It's interesting reading the comments about Boeing losing the Air Force tanker bid to Northrup-Grumann. The New York Times has an article today, and the Lean Manufacturing blog Evolving Excellence provides some acerbic commentary. It's amazing the posturing that Boeing is going through. It tried to rig the bidding a few years ago, and that resulted in a suspended bid, jail time and bad publicity all around. Then, after the company has laid off tens of thousands of employees and outsourced the construction of its latest aircraft, the 787 Dreamliner, to companies many of whom are outside the US, it is now playing the "patriotic" card saying the jobs to build the tanker should stay in the US. Looking at the Boeing track record, it's no sure bet that the jobs would stay here. Meanwhile, Airbus, who will be building the new tanker, will build them in the US in Alabama by expanding its existing facility hiring more people.
The other Boeing argument that I just read is that the Air Force changed the specs to allow N-G to bid a bigger plane. We call that crying in your beer. Have you ever been involved in bidding that sort of contract? I have. At one company I worked at, I was the engineering guy part of the bidding team for government vehicle contracts. I'd go through the specs and re-write them to favor our products. The sales guy's job was to convince the agency that the specs I'd written were better than the generic specs that they had. Even better was when we were first and could get the bid specs to reflect our specs. That's the game. It was pretty high stakes for us--sometimes making the difference between annual profit and loss. It's higher stakes in this case, but it's the same game. Boeing tried to cheat, got caught, got punished, now is trying to find a political way to circumvent the system. Trouble is, when we say Boeing, we're really referring to a few people in a Chicago office tower. This reflects poorly on the thousands of loyal and talented Boeing employees who try to do a good job for such bumbling executives at HQ.
One other thing I'd factor in to the buying equation if I were the procurement officer is the constant slippage in the 787 project. This ambitious supply chain is full of holes. It's a project manager's nightmare. Evidently the digital tools are not yet quite sufficient for undertaking such a huge project. Company managers are still making presentations about how great the new system is at the same time as news comes out about further delays. As a manufacturing professional, it pains me to see that a design that won the business of the world is being subverted by manufacturing problems. I hope the first one rolls out this year. It doesn't look as though it will.
It's interesting reading the comments about Boeing losing the Air Force tanker bid to Northrup-Grumann. The New York Times has an article today, and the Lean Manufacturing blog Evolving Excellence provides some acerbic commentary. It's amazing the posturing that Boeing is going through. It tried to rig the bidding a few years ago, and that resulted in a suspended bid, jail time and bad publicity all around. Then, after the company has laid off tens of thousands of employees and outsourced the construction of its latest aircraft, the 787 Dreamliner, to companies many of whom are outside the US, it is now playing the "patriotic" card saying the jobs to build the tanker should stay in the US. Looking at the Boeing track record, it's no sure bet that the jobs would stay here. Meanwhile, Airbus, who will be building the new tanker, will build them in the US in Alabama by expanding its existing facility hiring more people.
The other Boeing argument that I just read is that the Air Force changed the specs to allow N-G to bid a bigger plane. We call that crying in your beer. Have you ever been involved in bidding that sort of contract? I have. At one company I worked at, I was the engineering guy part of the bidding team for government vehicle contracts. I'd go through the specs and re-write them to favor our products. The sales guy's job was to convince the agency that the specs I'd written were better than the generic specs that they had. Even better was when we were first and could get the bid specs to reflect our specs. That's the game. It was pretty high stakes for us--sometimes making the difference between annual profit and loss. It's higher stakes in this case, but it's the same game. Boeing tried to cheat, got caught, got punished, now is trying to find a political way to circumvent the system. Trouble is, when we say Boeing, we're really referring to a few people in a Chicago office tower. This reflects poorly on the thousands of loyal and talented Boeing employees who try to do a good job for such bumbling executives at HQ.
One other thing I'd factor in to the buying equation if I were the procurement officer is the constant slippage in the 787 project. This ambitious supply chain is full of holes. It's a project manager's nightmare. Evidently the digital tools are not yet quite sufficient for undertaking such a huge project. Company managers are still making presentations about how great the new system is at the same time as news comes out about further delays. As a manufacturing professional, it pains me to see that a design that won the business of the world is being subverted by manufacturing problems. I hope the first one rolls out this year. It doesn't look as though it will.
7:23:03 AM 
|
|
