[snova]

The Dems are claiming that Boeing's original bid was sabotaged by the Republicans, so...who's interference for what now?

[emuffette]

Oh, and I don't believe Boeing's claims that they'll be cheaper over the long run. Boeing, like all the other defense contractors, always promise the moon and the stars and roses out of their asses and none of it ever comes true. They all low ball their bids then milk the cost over runs for every penny.

And so does Airbus.

SUPPLIES!@!!!

[gghrdfffhfyj]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm sure Airbus will also over run costs but they start out $5 billion cheaper. So we have 5 billion reasons to go with them. A more logical conclusion is the numbers they give out as estimates are horseshit.

The Boeing is based on the 767, the Airbus on the A330. The passenger A330 is a more expensive plane than the passenger 767, by about $10M per unit. And the KC-767's unit costs are about $30-40M cheaper than the passenger unit's.

So I find it hard to believe the A330-based bid can be so much lower. Given that the GAO found suspect accounting involved with the bid, I think it's wrong to assume it'll be cheaper...

[gernica]

Originally posted by Oerdin
To be fair moving much of the production, 60% to be exact, to the US lows them to produce things a lot more cheaply especially since the dollar has been falling so steadily for so long. It wouldn't make that much difference and it'd also help Boeing as well.

[PWRichard]

While costs are important, the importance of costs is dwarfed by the importance of getting our service people the best quality equipment. That is nice in theory, but in reality there are only so many dollars to go around. So it is actually a balance between getting the best equipment and making sure we can afford enough of that equipment to go around.

[SHUSIATULSE]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Oh, and I don't believe Boeing's claims that they'll be cheaper over the long run. While the rest of this statement is certainly true, the Boeing plane, by the very fact it was smaller, would cost less to operate and maintain. So, over some amount of time that would start to work in it's favor. Whether that timeframe was within the scope of the proposal, I cannot say.

[vypusknye]

Thanks Lefty. Again, it looks like the right thing is being done here and it was wrong to jump to conclusions...

where the agency during the protest conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost;

This is the part that's more important, I think. It also counters Oerdin's claim about the Airbus being cheaper. It was something I found suspect just by doing some basic research. Maybe if people in government and the geosciences had the due diligence of some all-star like myself, we wouldn't be living in such a ****ed up political/geoscience world.

[Peptobismol]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


While the rest of this statement is certainly true, the Boeing plane, by the very fact it was smaller, would cost less to operate and maintain. So, over some amount of time that would start to work in it's favor. Whether that timeframe was within the scope of the proposal, I cannot say. That would entirely depend upon how much Boeing charged for parts and service along with how often parts needed replacing. It wouldn't be the first time parts wore out faster then the manufacturer claimed.

[WGRocky]

The reality is the accounting is ****ed and you refuse to admit it. This is the reality.