Air Force Snubs Boeing, Orders Airbus Tankers

[Matt Molnar]

Dow Jones Newswires, via SmartMoney:

Air Force Snubs Boeing for Airbus Tankers (http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/smw/index.cfm?story=20080229043304)
Published: February 29, 2008 4:33 PM

NEW YORK (Dow Jones) -- Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. broke Boeing Co.'s lock on the market for aerial refueling tankers, winning a $40-billion contract to turn Airbus jets into flying gas stations for U.S. military aircraft, according to a person familiar with the situation.

The unexpected win will likely bolster Los Angeles-based Northrop's standing as a major contender for large programs, while also expanding EADS's foothold in the U.S. defense market.

The Air Force's decision to choose the Northrop-led team is a major setback for Boeing, particularly after Boeing lost out on a $23-billion chance to be the sole supplier of tankers in 2001 after the discovery that a top Boeing official and a former Air Force acquisition official had conducted illegal job negotiations. [Full Article (http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/smw/index.cfm?story=20080229043304)]

:shock:

[mirrodie]

:shock: to the 3rd degree!!!

[lijk604]

Nothing like helping out the US economy....NOT! :evil:

[Matt Molnar]

Well, the conversion from regular A330 to tanker will be performed in California, and they will have a good percentage of US-built parts. Still stunning though.

[Iberia A340-600]

Interesting that they will be doing the conversion in California. Currently it is being done in Spain at the EADS facility.

[hiss srq]

Wonderful, more money to Eurotrash, well done by the chincy basterds in DOD and Congress again.

[Nonstop2AUH]

I think the conversion and assembly work is going to be done in Alabama, which was smart on EADS part because southern states have a lot of pull in Washington, which is one reason why all the Japanese auto transplants set up there and not the midwest. If Airbus can also use that plant to make commerical jets with low cost US labor priced in US dollars, it will also make them much more competitive with Boeing as the strong Euro has been hurting them.

Anyway, can't say I am all that surprised. Boeing's bid was sadly still tainted by the Darleen Druyun scandal, the Airbus is obviously a newer technology aircraft than the B767, and lastly, since the government has eliminated most if not all 'buy American' provisions from its contracting, procurement processes have become the same as those used by multinational corporations - based on the best price/value tradeoff. And American companies don't always have the best price/value in a global economy. Where the jobs are and who the money goes to are not major considerations like they might have been 50 years ago when they bought those KC-135s.

The thing that bothers me about this is how they will rename the aircraft (as they did with the new Marine One) for PR reasons, to create the impression that it's not a foreign product, not sure if the thing has an official name yet but I am sure it will be referred to a "Northrop" whatever in all official communications, even if 75% or more of it is the same as the Airbus A330. Guess the folks who were pouring out their French wine and eating Freedom fries a few years ago will have to get over their biases, as the government certainly did. It is undeniably a great day for Airbus and EADS, and by extension, for France and Germany.

[njgtr82]

Airbus also had said it would possibly build a plant in Alabama to build the aircraft if they won the bid. We'll see....

[nwafan20]

Stupid stupid stupid....

:shock:

[Nonstop2AUH]

BTW as the announcement apparently came after the close of the stock market, Boeing shares tanked an additional 3.25% in after hours trading, having already been down today with the market. Will be interesting to see what it does on Monday given the number of pundits who were convinced the tanker deal was all but certain. Aside from jobs and national pride, I guess the fact that alot more americans have an investment in Boeing than they do in EADS was also not deemed relevant

[Nonstop2AUH]

From the AP article, it's Alabama, not California where the work will be done:

"The EADS/Northrop Grumman team plans to perform its final assembly work in Mobile, Ala., although the underlying plane would mostly be built in Europe."

How much you want to bet the second point will not be widely mentioned after today?

[moose135]

Well, I'm stunned to say the least. Never thought it would go to Airbus.

[wunaladreamin]

Well, I'm stunned to say the least. Never thought it would go to Airbus.
That's an understatement.

[SengaB]

It is kind of strange that the backbone of the USAF will be an non U.S. aircraft now. Even more strange is the U.S. insignia and U.S. Air Force that will be plastered on the side of the Airbus aircraft....Amazing.
I am excited about this. I'd love to see a A340-300 in USAF livery as well.

Senga

[wunaladreamin]

It is kind of strange that the backbone of the USAF will be an non U.S. aircraft now. Even more strange is the U.S. insignia and U.S. Air Force that will be plastered on the side of the Airbus aircraft....Amazing.
I am excited about this. I'd love to see a A340-300 in USAF livery as well.

