Cale Ramaker's Blog

Boy a lot of skepticism on Capitol Hill today from both Republicans and Democrats regarding the bailout of Wall Street. At times it appeared some Legislators didn't believe what Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was saying about how dire things are. Question is...do you believe what you're hearing?

This one is a doozy! Check out what a crack "inspector" with the Transportation Security Administration did overnight at Chicago's O'Hare Airport...Plenty of comments possible from this story...

A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officer was conducting routine checks to make sure that planes parked at the airport overnight were secure from tampering, according to the federal security agency and American Airlines, which owns and operates American Eagle.

But while ensuring that aircraft doors were locked properly, the inspector either stepped onto or grabbed sensitive avionics probes mounted on the fuselage of nine American Eagle planes, officials said.

"There is a sign that clearly says, 'Don't step,' " said American spokeswoman Mary Frances Fagan.

The grounding of the nine planes caused 40 flights to be delayed for American Eagle, a commuter airline that operates many short flights around the Midwest.

The security agency will retrain its inspectors to prevent a future occurrence, TSA spokesman Elio Montenegro said. But Montenegro also said, "Our inspector was following routine procedure for securing the aircraft that were on the tarmac."

A lot of talk in our afternoon news meeting today (Wednesday, July 23) about public sentiment maybe changing somewhat towards Casey Anthony and especially her mother, Cindy.

 

There's no getting around that this is a terrible story...a tragedy perhaps. After her testimony in court yesterday and the sudden discovery of a voice mail tip that little Kaley was seen at the airport back on July 2, are you not as sympathetic to Cindy? Are maybe you're even more heartbroken for her - as a mother and a grandmother in the midst of a miserable situation.

Times are tough. There's little doubt this is the worst I've seen the economy (and pretty much everything else) since I became a working adult. Like you, I've tried to find some areas to cut back or conserve. But apparently the politicians who run Orlando don't see it that way.

 

The Mayor and the City Commissioners are discussing increasing property taxes 21%! That would essentially wipe any and all savings from the doubling of the homestead exemption. As one city politican put it - people in Orlando have become accustomed to top-notch services and they want to keep it that way.

 

I don't know...I bet a lot of you who live in Orlando would rather see the elected officials earn a little more of their salary and find ways to save at least some, if not all, of the $30 million dollars the city is short on. Afterall isn't that what you're trying to do at home?

If Melbourne is going to play a role in building the U.S. Air Force's next generation aerial refueling tanker, folks are going to have to wait awhile longer...and hope they don't lose out to Boeing in the end.

The General Accounting Office (the GAO - the investigative arm of Congress) just ruled in favor of Boeing's appeal on the awarding of the $35 billion dollar aerial refueler contract to Northrop Grumman/Airbus. The Air Force's decision, announced in late March,  was a stunner! Boeing appealed on the grounds that the Air Force broke many of its own rules by giving unfair advantage to the Northrop/Airbus proposal. The GAO agrees...and you can read the announcement below.

What does this mean for the potentially hundreds of well paying jobs headed to Melbourne? They may never show up. While the GAO's ruling is non-binding, the Air Force is expected to start anew with the competing bids. If the Air Force doesn't - Congress now has the GAO's report as evidence to force the Air Force's hand by withholding funding.

Going beyond this development and which manufacturer truly offers the best deal for US taxpayers - the matter (for many) really comes down to this: do Americans want their next generation Air Force tanker to be built by a German/French consortium (Airbus) and modified by Northrop Grumman - or by Boeing, a US-based company that's built aircraft, including tankers, for our military for decades? 


