Appel d'offre des ravitailleurs de l'USAF
| Auteur | Message | |
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 5 mars 2008 12:03 | |
|
Je suis délibérément mais objectivement polémique à ce stade ! Car Boeing l'est ! Il conteste un résultat, quand il avait toutes les chances de gagner le match. Ce sont les mauvais perdants, battus loyalement, qui contestent et introduisent la polémique ! Comment voulez-vous que les réactions ensuite ne soient pas polémiques, à leur tour ? La différence, c'est que nous restons dans l'axe des faits, et du résultat, découlant d'une évaluation objectivement effectuée, sans entrer dans un système de fiction, de dés pipés, et de DPO ! Votre raisonnement est absurde, car il repose sur ce qui 'aurait dû être', à vos yeux, et non pas sur ce qui, de fait, et de droit, fut l'ensemble des Termes de Référence (mêmes termes de référence) pour les protagonistes , TdR qui avaient déjà été approuvés au préalable par les Lawmakers ! Que voulez-vous de plus ? Votre raisonnement commence à relever de la mauvaise foi, Lightweight ! Il faut savoir lâcher prise ! (Message édité par sevrien le 05/03/2008 12h37) |
||
 
|
||
|
SINTEX
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 5 mars 2008 13:00 | |
|
Mr Lightweight, j'ai lu avec beaucoup d'intérêt vos analyses, et avec non moins d'intérêt les éléments de sevrien. J'en ai retenu que pour une mission de pur ravitaillement, le KC 767 est sans doute une bonne offre, peut-être même plus optimisée dans certains cas que le 330, ce qui ne va pas de soi pour un européen plutôt Airbusophile comme moi, j'en conviens  . Par contre je n'ai pas pu faire le lien entre votre argumentation et les besoins opérationnels du client, réels et actuels. Vous ne parlez juste que d'un document, sans doute caduc, et sans doute rédigé sous l'influence B, comme l'évoque Sevrien.Il me parait quand même assez bizarre que Boeing fasse semblant de découvrir un critère (ou son poids) aussi majeur de l'évaluation après tant d'année de RFQ. Même dans l'affirmative, il faudrait plus y voir un aveuglement maladif issu de certitudes venues d'avoir sans doute rédigé les spécifications initiales à deux mains, puis piraté la consultation une première fois, que la malhonnêteté intellectuelle des décideurs de l'USAF. Enfin, ceux-ci, qui doivent quand même comporter quelques experts, auraient-ils pris cette énorme responsabilité (essentiellement politique et affective, car du point de vue éco / emploi et technologique, les USA n'y perdent rien et ils pourront le démontrer lorsque la tempête sera calmée) à la légère? J'ai du mal à le croire. _________________ Si on doit vivre dans le monde de Philip K DICK, au moins donnez nous les voitures volantes |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 5 mars 2008 13:49 | |
|
Bonjour Chiffres Biaisés à la Randy, depuis le début par Boeing ... la comission à rectifié ! point ! Même les estimations de poids à vide sont bien improbables des 2 côtés ... Pas annoncées avec NG, ou le seul poids de ref est le 330-200 équipé pax et sièges, et le F de l'autre, ... et un assemblage de morceaux de 300-400, chez Boeing, vraiment sur le papier ... ! Difficile d'asséner des chiffres crédibles, ni de démontrer qq chose que ce soit sur le forum, dans l'état des coms actuelles ! Si chiffres il y à , et validés , ils viendront des release de la commission ! JPRS paris _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
freddu56
Inscrit le 19/01/2008 |
# 5 mars 2008 14:06 | |
EADS Power !!!!  Boeing la vraiment mauvaise !!! _________________ vive l' armée française |
||
|
|
||
|
SINTEX
Inscrit le 18/07/2007 |
# 5 mars 2008 14:22 | |
|
EADS n'aurait rien pu faire sans NG... coopération power _________________ Si on doit vivre dans le monde de Philip K DICK, au moins donnez nous les voitures volantes |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 5 mars 2008 14:25 | |
| Exact. | ||
|
|
||
|
piste331
Inscrit le 27/11/2005 |
# 5 mars 2008 14:42 | |
| BOEING est un mauvais perdant jl gallois menace de taper tres fort si boeing continu à empecher le contrat , europe pas content de la reaction de boeing mise en garde ! vu sur I tele à 12 h 15 | ||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 5 mars 2008 15:37 | |
|
Bonjour Bon .... boeing veut avoir accés aux dovuments, ce sera fait, pour décider de son appel éventuel .. Et les sénateurs du coin veulent poser des questions à la commission USAF, à la chambre ... c'est tout pour l'instant ! Ne pas en rajouter non plus pour l'instant !! WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Under mounting pressure from lawmakers and a top Pentagon leader, the Air Force on Tuesday agreed to speed up a briefing with Boeing Co <BA.N> about why it lost a $35 billion aircraft contract to Northrop Grumman Corp <NOC.N> and its European partner EADS <EAD.PA>. Tight-lipped since it got the bad news on Friday, Boeing on Tuesday demanded immediate answers, calling the Air Force's plan to delay the briefing about the lucrative contract until March 12 inconsistent with procurement practices. Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Norman Dicks, both Democrats from Washington state, said the meeting would now be slated for Thursday, and would help Boeing decide whether to protest the contract award, which has sparked a political firestorm. Attendre qq jours, si Boeing juge son dossier vraiment défendable ils appeleront ... et s' ils ont assez d'appuis au congrés ... mais pas sûr !! les voix Rép sont du Sud ! http://www.easybourse.com/Website/dynam ... 38d6abc456 JPRS Paris _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 5 mars 2008 17:16 | |
