US reopens $35bn air tanker deal

The US government has reopened a $35bn (£17bn) contract to supply the US Air Force with refuelling tankers, which had been given to European group EADS.

BBC

It looks like all the whining and gnashing of teeth from Boeing has won then? i wonder how much they had to donate to the polititions "campaign funds" as well?

No, the USAF screwed the pooch. Again. The GAO found 8 pretty significant irregularities that gave extra points to NG/EADS over Boeing. This is the third time that this has been tried. This time the USAF has no say in the decision (thank god) and the Undersecretary of Defense makes it for them by December.

The irony is that the GAO found no fault with the decision that the KC-330 was the better option, just with how the USAF came to that conclusion.

With this in mind couldn't common sense prevail this time and just allow the programme to move ahead to avaoid more stupid delays?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
This time the USAF has no say in the decision and the Undersecretary of Defense makes it for them by December.

Ahh...


A Boeing win then.

You would think waynos, but I'm not holding my breath. This has been going on for over 7 years already and there's STILL no tanker anywhere near ready to enter service.

reply to post by kilcoo316


Not necessarily. They HAD to remove the USAF from the decision though. They've had two shots at this and blown them both consistantly.

Boeing may have managed to delay the new awarding of the contract. They're considering proposing the KC-777 instead of the KC-767, or using the 767-400 instead of the 300 hybrid. The -400 was originally decided against because of the possibility of the boom hitting the ground on take off rotation, but Boeing has supposedly found ways around this, including a longer take off roll.

If you read Boeing's blog, one of their main problems was that the Air Force requested a certain size airplane (about the 767 size). Airbus offered a bigger plane and they gave them extra points because their airplane was bigger while the original request was for a smaller aircraft. I think their argument goes to they say they wanted Apples, we gave them apples but they decided they wanted oranges and didn't tell us.

According to Boeing a smaller plane will provide better fuel efficiency and a better cost advantage that was acknowledge by the Air Force itself.


Boeing Blog Tanker Facts

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

You do not give such a large project to an overseas company.

NEVER!!!!

Those jobs need to stay here in the states..period. The government needs to let the US workers reap the benefits of this deal.

This is to be one of the largest contracts in recent years, no way it goes to the damn EADS, I don't care who the payed off.

Originally posted by wolf241e
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

You do not give such a large project to an overseas company.

NEVER!!!!

Those jobs need to stay here in the states..period. The government needs to let the US workers reap the benefits of this deal.

You do realise that a large part of the Boeing aircraft is actually built overseas and not in the US at all? Whilst not all of eads aircraft is built in the US it will create jobs there.

Boeing want to delay the awarding of the contrat - i can see the DoD not letting them - if boeing want to offer the kc-777 (which is even bigger than the kc-45) then they need to get a move on

Originally posted by carcharodon
If you read Boeing's blog, one of their main problems was that the Air Force requested a certain size airplane (about the 767 size). Airbus offered a bigger plane and they gave them extra points because their airplane was bigger while the original request was for a smaller aircraft. I think their argument goes to they say they wanted Apples, we gave them apples but they decided they wanted oranges and didn't tell us.

According to Boeing a smaller plane will provide better fuel efficiency and a better cost advantage that was acknowledge by the Air Force itself.


Boeing Blog Tanker Facts

Boeing is putting an awful lot of spin on this - the RFP that the USAF put out did not mention aircraft sizes at all, and Boeing has a vested interest in pitching the 767 (they are currently ticking the 767 production line over at 1 aircraft a month - compare that to the top selling 777 and 787 lines which are going to be full for the next 3 or 4 years).

Boeing themselves made the decision to pitch the 767, no one else.

Boeings talk about a smaller aircraft providing better fuel efficiency has been debunked elsewhere - they conveniently gloss over the fact that the KC-30A would be carrying significantly more than the KC-767.

Originally posted by wolf241e
I've said it before and I'll say it again...

You do not give such a large project to an overseas company.

NEVER!!!!

Those jobs need to stay here in the states..period. The government needs to let the US workers reap the benefits of this deal.

This is to be one of the largest contracts in recent years, no way it goes to the damn EADS, I don't care who the payed off.

If you had followed any of this you would know that it's going to create jobs in the US if EADS gets the contract. They're partnered with Northrup Grumman. The parts of the plane are going to be built overseas (just like Boeing does and will continue to do) and they will be put together and converted into the tankers in Mobile, Alabama. They're also going to be building A330Fs at the same plant. So you will probably see MORE jobs created if they get the contract than if Boeing does.

Have you ever looked into Boeing's production? They build most of the plane overseas, and put it together in Seattle. Look at the 787.....

Japan:
Short fuselage section in front of wing, fixed trailing edges, center wing box, wings (excluding leading edge).

Italy:
Horizontal stabilizer, top of central fuselage, fuselage section behind wings, (including cargo door from Sweden).

England:
Landing gear.

Tulsa and Wichita:
(Spirit Aerosystems owned by Canada) Nose and cockpit section, attaches landing gear to the nose, adds cargo door to front section, leading edges of wing, pylons for the wings.

Texas and South Carolina:
Aft fuselage, including passenger door from France, attaches mid fuselage from Japan, wing to body fairing from Canada, forward passenger door from France.

Boeing Australia:
Movable trailing edge, inboard flaps.

Wichita Canada:
Wing to body fairings from panels made in China, main landing gear doors, aft pylon fairing.

Frederickson, Pierce County:
The only portion of the plane built in Puget Sound is the vertical fin, rudder and leading edge of the fin from China are incorporated.

That's a lot of the airplane built in other countries right there. So much for Boeing creating jobs.