United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
Office of the Comptroller General
of the United States

Statement Regarding the Bid Protest Decision Resolving the Aerial Refueling Tanker Protest by The Boeing Company
B-311344 et al., June 18, 2008

The Boeing Company protested the award of a contract to Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation under solicitation No. FA8625-07-R-6470, issued by the Department of the Air Force, for KC-X aerial refueling tankers to begin replacing its aging tanker fleet. Boeing challenged the Air Force's technical and cost evaluations, conduct of discussions, and source selection decision.
Our Office sustained Boeing's protest on June 18, 2008. The 69-page decision was issued under a protective order, because the decision contains proprietary and source selection sensitive information. We have directed counsel for the parties to promptly identify information that cannot be publicly released so that we can expeditiously prepare and release, as soon as possible, a public version of the decision.
Although the Air Force intends to ultimately procure up to 179 KC-X aircraft, the solicitation provided for an initial contract for system development and demonstration of the KC-X aircraft and procurement of up to 80 aircraft. The solicitation provided that award of the contract would be on a "best value" basis, and stated a detailed evaluation scheme that identified technical and cost factors and their relative weights.  With respect to the cost factor, the solicitation provided that the Air Force would calculate a "most probable life cycle cost" estimate for each offeror, including military construction costs. In addition, the solicitation provided a detailed system requirements document that identified minimum requirements (called key performance parameter thresholds) that offerors must satisfy to receive award. The solicitation also identified desired features and performance characteristics of the aircraft (which the solicitation identified as "requirements," or in certain cases, as objectives) that offerors were encouraged, but were not required, to provide.
The agency received proposals and conducted numerous rounds of negotiations with Boeing and Northrop Grumman. The Air Force selected Northrop Grumman's proposal for award on February 29, 2008, and Boeing filed its protest with our Office on March 11, supplementing it numerous times thereafter. In accordance with our Bid Protest Regulations, we obtained a report from the agency and comments on that report from Boeing and Northrop Grumman.  The documentary record produced by the Air Force in this protest is voluminous and complex. Our Office also conducted a hearing, at which testimony was received from a number of Air Force witnesses to complete and explain the record. Following the hearing, we received further comments from the parties, addressing the hearing testimony as well as other aspects of the record.
Our decision should not be read to reflect a view as to the merits of the firms' respective aircraft. Judgments about which offeror will most successfully meet governmental needs are largely reserved for the procuring agencies, subject only to such statutory and regulatory requirements as full and open competition and fairness to potential offerors. Our bid protest process examines whether procuring agencies have complied with those requirements.
Our review of the record led us to conclude that the Air Force had made a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman. We therefore sustained Boeing's protest. We also denied a number of Boeing's challenges to the award to Northrop Grumman, because we found that the record did not provide us with a basis to conclude that the agency had violated the legal requirements with respect to those challenges.

Specifically, we sustained the protest for the following reasons:
1. The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation, which provided for a relative order of importance for the various technical requirements. The agency also did not take into account the fact that Boeing offered to satisfy more non-mandatory technical "requirements" than Northrop Grumman, even though the solicitation expressly requested offerors to satisfy as many of these technical "requirements" as possible.
2. The Air Force's use as a key discriminator that Northrop Grumman proposed to exceed a key performance parameter objective relating to aerial refueling to a greater degree than Boeing violated the solicitation's evaluation provision that "no consideration will be provided for exceeding [key performance parameter] objectives."
3. The protest record did not demonstrate the reasonableness of the Air Force's determination that Northrop Grumman's proposed aerial refueling tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing tanker-compatible receiver aircraft in accordance with current Air Force procedures, as required by the solicitation.
4. The Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing, by informing Boeing that it had fully satisfied a key performance parameter objective relating to operational utility, but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective, without advising Boeing of this change in the agency's assessment and while continuing to conduct discussions with Northrop Grumman relating to its satisfaction of the same key performance parameter objective.
5. The Air Force unreasonably determined that Northrop Grumman's refusal to agree to a specific solicitation requirement that it plan and support the agency to achieve initial organic depot-level maintenance within 2 years after delivery of the first full-rate production aircraft was an "administrative oversight," and improperly made award, despite this clear exception to a material solicitation requirement.
Page 2
6. The Air Force's evaluation of military construction costs in calculating the offerors' most probable life cycle costs for their proposed aircraft was unreasonable, 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; where the evaluation did not account for the offerors' specific proposals; and where the calculation of military construction costs based on a notional (hypothetical) plan was not reasonably supported.
7. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated non-recurring engineering costs in calculating that firm's most probable life cycle costs to account for risk associated with Boeing's failure to satisfactorily explain the basis for how it priced this cost element, where the agency had not found that the proposed costs for that element were unrealistically low. In addition, the Air Force's use of a simulation model to determine Boeing's probable non-recurring engineering costs was unreasonable, because the Air Force used as data inputs in the model the percentage of cost growth associated with weapons systems at an overall program level and there was no indication that these inputs would be a reliable predictor of anticipated growth in Boeing's non-recurring engineering costs.
We recommended that the Air Force reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and make a new source selection decision, consistent with our decision. We further recommended that, if the Air Force believed that the solicitation, as reasonably interpreted, does not adequately state its needs, the agency should amend the solicitation prior to conducting further discussions with the offerors. We also recommended that if Boeing's proposal is ultimately selected for award, the Air Force should terminate the contract awarded to Northrop Grumman. We also recommended that the Air Force reimburse Boeing the costs of filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable attorneys' fees. By statute, the Air Force is given 60 days to inform our Office of the Air Force's actions in response to our recommendations.
Information about GAO's bid protest process can be found at www.gao.gov.