|
Voici un texte complet lié à la demande d'un "debriefing" souhaité par Boeing, avec mes commentaires en caractères italiques gras. Texte écrit, visiblement, par des juristes, ... mais il ne s'agit pas , à ce stade de protestation, même s'il y a des exagérations poussant dans ce sens ! ---------------- lien : http://www.boeing.com/ids/news/2008/q1/080304b_nr.html Texte : Boeing Requests Immediate KC-X Tanker Briefing ST. LOUIS, March 04, 2008 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today made public a request for an immediate debriefing from U.S. Air Force officials on the KC-X tanker competition. As of today, the company has yet to receive a briefing on why it was not selected for the KC-X program, a decision the Air Force announced February 29. The Air Force has indicated that the briefing would occur on or after March 12, a delay the company says is inconsistent with well-established procurement practices. Faux ! La seule chose qu'on puisse dire, .. c'est que les événements politiques ("primaries") et le contexte "ultra-chargé" militent en faveur en un délai de quelques jours supplémentaires. Et Boeing le sait ! -------------- "A delay of this length in the formal debriefing is unusual," said Mark McGraw, vice president - 767 tanker programs. "Consistent with past practice and recent experience, we would expect this briefing to occur within days, not weeks, of the selection announcement. Big deal ! "8 jours" ! Il exagère ! On dirait Harry STONECIPHER ! Et lui, ... c'est du passé ! ----------- Given that we are already seeing press reports containing detailed competitive information, we feel that our request is more than fair and reasonable." Non ! "Fair & reasonable", .. ni plus ni moins ! ------------- Boeing viewed the tanker competition as a priority and an opportunity to give the Air Force the best tanker to meet its requirements. Dans ce cas, Boeing aurait dû mieux "coller" aux Termes de Référence ! (TdR) ------------ The company based its proposal on the stated criteria in the Air Force's Request For Proposal (RFP), the formal document that defined the requirements for the air tanker system. Oui ! Mais la perception, notée par plus d'un expert, plus d'un "Observateur -Expert", ... plus d'un Analyste, ... tous américains, ..... est que Boeing avait une manière bien particulière d'aborder les TdR, ... en portant bien les lunettes de vue de Boeing, et non pas celles adaptées à une lecture précise ert appropriée des TdR ! -------------- "We bid aggressively with specific focus on providing operational tanker capability at low risk and the lowest total life cycle cost," said McGraw. "For instance, based on values disclosed in the Air Force press conference and press release, the Boeing bid, comprising development and all production airplane costs, would appear to be less than the competitor. Faux ! Nous ne parlons pas de "absolute value one-mission costs", mais "comparative, apples-to-apples full-life-cycle costs"! -------- In addition, because of the lower fuel burn of the 767, ... Faux ! ....we can only assume our offering was more cost effective from a life cycle standpoint. Hypothèse et conclusion fausses. -------------- "Initial reports have also indicated that we were judged the higher risk offering. Boeing is a single, integrated company with its assets, people and technology under its own management control -- with 75 years of unmatched experience building tankers. So what ? Northrop and EADS are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they've never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides. We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher risk offering. Boeing va le découvrir ! Il est bon que Boeing fasse ces déclarations à chaud ! Cela permet à l'USAF de bien préparer, .. encore mieux préparer, .... ses réponses et "debriefing" à froid ! --------------------- "Initial reports also indicate there may well have been factors beyond those stated in the RFP,... " Non ! Suggestion futile, infondée et pouvant être 'construite' ou interprétée / "construed" comme de la mauvaise foi,... et que Boeing pourrait avoir à retracter, ... et à regretter ! ------------------- .....or weighted differently than we understood they would be, used to make the decision. Boeing est seul responsable de ses supputations erronées et infondées (salut, dupont ! ) ! Boeing aurait pu obtenir les renseignements