Senga
I don't think I'm so excited about this. It feels quite unpatriotic. It's almost like having the President ride around in a stretch Toyota limo.

[Tom_Turner]

It does seem as though the USAF got the better aircraft for the mission though, doesn't it?

It'll at least be assembled in Alabama, and Northrop will be a part of it.

Boeing is (out of necessity) outsourcing their aircraft production anyway. What difference does it really make?

Tom

[Squirrel_PA]

Well this is not good news for the 767 program. There are a limited number of orders on the books and unless more contracts are won for the KC-767 tanker program or commerical orders the production will be doomed to the death of the 757 line.

Now if the CSAR-X program goes the way this went Boeing stock is going to tank until the 787 problems are resolved.

I am quite surprised about this decision.....

Barry

[T-Bird76]

While this isn't good news for Boeing its outstanding news for Long Island since Grumman said they will be expanding their Long Island operation adding 1000 plus jobs if they go the contract. So this is wonderful news for Grumman and Long Island!

[Mateo]

Modern aircraft are built by many suppliers in many places, but the bottom line is that profits still go back to Toulouse. Just a couple of points on things that have already received replies, since caterwauling does little good now (I'm as angry as the next guy).

1.) Congress had nothing to do with this. It wasn't a Congressional vote; it was a Pentagon contract award. The voiding of the original award to Boeing was a Congressional action spearheaded by Sen. McCain.

2.) The reason foreign auto plants largely moved into the Southeast instead of the Midwest was the anti-union culture of the South. Instead of being built by unionized Boeing employees in Washington, the boxes will be opened and the assembly done in Alabama by presumably non-union factory workers.

3.) It remains to be seen if the jobs created by the A330 assembly in Mobile offset the jobs lost by the virtual end of the 767 line in Washington.

[cancidas]

while i feel a bit dissapointed, i have to support the USAF's decision. besides, that brings me a step closer to owning one of these badboys:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6156304

[moose135]

while i feel a bit dissapointed, i have to support the USAF's decision. besides, that brings me a step closer to owning one of these badboys:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6156304

You wish, Matt...this program is to replace the 150 or so KC-135E tankers, which are used by the ANG & Reserves. They are worn out, many don't even fly anymore, they just get moved around the ramp, but can't be retired yet. That R-model in the shot you posted won't be scheduled for replacement until at least 2045, and may still be flying in 2065.

[moose135]

While this isn't good news for Boeing its outstanding news for Long Island since Grumman said they will be expanding their Long Island operation adding 1000 plus jobs if they go the contract. So this is wonderful news for Grumman and Long Island!

You have a source on that information, Tommy? According to the Northrop/Grumman website of state-by-state economic impact, it doesn't include anything for New York. While the page notes the project will "employ 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states" and only details 20 of those states, they do include such small numbers as 150 in Arkansas, and 570 in Indiana. You would think they would want to publicize such a large number in a key state like NY.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/ben ... mpact.html (http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/benefits/impact.html)

I can't get to the Newsday.com article (they are upgrading the website tonight) but the blurb from the story on Google says "Northrop Grumman's facility in Bethpage might have provided some engineering expertise, but few jobs were expected to be created on Long Island". I'll have to check it in the morning.

[Nonstop2AUH]

Some good backstory from the origins of all this in the article below, the key quote to me being:

"It's very partisan; the EADS support group is very Republican, and Boeing's is very Democratic," said Aboulafia.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ker31.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003548741_tanker31.html)

So it seems that while the decision was made by the Pentagon, politicians have been pushing this one direction or another for 5 years, to the extent they were even trying to influence the specs of the RFP.

And it seems to be a trend to award contracts for non-combat military aircraft to foreign bidders. Alenia won the JCA Joint Cargo Aircraft contract with a similar deal to work with a US partner and do assembly here, and the losing JCA bidder was a foreign-sourced aircraft as well - EADS C-295.

[T-Bird76]

While this isn't good news for Boeing its outstanding news for Long Island since Grumman said they will be expanding their Long Island operation adding 1000 plus jobs if they go the contract. So this is wonderful news for Grumman and Long Island!

You have a source on that information, Tommy? According to the Northrop/Grumman website of state-by-state economic impact, it doesn't include anything for New York. While the page notes the project will "employ 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies in 49 states" and only details 20 of those states, they do include such small numbers as 150 in Arkansas, and 570 in Indiana. You would think they would want to publicize such a large number in a key state like NY.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/ben ... mpact.html (http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc30/benefits/impact.html)

I can't get to the Newsday.com article (they are upgrading the website tonight) but the blurb from the story on Google says "Northrop Grumman's facility in Bethpage might have provided some engineering expertise, but few jobs were expected to be created on Long Island". I'll have to check it in the morning.

