Apparently, we should all be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) that 15 former and current EADS and Airbus executives are facing a host of charges.

All related to the ongoing cover-up of why Airbus can’t build an actual airplane in attempts to mislead investors.

[p.s. it's all about the Supply Chain, folks! EADS/Airbus supply chain looks like the cantina scene in that Star Wars movie. When you throw in all the "stakeholders" with competing objectives (including multiple companies and unions and politicians in a large number of countries) that have to be synchronized, it's quite a mess. Even by European standards; and that's saying something!]

the other steve

the other steve

Apparently, somewhere in the middle of this “rational, objective process” members of the selection team realized/were told that the rules/criteria as currently written would result in Boing being the clear winner.

Presto, Change-O, the rules/criteria were re-written to give Grumman the edge.

From Wall Street Journal article this morning, apprently there is more to Boing’s complaint than would meet the eye.

1. The “footprint” issue was rewritten (the selection team had to assume bigger tarmacs and larger runways to make the issue go away!!!! Steve B called that one)

2. The costs were “recalibrated” to favor GrummEads (the team arbitrarily added costs to the Boing proposal . . . WTF,O?!)

3. Relative capabilities were “re-baselined” (to put an emphasis on cargo capacity, favoring GrummEads)

4. Delivery/Performance/Schedule criteria were “relaxed” and “re-baselined” (making them less important, again, taking away a Boing advantage- Steve S. called that one)

However

I still think it’s a hoot that Boing is complaining . . . apparently, the scandal they were involved in on the first proposed tanker deal (that McCain scotched) was the key reason why the team had to go into this round “not-favoring-Boeing” which led to the funny math they used to give the edge to GrummEads.

What was that Vonnegut used to say? “And So It Goes?”

the other steve

Yes, I had noticed that a Republican had also come out in opposition to the Northrup-Grumman deal.

When I wrote about the “national Democrats” I was referring to those on the national stage, seeking nation election. The Rep was covered under the section where I wrote about individual Congressmen working for the narrow interests of their constituents.

Apparently EADS is already in the news for not being able to deliver on promises/commitments made on the major wing assemblies.

Cripes, can you even renege on a contract you haven’t even gotten yet? My head hurts!

(I never did well in those “sound of one tree falling” classes during my undergrad studies)

the other steve

Oh wait- McCain wasn’t “implicated” in the scandal; he was the driving force behind “identifying and fixing” the scandal so that must not be newsworthy.

Side Note: The subject of the scandal was “The Tanker Deal.” What a laff riot now for Boing to be suing for “lack of preferential treatment!”

Yikes.

the other steve

One other key issue – perhaps *the* key issue – has to do with the “bang” (vs. “buck”) side of the issue.

The assumptions were (from AF Times and other sources) that the NorthGrumm aircraft provided more “capacity per aircraft” than the Boing version. However, “operational capacity” is a slippery concept.

Do fewer, bigger aircraft really represent the same capacity as more, smaller aircraft? Even if the (more x fewer) = (less x larger) on paper, in a very real sense more & smaller is better on a lot of levels (try covering as many ARCPs with a single big airplane as a couple of small airplanes- D’OH!). And how much capacity is lost when you lose one? “Et” as it were “Cetera.”

One can only hope that at some level, at least early on in the process, all of these issues were addressed professionally and rationally.

But we all know better.

Also, anyone who thinks politics *didn’t* play a part in biasing the selection toward the NorthGrumm decision is delusional.

And, Oh By The Way, don’t count on delivery performance from the AEDS partner. Airbus is great for designing paper airplanes, and notorious for not being able to build them. Coordinating the vacation/strike/etc. schedules among EU partners is quite the kabuki dance. Yeah, multinational cooperation is a contradiction in terms. Long, complex supply chains that involve the coordination among multiple economic and political entities (including NGOs) are fraught with inefficiencies.

Again- great paper airplanes- but you don’t go to war with the weapons you have contracted for; you go to war with the weapons you have on the ramp.

And while Boing has their own problems in that regard, they have the reputation of being the lesser of the two evils.

Of course, *all* of these issues were addressed rationally and professionally without political interference . . .

the other steve