prélabmlement à toute question, posée en toute transparence, ... par écrit, ... avec copie pour NG-EADS, et qui aurait reçu une réposne de l'USAF, ... avec copie, en toute tgransparence, ... pour NG-EADS ! Ceci est le problème de Boeing seul, tout seul, et ni de l'USAF ni de NG -EADS ! Souvenons-nous de la question : "Was Boeing Listening?" It's important for us to understand how the Air Force reached their conclusion. The questions we are asking, as well as others being raised about this decision, can best be answered with a timely debrief indicating how our proposal was graded against the stated requirements of the RFP," said McGraw. Bien sûr, ... et l'USAF lui donnera surement toutes les réponses ! ------------------------------ Tout ce qui précède ci-dessus, de la part de Boeing, est du vent, ... juridiquement du vent ! Boeing ne devrait pas avoir recours à ce genre de procédé ! (Message édité par sevrien le 06/03/2008 09h28) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 5 mars 2008 17:30 | |
|
Bonjour Pas pu résister Sévrien ... sorry je tape dans votre post t  "Initial reports have also indicated that we were judged the higher risk offering. Boeing is a single, integrated company with its assets, people and technology under its own management control -- with 75 years of unmatched experience building tankers. SVP : WAS !! So what ? Northrop and EADS are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they've never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides. We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher risk offering. Aprés leur glorieuse histoire d'assemblage du 787, ils savent de quoi ils parlent !! rigolos ou désespérés !!! Sévrien, il y en à qui montent au créneau pour sauver leur tête .. Mrs ... il faut faire qq chose ou dehors !!!! Réponse JPRS, et peut être USAF : Mrs , apprenez à lire un Cahier de Charges , surtout s'il y à un concurrent ... Plus l'habitude de concourir vraiment ???? JPRS Paris (Message édité par Beochien le 05/03/2008 17h37) _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 5 mars 2008 17:54 | |
|
Oui, Beochien ! --------------- Je ne veux pas polémiquer, ... ùmais Boeing nous y pousse ! Pour éviter que nous sombriens dans le piège Boeing, voici un article de Busines Week, qui nous permettra d'éviter d'y plonger ! ------------------ Désolé pour le flooding, et l'anglais, ... mais ce document est quasiment une analyse 'historique' ------------------- Lien : http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf ... page_2.htm Texte by Keith Epstein Boeing (BA) executives, bewildered at losing a multibillion-dollar contract for a fleet of refueling tanker aircraft, are girding for battle as they lay legal groundwork for kicking up a more official fuss—the filing of a formal protest of a U.S. Air Force decision to buy from Northrop Grumman (NOC) and partner European Aeronautic Defence & Space (EAD.PA). But even with billions at stake, shares tumbling, and an anticipated dent in earnings, there are some good reasons why Boeing shouldn't complain—and just might not. Sources say these downsides, too, are being debated in the company's executive suite and that no decision on a protest will be made until after a Pentagon briefing on the matter. Explains one Boeing source: "We certainly wouldn't want to aggravate our customer"—the Air Force. Even crafting a statement the company issued Mar. 4 proved painstakingly tedious, as insiders strived to strike a balance in tone. Voir post ci-dessus, Aujourd'hui, 05/03/2008, à 17h16. Executives wanted to convey their sense that the company was misled by the Air Force. If Boeing had known the Air Force was seeking a plane with more fuel-carrying capacity and cargo space, say company insiders and a congressional source, it would have based its proposal on the larger Boeing 777 instead of the 767. The statement by Mark McGraw, Boeing's vice-president for 767 tanker programs, sidestepped some of the details but got to the point: "There may well have been factors beyond those stated in the [Air Force request for proposal], or weighted differently than we understood they would be, used to make the decision." Boeing also complained about having to wait until Mar. 12 for a formal briefing on why it was not selected, but on Tuesday won an earlier hearing—Mar. 7. The company then has 10 days to decide whether to file a formal protest. Congress will get some answers first; two top Air Force acquisition officials, Sue Payton and Lt. Gen. John "Jack" Hudson, will defend the Northrop Grumman/EADS choice at a Mar. 5 hearing of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee. Patchwork Planes The realities are complex. A protest could add yet another yearlong delay to replacing the military's aged fleet of KC-135 Stratotankers. These Dr. Strangelove-era airborne gasoline stations first entered service in the 1950s and are routinely falling apart and patched up. Yet they remain critical to U.S. global warfighting because they enable U.S. fighter jets and bombers to continue missions rather than return to aircraft carriers or bases. A protest also could prolong attention to a series of embarrassments and turbulence for Boeing in recent years, including a scandal involving an earlier replacement tanker bid. Boeing also had troubles delivering tankers to other countries. And development of its high-tech "virtual fence" along the U.S.