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/business/ny-bzgrum065565885feb06,0,2072608.story

Moose the jobs wouldn't just be Grumman jobs but the overall impact of new construction and the jobs that will create.

[Midnight Mike]

Well there goes my Boeing stock.

Will be interesting to hear the reasons, but, some hints are being released:


Air Force officials offered few details about why they choose the Northrop-EADS team over Boeing since they have yet to debrief the two companies. But Air Force Gen. Arthur Lichte said the larger size was key. "More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload," he said.

"It will be very hard for Boeing to overturn this decision because the Northrop plane seemed markedly superior" in the eyes of the Air Force, said Loren Thompson, a defense industry analyst with Lexington Institute, a policy think tank. And as the winners of the first award, EADS and Northrop are in a strong position to win two follow-on deals to build hundreds of more planes.

Looks like the Air Force wanted the bigger plane, wonder if Boeing was aware of this & did they offer up the 777?

[cancidas]

while i feel a bit dissapointed, i have to support the USAF's decision. besides, that brings me a step closer to owning one of these badboys:

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6156304

You wish, Matt...this program is to replace the 150 or so KC-135E tankers, which are used by the ANG & Reserves. They are worn out, many don't even fly anymore, they just get moved around the ramp, but can't be retired yet. That R-model in the shot you posted won't be scheduled for replacement until at least 2045, and may still be flying in 2065.


i'll still be around then... still looking forward to delivery! :D

[PhilDernerJr]

I always thought the discussions they were just weak threats to say that they had "considered" other options, who thought they'd actually DO it. My only guess is that Boeing wasn't taking it seriously enough because of that and dropped the ball.

As said, absolutely shocking.

[Nick]

Interesting, and we really don't want the HH-47 either..

[Midnight Mike]

More hints:


Northrop and EADS officials have said a key selling point is the A330 Freighter’s market appeal, with 66 orders received in the past 12 months. This backlog should relieve any pressure on the USAF to sustain the production line for KC-X orders.

[moose135]

http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/business/ny-bzgrum065565885feb06,0,2072608.story

Moose the jobs wouldn't just be Grumman jobs but the overall impact of new construction and the jobs that will create.

I don't see anything in that article about jobs related to the tanker, either at Grumman or otherwise. It does say
Tom Vice, the recently appointed head of Northrop Grumman's Long Island operations, said Monday night the company will expand on the Island if it wins certain key contracts, including one to help design electronics equipment for military aircraft, a company spokeswoman said yesterday.

In Newsday's article about the tanker deal, http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgr ... 7774.story (http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgrum0229,0,237774.story)
it says:

It's not clear what work, if any, will be done at Northrop Grumman's Bethpage facility, where about 2,200 workers focus on early warning and radar support equipment for the Navy.
and

Northrop Grumman's facility in Bethpage might have provided some engineering expertise, but few jobs were expected to be created on Long Island out of the tanker deal, company officials privately acknowledged

I don't see this as a win for Long Island at all. And while most of the articles I've seen (no doubt due to AF spin) say "Northrop/Grumman" was awarded the contract, they will be basically a subcontractor for EADS/Airbus, assembling parts of a European-designed aircraft. Sorry, SAC would have never put up with this crap!

[hiss srq]

Since the initial shock and disgust of the order has wained for me I can properly talk now. The Air Force smacked it's own nation in the fa ce with this deal. It was a snub to Made In the USA and a snub to our own economy. I have a new low respect for the top brass in the air force.

[Midnight Mike]

Since the initial shock and disgust of the order has wained for me I can properly talk now. The Air Force smacked it's own nation in the fa ce with this deal. It was a snub to Made In the USA and a snub to our own economy. I have a new low respect for the top brass in the air force.

We should really wait to sit why the Air Force chose the Airbus aircraft.

If the 767 tanker project was inferior to the Airbus one, then it was Boeing's fault to have lost the project.

If Boeing did not give the Air Force an aircraft they wanted, then Boeing should not receive the bid.

[Matt Molnar]

I don't distrust our Air Force leaders as far as their decision making regarding the aircraft itself...I don't doubt that the A330 is better for their needs than the 767. But coming on the heels of another high profile military aircraft being outsourced to Europe, the new Marine One, I'm afraid of the potential symbolism: that we've lost our manufacturing edge, and foreigners can provide a better value than we can for ourselves. I don't believe this is true for the nation as a whole as Boeing has been known to screw the pooch on many occasions, but it doesn't matter what we know, what matters is what everyone else thinks. What's next? Indian-built F-18s?

