives, but it's the amount of the return on incentives," he said. "The economic impact of this would have ended up in some other state."

To that effect, state Commerce officials ran a cost-benefit study on Boeing's economic impact, which valued the company's payroll benefits at $3.8 billion during the plant's first 15 years of operation. That figure takes into account the 3,800 jobs Boeing is expected to create along with 5,971 additional, indirect jobs.

It doesn't take into account new jobs from aviation suppliers that will follow Boeing to the Lowcountry.
Overall, Commerce's cost-benefit analysis put an estimated $5.2 billion in total economic gain against the projected $353 million in public costs over a 15-year period.

Behind closed doors
The Boeing deal still is widely regarded as a win for the Charleston economy, but the new incentive-package value raises questions about whether most of the state's lawmakers knew what they were promising in October.
Some lawmakers told the S.C. Policy Council, a conservative Columbia-based think tank, that they never saw a detailed breakdown.

The void of information left lawmakers scrambling during the special session to put together their own back-of-the-envelope estimates.

Sen. Paul Campbell, R-Goose Creek, calculated his own rate of return, taking into account supplier jobs, income tax from the new jobs and the state's alarmingly high unemployment rate, which hit a record high of 12.3 percent in November. By his estimate, the Lowcountry still came out on top.

Ashley Landess of the S.C. Policy Council contends that the state's top lawmakers should have shared more information with their colleagues and with the public.

"They were angry about being challenged and questioned, but taxpayers and business owners out there, this is your money they're spending," said Landess, who asked state leaders for an estimate of incentives hours after the legislation passed.

"And those guys shut the door, made up some number ... and said, 'Here's the deal, and we don't have to tell you how we came up with that.' "

McConnell defended the process that day, saying he and Leatherman did their best to make sure that legislators had all their questions answered. The Legislature did as much due diligence as it could, he said.
"If they had questions, I tried to get them answered," McConnell said.
Leatherman agreed.
"As far as I'm concerned, it was all an open process," he said.

The perception of secrecy, however, aggravated the divide between rank-and-file lawmakers and the power brokers at the top.

Sen. Mike Rose, R-Summerville, for example, said he asked for more incentive details but hasn't gotten much. He added that lawmakers were under high pressure to vote for the measure without asking questions.
"For all I know, there are people laughing at us for being scared into giving ... all that money," he said.
Ultimately, Rose voted for the measure.

"I don't doubt I made the right decision," he said. "But it was not the prudent process we should be following, and I have to blame the leaders for that because they hoarded the information."

Statehouse reporter Yvonne Wenger contributed to this report. Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]. Reach Katy Stech at 937-5549 or [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].

Mobile, Ala., mayor Sam Jones gave President Barack Obama a letter Thursday urging him to have the Pentagon buy aerial refueling [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] from Boeing and a Northrop Grumman-EADS team, which would assemble its tanker in Mobile.

Splitting the contract would create nearly 100,000 U.S. jobs, help retire the existing fleet of Eisenhower-era tankers seven years earlier than planned and help pull many states out of the economic downturn, Jones said in the letter, which he delivered during a White House meeting with other mayors, according to [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].

Pentagon officials have repeatedly rejected the idea of splitting the tanker contract between the two bidders.

Northrop officials have complained that the draft tanker request favors Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker over the Northrop-EADS team's Airbus A330-based plane.

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Toricks a écrit:Le Mayor ( le maire ) Sam Jones de Mobile - Alabama- écrit au président américain en lui demandant de partager la commande entre A et B.

Mobile, Ala., mayor Sam Jones gave President Barack Obama a letter Thursday urging him to have the Pentagon buy aerial refueling [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] from Boeing and a Northrop Grumman-EADS team, which would assemble its tanker in Mobile.

Splitting the contract would create nearly 100,000 U.S. jobs, help retire the existing fleet of Eisenhower-era tankers seven years earlier than planned and help pull many states out of the economic downturn, Jones said in the letter, which he delivered during a White House meeting with other mayors, according to [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien].

Pentagon officials have repeatedly rejected the idea of splitting the tanker contract between the two bidders.

Northrop officials have complained that the draft tanker request favors Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker over the Northrop-EADS team's Airbus A330-based plane.