-Mexican border has been plagued with so many problems that deployment is now stalled. Boeing has had difficulties on the commercial airliner side as well. Delays in the 787 Dreamliner over the last six months have depressed the company's stock. The tanker deal, while potentially worth $100 billion over its life, amounts to a less impressive revenue source on an annual basis. But it represents one of the largest military aircraft contracts in modern times, and comes at a point when projected sales increases for Boeing's defense unit are modest—only about $1 billion above the current $32 billion a year. Even before the Gulf War, the nation's fleet of Stratotankers was stretched thin and at risk of having trouble with failing parts and systems that would ground too many tankers at once. Some of the planes have plywood floors, cockpit windows that come loose, and cracks in the landing gear—among countless other costly maintenance headaches. Putty holding parts in place sometimes give the planes the appearance of having Band-Aids, which is essentially what they are. Before each Stratotanker takes off, a maintenance crew must check hundreds of items on a list the size of a phone book. The inspections require eight hours, compared with only two hours for the average modern jet. Sometimes, mechanics unable to find replacement parts have had to improvise their own. Once, in 2003, parts fell from a landing KC-135, prompting repairs to flaps on 14 planes. Strategic risks and soaring maintenance costs made the Air Force eager for a new fleet—years ago. But bureaucracy and scandal delayed acquisition, most recently in 2003 when the Air Force, after a congressional investigation spearheaded by Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), halted an order to lease 100 tankers from Boeing. Prepare for Hearings The Air Force now intends to "debrief" Boeing on Mar. 7, providing a detailed explanation about whyBoeing lost the contract. Boeing then has 10 days to file a protest with the Government Accountability Office. A decision from the GAO, which has adjudicated a rising number of protests from defeated contractors in recent years, could take 100 days. If Boeing persists in a protest, the public noise surrounding the controversial award won't likely subside, either; the railing of Boeing supporters, Presidential candidates on the campaign trail, and grumbling by labor unions in recent days would likely have echoes in congressional hearings, possibly leading to still more delays in replacing the nation's refueling tankers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Mar. 4 that Congress will schedule hearings on the Air Force decision. Pelosi said in a statement that the award to Northrop Grumman "raises serious questions that Congress must examine thoroughly." While the Air Force has declined to disclose details of its extensive internal deliberations over the tanker contract, the choice may have been easier than advertised. Boeing, in fact, may have been woefully far behind. Loren Thompson, a Lexington Institute defense analyst well connected and widely respected in the Pentagon, said Mar. 3 that "Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome." While both Boeing and Northrop Grumman satisfied requirements established by the Air Force, Northrop was clearly the better buy. With Northrop, the military could have "49 superior tankers operating by 2013," Thompson said, while Boeing's proposal would give it "only 19 considerably less capable planes" by then. Measuring Up the Aircraft World markets, politicians, labor unions, and others may have been stunned by the upset, but Thompson insists that "Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop in a single measure of merit"—not in flight range, fuel capacity, speed of delivery, or cost. "Boeing would have to find a lot of problems to overturn this outcome," Thompson tells BusinessWeek. The Northrop tanker carriers 250,000 pounds of fuel, compared to 202,000 on Boeing's—a crucial difference considering that refueling tankers must often circle for many hours when military operations require. Thompson's information, which he disclosed Mar. 3, irritated Boeing officials, who are now seeking ways to craft a delicate statement that criticizes the military for speaking with Thompson and some members of Congress before explaining in detail to the company why it lost. Thompson, for his part, is a longtime military analyst with deep ties to the top military brass and defense contractors. Boeing executives also are said to be troubled by a "disconnect" between what the military said it wanted and the reasons given by the Air Force for why it chose Northrop. Now Boeing must wait a week before hearing from the Air Force the detailed reasons for its defeat. Air Force officials are eager to put the controversy behind them and secure the tankers they need. And, in considering a protest, Boeing may risk delaying an overdue overhaul of the U.S. military's airborne backbone to refight a battle it can't win. Epstein is a correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau. ------------------- Voila ! |
