Im with Boeing(you can tell Im very Boeing but still fair)on this. The grading system used often had handicaps against Boeing that were clearly unreasonable compared to the standard used with the Airbus. The Airforce has neglected to admit they were aware of the financial crisis at Airbus and that the EU has now injected 8.1 Billion dollars in 2 years just to keep it going. The British bailed on Airbus at a loss this past fall. Yet, they claim Boeing was a higher risk offering. How??? Financilly stable and strong performer that delivers more aircraft per years than airbus, at a profit, no less! Secondly, The aircraft submitted by Airbus is not yet even a true tanker. The A330MRTT aircraft sold to Australia and UAE in 2004 and still being tested and not yet in series production doesn’t even hold 180,000lbs of fuel for offload. The A330KC is only a concept whereas the 767 tanker is a reality with the only change required for the USAF was to lengthen the fuselage by a few feet, move a door and change the lower deck height. The air force now claims they wanted more multi role capabilities although Boeing viewed the tanker competition as a priority and an opportunity to give the Air Force the best TANKER to meet its requirements. The company based its proposal on the stated criteria in the Air Force's RFP, the formal document that defined the requirements for the air tanker system and not a Multi role tanker transport(MRTT) which was expected to be a requirement in a future RFP for the second award in which Boeing planned to submit a version based on the 777-300ER platform which outperforms its A330 rival in every category, especially in the higher and heavier use freighter category. The 777 would have won hands down, no question. Longer range, higher lift capacity, more advanced avionics and could be developed more quickly than the A330 version. I might add that Boeing received 2 years added penalty to the development time although Boeing has already essentially built them already for Italy and Japan with the only delays coming from their Japanese and Italian partners. In Italy’s case, much of the production is coming back to the US as Their Italian partner has consistently failed to meet deadlines. This was done to keep the Airbus proposal competitive. Nor did it matter that there wasn’t even an Alabama Assembly facility yet or that the Airbus and Nothrup-Grumman partnership was solely to give Airbus the legal means to bid on the project since they were otherwise prohibited by law from doing so. When is the last time NG actually designed and built a new plane?? If they want an actual tanker, Boeing was the only choice, If they wanted an MRTT the Airforce should have said so from the beginning. And why was France, Germany and NATO allowed to lobby for Airbus directly to the Pentagon and Senator Sessions? Is this nothing more than Corporate or even NATO welfare? Cant have Boeing’s only competition going out of business now can we? Things that make you go “hmmmmmm”
Boeing has not yet delivered the Dreamliner on time, and their virtual fence for the border has been a TOTAL disaster. So the AF should contract with Boeing because why????
Originally posted by SgtSchaeffersMom: Boeing has not yet delivered the Dreamliner on time, and their virtual fence for the border has been a TOTAL disaster. So the AF should contract with Boeing because why????
The Boeing tanker is based on the 757 which has been in production for a very long time now. It is a prooven airframe. Boeing has been building tankers for decades going back to aircraft like the KB-50 and KC-135. They know what they are doing.
I'm behind everyone on the topic of let's buy American. I am, however, sort of puzzled that Boeing found this as a surprise when they were found guilty of contract fraud on the original tanker contract, having to pay a $615 million fine for their shennanigans.
Unless the feds, who generally walk around with their heads stuck squarely in the south end of a north bound anatomy, disqualified Boeing, then the original fraud deal should have no bearing.
Someone got rich on this deal. Politician?? Nah, all our politicians are honest. Right??
I am slightly biased, I worked for Boeing for nearly 12 years and understand they methodical and deliberate processes used to produce only high quality products. The just in time and lean processes assure cost savings without loss of quality. Besides, made in America should be the final checkbox on ANY military contract. how can a foreign company guarantee secure communications between divisions and departments dealing with mac III sensitive and mission critical information??? Give it to Boeing and get it done right the first time!!! ALOHA Boeing Maui!!!
There was a time when government restrictions prohibited the purchase of military equipment outside the US as well as the purchase of any parts for military equipment manufactured outside the US...guess those days are long gone...
Originally posted by TheOnlyTink: There was a time when government restrictions prohibited the purchase of military equipment outside the US as well as the purchase of any parts for military equipment manufactured outside the US...guess those days are long gone...
Absolutely Kim! But that was all before so many Republicans got on the Democratic bus of a one world system.
Right--let buy American so we can continue to throw our tax dollars down the drain. Don't get me wrong--I'm all for making sure our jobs stay in the US but don't tell me that Boeing doesn't outsource some of its work overseas. When was the last time Boeing delivered a tanker to the AF? Sure wasn't yesterday--I believe about 40 years. Boeing is having problems delivering eight tankers to Italy and Japan. Italy was supposed to get their first taker back in 2005 and now it looks like they might get them out sometime during the second quarter of 2008--maybe. The AF was probably offered an old design (767-200) which came out back in the early 80s. Don't worry--we'll all be in wheel chairs (or dead)when those 179 tankers get delivered.
WE ARE JUST GUESSING RIGHT NOW AS TO WHY WE DID NOT GO WITH BOEING ON THIS CONTRACT. EVEN THOUGH BOEING DOES BUILD A QUALITY PRODUCT, THERE MAY BE GOOD REASONS WHY THEY (AIR FORCE) DIDN'T GO WITH THE 767 AIRFRAME.
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER WHY THEY WENT AGAINST THE PROVEN TANKER COMPANY ON MARCH 12th. HANG TIGHT 'TIL THEN.
Why did Boeing submit the 767 airframe when that production line is scheduled to close for lack of any new comerical orders. Did they think they had it wrapped up and could use the Air Force Tanker contact to extend production on an obsolete aircraft that the airline are no longer buying? Maybe it is about time the military sends a message that US companies should not take for granted and submit a second rate product and assume they will still best a foreign firm....
I'll probably get thrashed here, but from my understanding the AF told Boeing they did not want another tanker based on the 757 airframe. When the AF tells you they don't want a 757 and you still give them a 757 they are going to look elsewhere.
Sgt Mom (ducking away now to avoid punches thrown)
Everything becomes a little clearer, I realize what life is all about. It's hangin' on when your heart has had enough, It's giving more when you feel like giving up. ~ In My Daughter's Eyes, Martina McBride
People seem to forget that the process for contract selection is not a "good ole boy" system. There are strict rules and procedures on grading a contract. It could have been a million reasons, but rest assured, with such a high profile/high cost contract, they followed the rules!
Puck them! 