[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]

Jan. 24--New details have emerged in South Carolina concerning the financial incentives that helped lure Boeing to expand its manufacturing complex in Charleston.
The city's Post and Courier newspaper estimated the total value to the planemaker over 30 years at more than $800 million, and probably close to $1 billion.

The disclosure provides further ammunition to Boeing rival Airbusin the long-running fight over what government aid counts as illegal subsidies under international rules.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) should rule this year on a European Union (EU) allegation that Boeing has benefited from illegal subsidies, including economic-incentive packages from Washington state and Kansas.
And in the critical Air Force refueling tanker competition to be decided this summer, Boeing's supporters in Congress say subsidies to Airbus should rule out choosing its A330 over Boeing's 767.
The South Carolina incentives, agreed to in October but still not fully disclosed, should more than offset Boeing's promise to invest $750 million in establishing a second Dreamliner final assembly line.
The expansion sets up South Carolina as a major counterpart to Boeing's Washington state operations. The current North Charleston work force of about 2,800 is projected to rise to about 6,400 within six years.
Boeing did not formally announce the location of the second assembly line until after the South Carolina Legislature passed the basic incentive package.

Charleston County recently rubber-stamped the local government elements of the package and published documents with some new details, although others are still secret.
The Post and Courier itemized the known incentives:
--$270 million in upfront money from the state
--$356 million in property-tax breaks
--$47.5 million in state corporate tax credits
--$33 million for a state-funded worker-training program
--$100 million in further property-tax breaks related to the Dreamlifter aircraft that fly 787 airplane sections in and out of North Charleston.

The last of those incentives, a decade free of tax on the Dreamlifters followed by 20 years of heavily reduced tax, was part of the 2004 package that won for Charleston area two initial fuselage plants that were operated by 787 partners Vought and Alenia. Boeing inherited that incentive when it acquired the plants last year.
Though not matching the approximately $3 billion in tax breaks that Washington state gave Boeing in 2003, the cumulative total is impressive.

David Slade, the reporter who compiled the financial data, said $800 million is the minimum value of the South Carolina incentives.
"These are lowball estimates, counting only the incentives we could put a reasonably firm value on," he said.
Elements that were difficult to value without more information -- including a $1-per-year lease on the site owned by the local airport authority, a 30-year freeze on a portion of the property-tax assessment at 2008 levels, and sales-tax exemptions for building materials, computers and fuel -- were left out.
"I would expect the (final) value is well above $1 billion," Slade said.

Should these buckets of cash properly be called incentives (legal) or subsidies (illegal) under WTO rules?

Leaks to the news media indicate that the WTO's interim ruling against Airbus found government support for various infrastructure projects around Airbus plants in France and Germany to be illegal.
When the WTO rules in the parallel EU case against Boeing subsidies, Airbus Americas Chairman Allan McArtor expects a similar outcome.

He said the South Carolina incentives should also be considered illegal.
"Of course these are subsidies," McArtor said. "No wonder Boeing asked to keep the details of the package confidential.
"We'll be watching closely to see if Boeing's recent enthusiasm for the WTO process translates into compliance with what the WTO will have to say," he said.
Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said the South Carolina incentives were reviewed in advance "to ensure compliance" with WTO rules.

"Incentive programs of general applicability are permissible," as long as they reflect the interests of the state granting them, rather than a specific company or industry, Neale said.
"The property-tax breaks, for example, are available to any company that meets certain thresholds for investment in South Carolina. Alenia and Vought got the same breaks in 2004. Airbus could get them if it chose to build airplanes in the state."
Neale's final argument is that state incentives "will not run afoul of WTO obligations unless they are so large and of such scale that they will distort the market."

The EU claims against Boeing allege almost $5 billion in illegal subsidies from Washington and Kansas.
While that figure may be highly inflated, a further $1 billion from South Carolina adds fuel to the legal fire.

60 years and counting for airplane tax break.

Speaking of Boeing and tax breaks, a reader asks whether it's "truth or urban legend" that when the company delivers a new plane to a customer, "the buyers and Boeing executives go on the delivery flight and sign the paperwork after they clear Washington state airspace to avoid state sales tax."
Boeing spokesman Jim Proulx responds that "it's a myth."