||
|
|
||
|
LightWeight
Inscrit le 28/12/2006 |
# 5 mars 2008 18:44 | |
| Les chiffres que je cite n' ont rien à voir avec la foi. | ||
|
|
||
|
sevrien
Inscrit le 08/08/2006 |
# 5 mars 2008 19:02 | |
|
Désolé pour le doublon partiel. J'isole ces commentaires respectivement des deux analystes, Loren THOMSON (originellement un supporter inconditionnel de de Boeing et de son offre) et Scott HAMILTON, tous deux américains. Ces commentaires sont d'un genre, d'une franchise, d'un "non-nationalisme", que nous n'avons jamais, ... jamais... vus en France (sauf si l'on nous le démontre,.. nous le priouvbe, .... "chapter & verse" à l'appui) par des experts français, sur une offre dans le domaine militaire / de la défense, en France ou dans une quelconque publication française. Les Américains, dans ces mêmes domaines, n'ont pas l'habitude de "démolir leur camp ou leur pays" ! Ici, c'est la combinaison d'une profonde déception et d'une incrédulité, plus de l'objectivité professionnelle d'usage, qui est réfléchie ! J'écrirai à Richard ABOULAFIA. A mes yeux, son silence est troublant et éloquent ! Il est généralement objectif (pour tout ce qui concerne le militaire). Il doit être secoué, ... incrédule, ... devant la manière dont Boeing s'est acquitté de sa tâche ! RA ne contredira pas par caprice les deux autres analystes mentionnés ciè-dessus ! ------------------------------ Lien : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ker04.html Extraits de texte (article de Dominic GATES, Seattle Times). Boeing beaten on tanker must-haves By Dominic Gates Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute : On the five specific criteria used to decide the winner, Thompson wrote, "Northrop Grumman's victory was not a close outcome. ... The Northrop-EADS offering was deemed much better in virtually all regards." Thompson, ..... said in an interview Monday that Air Force officials "were very convinced early on that there were problems with the Boeing proposal." According to his conversations with officials, said Thompson, "Northrop offered a superior proposal in every measure and Boeing simply did not do a competent job of presenting its case." His memo listed the five key criteria as capability, risk, past performance, cost and "integrated fleet aerial refueling assessment," a score from a computer model that measures performance in various war scenarios. "Boeing didn't manage to beat Northrop in a single measure of merit," Thompson wrote. And Thompson, who was considered by EADS to favor Boeing in the competition, added this damning endnote to his memo: "The reviewers concluded that if they funded the Northrop Grumman proposal they could have 49 superior tankers operating by 2013, whereas if they funded the Boeing proposal, they would have only 19 considerably less capable planes in that year." ----------------- Scott Hamilton, an Issaquah-based analyst, who has long considered the Northrop-EADS proposal superior, described that bottom line as "astounding." Hamilton criticized Boeing's public-relations campaign during the contest for focusing on aspects such as the creation of U.S. jobs and government subsidies to EADS, rather than the merits of the two planes. "Boeing doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on for a successful protest," said Hamilton. "I think that [local] anger really ought to be directed at Boeing for putting together such a poor proposal." ------------ Aux participants de tirer leurs conclusions ! (Message édité par sevrien le 05/03/2008 19h17) |
||
|
|
||
|
Beochien
Inscrit le 13/02/2007 |
# 5 mars 2008 19:19 | |
|
Bonsoir C'était page 26, Sévrien ... Faut dire que ça va vite ... ces jours ci ! _________________ JPRS |
||
|
|
||
|
LightWeight
Inscrit le 28/12/2006 |
# 5 mars 2008 19:23 | |
|
Imaginez-vous que Boeing durant ces 5 dernières années n' ait jamais rencontré quelque responsable militaire qui lui aurait dit que finalement, l' USAF va probablement s' orienter vers plus de volume pour le fret pour son tanker? Boeing aurait donc cru que c' était une blague, au point de ne pas proposer aussitôt son 767-300 comme nouvelle base. 1er cas:Le sujet n' est jamais plus évoqué, c' était bien une blague. 2ème cas:Le sujet est revenu sur le tapis assez vite et Boeing dit non, je n' ai pas envie de construire un 767 ravitailleur plus long et je n' ai plus envie de construire de ravitailleurs, allez voir ailleurs... Etonnant non!!!... |
||
|
|
||
Ajouter une réponse
Vous devez être inscrit et connecté sur AeroWeb pour pouvoir ajouter une réponse à ce sujet !