A few minutes ago I got an e-mail from US Airways. I don't have but a few thousand miles in their Dividend Miles program. Thank God! US Airways is now adding a $25 "Award Redemption Processing" fee to all award tickets. Wanna go to Hawaii? The fee is $50 per award ticket. 

So there is now officially no longer a free ticket on US Airways. American Airlines initiated a somewhat similar move a few weeks back but American kept it's highest elite frequent fliers exempt; US Airways isn't. If I were a frequent flier of US Airways who flew tens of thousands of miles a year with them, I'd be irate! 

I just hope to heck that Northwest Airlines, or it's eventual successor Delta, doesn't try the same thing. I've got a pile of miles with Northwest as I've flown them nearly exclusively over the past ten years. To this point Northwest has been very good at keeping a very frequent flier like me exempt from its fees. But US Airways is proving it doesn't care how many miles you've flown with them - your free ticket is no longer free. 

My last blog on the matter of last Friday's massive jump in oil prices got quite the response! There is a lot of anger out there about gas prices and...it's justified!

I'm linking (below) a very interesting article published in last Friday's Washington Post. It's worth the read. Honestly I learned something I had no idea about: hedge funds and big banks actually buying huge oil contracts because of a loophole in the federal law. Kudos to the Post's David Cho for reporting some very interesting information.

LINK TO STORY

I know what you're saying: This is getting ridiculous! Just as it appeared oil prices might be nudging their way down, they have shot up with vigor. Why? A report this Friday morning from one guy with Morgan Stanley saying prices will reach $150. One guy? That's according to a report from the Associated Press. 

The A.P. credits (or in our case it would be chastises) Ole Slorer, a oil futures analyst with Morgan Stanley, for leading the $7 a barrel price charge to start the morning. Apparently Slorer wasn't happy enough with the over $5 a barrel gain from yesterday? That's over $12 in two days!!! And who says are prices are not being driven, at least in part, by speculators?

I couldn't resist getting this one on the blogs (even though I've been home wrestling with a nasty stomach flu). 

Must be gettin' close to election time. The Hollyweird political know-it-alls are out with their "If _______ (usually a Republican candidate is used here) is elected, then I'm moving to Canada or ______." Congratulations to actress Susan Sarandon who appears the first to issue such an edict for 2008!

Sarandon, who along with actor/activist husband Tim Robbins, hates Republicans. Guess there's nothing wrong with that - she is entitled to her opinion. Even Hollywood has a small clan who hate Democrats. I think most of America already knows how much Sarandon and her fellow Hollyweird Democrats hate President Bush. But Sarandon also hates John McCain. Hence the following:

"If John McCain is elected, I will move to Italy or Canada. It's a critical time but I have faith in the American people."