A more complete answer is that no such legerdemain is necessary. That's because since 1949, state law has exempted aircraft, railroad cars and watercraft from Washington sales tax if they are destined for interstate or foreign use. Components for these vehicles are also exempt.

The exemption, worth an estimated $135 million in state and local taxes this year, "recognizes that firms engaged in interstate transportation could take delivery of such equipment outside of the state and thereby avoid retail sales tax with minimal cost," according to the state Department of Revenue.

Department spokesman Mike Gowrylow says that exemption is often cited when talk turns to closing tax loopholes, but the department considers it "unlikely" the avoided taxes could be collected.
"It just doesn't work out in the real world -- they would just ship them out to customers out of state, overseas, and you'd end up without anything anyway," he says.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., is blocking Senate approval of Obama Administration nominees for top federal jobs over the Air Force's aerial refueling [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] fight, according to media reports.
A spokeswoman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] the Mobile (Ala.) Press-Register that Shelby had placed a "blanket hold" on all administration nominees.
Shelby spokesman Jonathan Graffeo responded to the Press-Register with a statement saying the senator had placed holds "on several pending nominees."
Fellow Republican Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions already has holds on two Pentagon nominees over the tanker, but a blanket hold is a rare move.
Shelby, Sessions, Northrop Grumman and Northrop tanker teammate EADS have complained that the draft tanker request for proposals favors Boeing's smaller 767-based plane over the Northrop-EADS Airbus A330-based offering. Northrop officials have said the company wouldn't bid on the contract without changes.

PARIS, 8 fév 2010 (AFP)

Le ministre français de la Défense Hervé Morin a "rappelé" lundi à son homologue américain Robert Gates qu'il
espérait que le groupe européen EADS bénéficierait de "conditions d'égale concurrence" dans la compétition pour le renouvellement des avions ravitailleurs du Pentagone.

2010 AFP

Jeannot a écrit:C'est pourtant la seule solution qui tienne vraiment la route.

WASHINGTON, 9 février (Reuters) - L'armée de l'air américaine prévoit de publier prochainement mais pas avant le 23 février les termes définitifs de son appel d'offre pour le contrat de renouvellement de sa flotte d'avions ravitailleurs.
EADS (EAD.PA: [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]) s'était associé à l'américain Northrop Grumman (NOC.N: [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]) pour affronter Boeing (BA.N: [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]) sur ce marché d'un montant total de 50 milliards de dollars (36 milliards d'euros) portant sur 179 avions.
Northrop et EADS avaient remporté le contrat en février 2008 mais celui-ci avait été annulé après un recours de Boeing sur les critères d'évaluation des offres.
Northrop a fait savoir le 1er décembre que le projet d'appel d'offres favorisait Boeing et qu'il se retirait du dossier, à moins que l'US Air Force n'y apporte des modifications substantielles.
L'US Air Force a annoncé lundi son intention de publier un appel d'offre à prix fixe pour le développement de nouveaux avions ravitailleurs dont quatre prototypes et des options portant jusqu'à 175 appareils en production sur la base de modèles existant au rythme de quinze appareils par an.
Northrop a indiqué que sa position n'avait pas changé et qu'il examinerait les conditions définitives lorsqu'elles seraient publiées.

