Jump to content

Talk:KC-X

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NGC Pulling Out

[edit]

On 8 March 2010, Northrop Grumman decided to not submit a bid for the KC-X tanker stating that they believe the new evaluation methodology favors Boeing's smaller tanker despite nearly unchanged requirements . The bolded words are the disputed addition. I removed those words becuase they are a)factually incorrectm and b)aren't supported by the source. a) NGC decided not to bid because there was little different between the draft and final RFP, not despite it. b) The source doesn't directly reference the difference between the draft and the final RFP. It says that NGC doesn't think the requirements have changed between the earlier competiton that it won and the current one. If that's the change you were talking about, then that needs to be said it a much different way. It would need to note that it's only NGC saying that they "feel" like the requirements haven't changed; the actual requirments have change substantially (to favor the smaller tanker). Does that make sense? -SidewinderX (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It mainly seems the evaluation criteria has changed and fixed price provisions were added compared to 2008/09 RFP. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that NG deciding to nobid is the only factual area that is reportable on the wiki page. The page probably shouldn't get so complicated that it explores the requirements of the warfighter... but of course we do have the collective talent here to do so. So in a nutshell the customer decided that they really want a white car, not an off white car but with a bonus big trunk, and Northrop cannot supply a white car, so they pull out. What is reportable? Northrop pulls out. In this case, the customer wanted a plane that Northrop has decided it cannot supply as efficiently as Boeing. From the nobid, "[the customer's] selection methodology defined in the RFP...clearly favors [a] smaller refueling tanker... Northrop Grumman fully respects the Department's responsibility to determine the military requirements for the new tanker. " [1] Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that since we have some reliable info on "why" they pulled out that is worth including as it answers a question that a casual reader may have. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that, but what I think all of us are questioning is what is reliable. We certainly can't use NG as a source that says "Hey, you guys are fixing the bid for Boeing and changing the requirements!" That would not be reliable. I put a quote directly from Northrop as to why (NG/Airbus believes they cannot supply the plane the AF wants), what is your suggestion? Sliceofmiami (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the quote is attributed to the company then that is fine: "Northrup Grumman claimed that they pulled out because..." - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So "Northrop Grumman claimed that they pulled out because...'[the customer's] selection methodology defined in the RFP...clearly favors [a] smaller refueling tanker.'" I'm not sure that is a neutral statement. The "clearly" word is from Northrop's point of view, not from a NPOV. Sliceofmiami (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the point of attributing the quote, quotes don't have to be NPOV and in fact almost never are as they represent one party's opinion. Basically if you write "NG pulled out because..." and cite NG then yes that has an NPOV issues, but if you write "NG say that they pulled out because..." then that is clear that it is their opinion and may just be a spin they are putting on it. If another source claims that NG pulled out for some other reason then that can be added as well and will help balance the article, if it is available. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=186116

Indian bait and switch

[edit]

The problems in India are reported to be clearly related to the KC-X contract. EADS built the Indian sales into their pitch for making the American plant feasible, then simply never delivered. Hcobb (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best in the A330 article, but certainly shouldn't be here, as A330 co-production had no bearing on the competition itself. - BilCat (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This detail has nothing to do with the technical aspects of the EADS Tanker. It was a side deal that EADS signed so that they could bid a lower price for the KC-45 because the cost of building the facility would be spread over more total airframes. Without the Indian contract the tankers have the same capabilities, but higher per-unit costs simply because the overhead is less spread out. Hcobb (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a side deal related to production, not the competition itself. It's only commone sense to try to spread out costs. In effect, Boeing has done that for 30 years with the KC-767. I'm not sure why Airbus didn't just sell them A330s off the European production line, but considering the source, that's no suprise to find shoddy reporting. Hopefully we'll get better details in other sources. - BilCat (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different article on the same story, and a bit more understandable. From that source, it appears that Flyington Freighters was the fist customer of the A330-200F, but the first delivery has been to Etihad Airways. That, and the fact they should have been delivered over 2 years ago, appears to be the issue here, which was not celar at all from the first source, if only because of TLDR syndrome - I tried to read it all, but it was quite a chore! - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fact. Fact. Fact. Fact. Opinion. Fact.

[edit]

Spot the odd one out. For some reason, there is a paragraph dedicated to Loren Thompson's opinion, leading with the incredibly meaningless weasel "subtle pattern of bias". I'm surprised I have to seek permission on the talk page to remove it, it's so egregious. In the entire section, that is the only opinion piece linked, a piece which spends most of its time muckracking on EADS subsidies, yet forgetting what the WTO said about Boeing. It makes the article look really NPOV doesn't it, the inclusion of solely his opinion. Pianosoon (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't spot the odd one out, it's this. Pianosoon (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humm, looks like a duck, duck, goose game. ;) Only the first sentence with "subtle pattern.." is really opinion. The second sentence is correct. The Senate hearings did delay the review meetings with contractors. The first sentence can go as far as I'm concerned. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the Senate hearings is too limited in temporal scope to stand anyway. Hcobb (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the phrase that noted the almost inconsequential, "tennis club" sentence meted out to Michael Sears, and supplied a cite. The amount of the intended theft to be achieved by rampant corruption in the larcenous deal would have been a $100 billion overcharge to taxpayers. There are over 200 prisoners in California doing life in prison for shoplifting. In that sort of context, I would think the Sears sentence would be notable for its astonishing leniency, even in this era of corporate wrist slaps. Activist (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20071114184441/http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 10:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on KC-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on KC-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on KC-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on KC-X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:KC-X&oldid=1203227698"