What? Susan, I thought you already moved out of the good ol' U.S.A. Didn't you issue the same threat in 2000 and then again in 2004? I could swear you were already living in Canada, Italy, Belgium, Sweden or Utopia. Guess I must've confused you with the hundreds of other actors/actresses who placed the same edict. Sorry for being confused but I could've sworn you threatened the American people before.

All kidding aside...There is one thing seriously that probably gets your blood boiling. It's Sarandon's second line: faith in the American people (to do the right thing). Who is she? Is she speaking down to me? Is she some expert on politics that you or I could never be? Where does Sarandon get off on talking to her fellow Americans like she's some political prophet? Then again if you break down the quote and her threat to leave the starts and stripes, maybe she's condescending to us because she's already left the country. 

We've been hearing time and again how speculators are not responsible, or even partially at fault, for driving up the price of crude oil. That defense took a big hit over the weekend.

George Soros, one of the world's richest men and a huge financier, called out speculators. Soros believes the record price for oil is a bubble, driven largely by speculators who are using every little bit of negative news to drive up the price even higher.

The cure? It isn't a good one. Soros believes we need a true recession in the United States which will curtail demand even further and likely cause the U.S. dollar to eventually start to rise against foreign currency. I've linked his interview below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money
/2008/05/26/cnsoros126.xml

Legislators were back at work this Wednesday, holding more hearings on oil and gas prices. They brought back the fat cats (aka the top executives) from U.S.-based oil companies.

We heard tough questioning. We got pretty much the same answers from the oil companies: it's the market. 

Aren't these hearings just a waste of time? Can anything be learned from these events? Maybe you think they're just another dog and pony show.

Seeing oil prices going to $130 a barrel earlier today, I briefly tried to think of any positive news going on for our country. Sure there's some pockets of positive news...but doesn't it seem like we're all ____'d? You can fill that in...

Somebody out there get me off the ledge!

I've got a new, pathetic example of corporate America nickle and diming. Believe me this is good...

 

My friends at Chase Bank issue one of my credit cards. I've made a habit of always paying on-line and on the due date. This past Sunday I log-on just after 4:30pm to pay my balance in full. Before I can finalize the payment I get a notice from Chase that for the payment to post on the due date - I have to pay a $14.95 expedite handling fee!!!

 

Apparently Chase, one of the world's largest banks, doesn't have the technology to post a day-of payment after 4:00pm. Of course you know that's garbage and it's REALLY another way of milking money out of customers. 

 

So I was left with a choice: either pay the $14.95 absurd fee - or not pay it and have Chase post my payment in full the following day and assess a late fee and interest! I paid the $14.95.

 

It's worth noting that Chase is the only financial institution I use that milks me like this. American Express, US Bank and Discover all post payments the day of up till 11:59pm. But Chase tries to play it off that after 4:00pm, it simply cannot process the payment until the next day. Needless to say I won't be using my Chase card again!

 

I'm sure I'm not the only one with a pathetic story to tell...

How about $125 a barrel for oil? Well known oilman T. Boone Pickens says it'll happen and he's predicting prices to surge further too. Are you kidding me? Pretty soon none of us will have a job! I guess we can thank the surging demand we hear so much about, a lack of production increase, the terrible value of the U.S. dollar (everytime it goes down, oil goes up) and speculators. 

Lawyer Gloria Allred, familiar to those of you who frequent cable network news, is now representing the victim in the Polk County teenage beating case. Allred is serving as attorney for the family of Victoria Lindsay, the girl seen on videotape beaten by several similar-aged girls.

Allred often represents people in high profile cases who may not be able to afford legal representation. Just a few days ago Lindsay's mom said she didn't have the money for a lawyer. Allred has rep'd Amber Frey, the one-time girlfriend of murderer Scott Peterson - and Paula Jones, who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harrasment. 

I think it's safe to assume we will all be seeing a lot more about this sad and equally pathetic story. Let's just hope it doesn't turn into a media circus like some of Allred's previous work.