USAF issues KC-X update, ignores Northrop demands

The US Air Force has issued a "presoliciation notice" for the KC-X tanker contract that suggests at least two of the three changes demanded by the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien]/[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] North America team will not be incorporated in the final request for proposals (RFP).
The notice released on 8 February on the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] precedes the publication of the final RFP, which the notice says will not occur before 23 February.
The [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] plans to award a fixed-price contract for the four-year development phase, the notice says.
[Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] that the USAF adopt a traditional "cost-plus" contract policy for KC-X, arguing the fixed-price plan makes the contractor assume all of the risk of schedule delays and cost overruns.
For its part, [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] supports the USAF's fixed-price approach for the KC-X development phase. "Even though it's [a] firm-fixed-price [strategy], I believe there is shared risk," says Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft, speaking on 3 February at the Singapore Airshow.
The notice also appears to indicate that the performance requirements for the KC-X aircraft will be based on the existing KC-135R. For example, the USAF calls for a fuel offload capability "at least as good as the KC-135R".
The USAF's decision to make the KC-135R the baseline for its desired performance for the KC-X tanker has raised concerns for the Northrop/EADS team, which is proposing the KC-45 (formerly known as KC-30). The tanker version of the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] airliner is significantly larger than the [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien], which is one of the aircraft Boeing could propose. Both aircraft are larger than the KC-135R.
How the final RFP will address the Northrop-led team's third major concern is left unclear by the presolicitation notice. Northrop executives have criticized the draft RFP for evaluation criteria heavily focused on price, calling the strategy a "race to the bottom".
The presolicitation notice says the contract will be awarded on a "best value" basis, in which price can be balanced against performance and risk.
Northrop is not backing off of its threat to withdraw from the competition.
"Northrop Grumman feels that the draft RFP, as structured, fails the test of true competition and, without a responsive set of changes, is not an RFP to which Northrop Grumman can respond," the company says in a statement.
Boeing referred questions about its response to the presolicitation notice to a [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] on 9 February.
"We must offer and deliver an American designed and built combat-ready tanker at the lowest cost to the taxpayer," Boeing says. "And in 15 days, Boeing will do just that."

LYNNWOOD — Three out of three analysts agree: The Boeing Co. likely will land the U.S. Air Force tanker contract.

“Boeing will get the first round,” said Michel Merluzeau, managing partner with G2 Solutions. Boeing’s “767 is going to be the winner of a competition.”

Merluzeau spoke Tuesday at the Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance annual conference in Lynnwood. Analysts Richard Aboulafia, with the Teal Group, and Scott Hamilton, with Issaquah-based Leeham Co., also agreed that Boeing is poised to win the roughly $35 billion tanker contest. Doing so would secure Boeing jobs on the 767 line here in Everett for years into the future.

Boeing is competing against duo Northrop Grumman and EADS for the contract to replace the Air Force’s aging KC-135 aerial refueling tanker fleet. The Air Force said Monday that it won’t release its final requirements until Feb. 23 at the earliest. This is the Air Force’s third try at awarding the contract, and it’s the first in a series of three competitions the Pentagon plans to hold.

Boeing’s chances at winning the tanker contract could get a significant boost if Washington’s Rep. Norm Dicks succeeds Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., as chairman of a powerful House appropriations defense subcommittee. Murtha, who died Monday, had been a strong supporter of splitting the Air Force contract between Boeing and Northrop.

Murtha’s death “was the tipping point,” the Teal Group’s Aboulafia said. “This is ... a slam dunk” for Boeing.

Dicks is now the senior Democrat on the committee and is expected to be chosen by the House Democratic Caucus to succeed Murtha. He is a strong Boeing supporter and the company is atop the list of his campaign contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Northrop Grumman was also a major Dicks contributor, according to the nonpartisan organization.

Boeing offered the Air Force a tanker based on its Everett-built 767 jet in the last contest. The Air Force, however, initially selected the larger KC-30 tanker, based on an Airbus A330 airplane, offered by Northrop and EADS. But the Pentagon halted the contract after government auditors found flaws in the contest.

The Air Force released a fresh draft of requirements for the tanker last fall. Northrop’s chief executive Wes Bush has complained that the new rules favor Boeing’s smaller KC-767 aircraft. The company has threatened to drop out of the competition unless the Pentagon makes significant changes to the final requirements.

Analyst Hamilton doesn’t think the Air Force will make those changes. He agrees with Northrop’s Bush that the Air Force seems to want Boeing’s KC-767 this time around.

“I do think there is a high likelihood that Northrop will not bid,” he said.

That would pave the way for a Boeing win. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told members of Congress last week that the contest will proceed even if Northrop and EADS drop out.

Although Northrop looks to be on the losing end of this contest, don’t count the defense contractor or the KC-30 out of future contests, Merluzeau said. The Air Force showed a clear preference for the KC-30 in the previous round, he said.

“I don’t think the KC-30 will go away,” he said.

La présidence d'une commission du Congrès américain sur les dépenses du Pentagone devrait échoir à un élu de l'Etat de Washington, berceau de Boeing, en compétition avec [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] pour un contrat sur les avions ravitailleurs de l'US Air Force, a annoncé un chef démocrate du Congrès.

"Si tout se passe comme d'habitude, le représentant démocrate Norm Dicks de l'Etat de Washington (nord-ouest) prendra la tête de la commission" de la chambre des représentants chargée de répartir le budget du ministère de la Défense, a indiqué le chef de la majorité démocrate à la chambre des représentants, Steny Hoyer, mercredi.
M. Dicks succèderait à John Murtha, décédé lundi.

"Je pense que (Norm Dicks) présidera la commission adroitement et efficacement. Il va travailler à faire en sorte que la sécurité du pays soit une priorité et que nos soldats soient entendus", a ajouté Steny Hoyer.

L'équilibre économique de l'Etat de Washington, que représente Norm Dicks à la chambre des représentants, est fortement dépendant de la santé du constructeur aéronautique Boeing, l'un des plus gros employeurs de la région.
M. Dicks a toujours farouchement défendu les intérêts du constructeur à Washington.

Boeing est engagé dans une féroce compétition avec l'Européen EADS pour un contrat de 35 milliards de dollars portant sur 179 avions qui renouvelleront la flotte de ravitailleurs de l'armée de l'Air américaine.

Le contrat avait d'abord été attribué par le Pentagone à EADS et Northrop Grumman en février 2008. Mais Boeing avait contesté la décision et déposé un recours auprès de la Cours des comptes américaines, qui avait tranché en sa faveur, recommandant que la compétition soit relancée.

Le Pentagone a renouvelé depuis son appel d'offres.

Pentagon will consider changing fixed-price tanker rules

Pentagon officials Thursday put in writing a pledge to revisit fixed-price requirements for the aerial refueling [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] request.
Executives from both Boeing and Northrop Grumman have complained that the draft request's provisions for an 18-year, fixed-price contract put too much risk on the bidders because the planes aren't fully developed and it's pretty much impossible to predict costs 18 years out.
Pentagon officials have countered that the tankers use mature technologies, but have said they would revisit the criteria. They addressed the issue in writing Thursday, in their [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] to questions from potential bidders, Pentagon officials.
Specifically, the Pentagon addressed questions about the 18-year, fixed-price term.
"Contractors, and their suppliers, do not establish rates or business models that far into the future, and will be forced to become speculative in nature on a number of cost elements," a potential bidder wrote, asking: "Why does the USAF believe that contractors can sufficiently estimate their costs that far into the future."
In response, the Pentagon wrote: "The government will consider restructuring the production options to reduce contractor risk."
Pentagon officials so far have resisted calls from Northrop and its main tanker partner, EADS, to revise criteria they say skew the request toward of Boeing's smaller 767-based tanker and against their Airbus A330-based offering. Northrop officials have said they won't bid without such changes.
The Air Force [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] it will release a final tanker request for proposals as soon as Feb. 23

Tanker now; tanker-transport later?

A new Pentagon report could hint at the outcome to the upcoming Air Force aerial refueling [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] competition, an analyst [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] Thursday.
The 2011-2040 [Vous devez être inscrit et connecté pour voir ce lien] submitted with the 2011 fiscal-year budget says (page 21):

The Air Force plans to develop and procure 109 new KC-X tankers by 2020. It will be able to refuel other aircraft in flight, and be refueled itself while airborne, transferring fuel to either boom or drogue receivers without having to be reconfigured for those deliveries in advance.
Over the longer term, the Air Force will evaluate options for recapitalizing its tanker fleet and assess the potential of including secondary capabilities, such as airlift, communications support, and aeromedical evacuations.

Such "secondary capabilities" are a key selling point for the Northrop Grumman-EADS Airbus A330-based tanker. Northrop officials have said they won't bid on the current tanker request without changes because they feel it favors Boeing's smaller 767-based offering.
Pentagon officials have said they don't plan major changes from the draft for their final request, which could come out as soon as Tuesday.
"The AIP, in the two short paragraphs about the KC-X, appears pretty clear: tanker now, secondary capabilities later," analyst Scott Hamilton wrote.
The draft request clearly puts little premium on the extra cargo space that the Northrop-EADS tanker offers, and Pentagon officials seem unlikely to change that.
When they get around to asking for a larger tanker-transport, I imagine Boeing will put forward a 777-based offering. How that would that stack up against the Northrop-EADS plane might, again, depend a lot on how the request is written.