[hiss srq]

The problem is Airbus will do ANYTHING and I mean anything to get an order including take a loss for the order.

[Midnight Mike]

I don't distrust our Air Force leaders as far as their decision making regarding the aircraft itself...I don't doubt that the A330 is better for their needs than the 767. But coming on the heels of another high profile military aircraft being outsourced to Europe, the new Marine One, I'm afraid of the potential symbolism: that we've lost our manufacturing edge, and foreigners can provide a better value than we can for ourselves. I don't believe this is true for the nation as a whole as Boeing has been known to screw the pooch on many occasions, but it doesn't matter what we know, what matters is what everyone else thinks. What's next? Indian-built F-18s?

Boeing already had the Tanker program, but, they screwed that up, had they played by the rules they would not be in this position. Back in 2003, Airbus did not have the boom technology for the fuel probes, now they do, it was Boeing that Airbus time to bid on the program....

As for Marine One, from what I under, the helicopter was 20% more efficient than the American product.

Maybe Boeing should have given the Air Force "2" bids, one for the 767 & one for the 777, since it seems the Air Force wanted a bigger bird....

If an Indian built F-18 is a superior product, then I would expect the military to go for the superior product.

Am I excited about the military flying foreign owned aircraft, no, I am not, but, I do expect the American military to fly the best.

Once again, looking at the past, because of greed, Boeing screwed themselves out of lucrative contract which landed people in jail...

[Nonstop2AUH]

I saw a Boeing powerpoint on their website that indicated they had given the USAF the option of the 777 so I can only imagine they wanted something bigger than a 767 and smaller than a 777, and this is a niche that has been owned by the A330 since the 767-400 failed to catch on with more than 2 buyers. Or maybe they just wanted to send Boeing a message in the wake of the Druyun scandal. Or maybe they wanted, as was mentioned in the Seattle newspaper article, to show foreign governments that if they bought our weapons systems, we would buy theirs. Remember the current thinking in Washington is pro-globalizaton and anti-union. So buying a foreign plane and having it assembled in the non-union south is very much in line with that. In fact, there's no reason to think the presidential limo couldn't be a Toyota Prius if the administration wanted to send a message about conservation. What bothers me is that rather than telling it like it is, and saying 'the foreign product is better than the American one,' they'd have it assembled by a US contractor so it wouldn't have a foreign-sounding name. It would go in a Toyota Prius and come out a "Plymouth Freedommobile" or something. Our leaders like to say America has the best engineering, the most productive workers, etc etc but their actions indicate they believe otherwise, and to be honest, most consumers do as well.

[nikon50bigma]

While this isn't good news for Boeing its outstanding news for Long Island since Grumman said they will be expanding their Long Island operation adding 1000 plus jobs if they go the contract. So this is wonderful news for Grumman and Long Island!

Where? I thought the old plant was torn down.

[Nonstop2AUH]

The official and highly specific state by state economic impact list on the Northrop Grumman website lists many states, but New York isn't one of them, nor is NJ or CT (in which P&W would have gotten the engine deal had the contract gone Boeing) for that matter. I don't think this deal does anything for LI or our area as a whole, in fact it's a negative if you think of the opportunity lost at Pratt, which is already in bad shape for not having a viable competitor to new generation engines from GE and RR.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/ben ... mpact.html (http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html)

BTW as I imagined, the official website for the KC-45 does not seem to mention the word Airbus, it just refers to the craft being "based on the A330 airliner", so maybe they'll have us believe the A stands for America or something. It does mention EADS North America, but most of our fellow citizens have no idea what that is.

I am a bit curious as to what -- other than "Americanizing" the aircraft/political PR reasons -- the need for Northrop to even be involved in this deal is considering that the same tanker has been sold to the UK, Australia, UAE, and KSA as an Airbus product with no Northrop involvement.

[Matt Molnar]

BTW as I imagined, the official website for the KC-45 does not seem to mention the word Airbus, it just refers to the craft being based on the A330 airliner, so maybe they'll have us believe the A stands for America or something.

A stands for AWESOME!

Here's an interesting story from Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aH5TQm1BTng0&refer=home), about how Airbus' CEO thinks this deal is going to save their ass from the falling dollar. As we know, Airbus has been in trouble in recent months because airliner transactions are made in US dollars no matter who they're selling to, but nearly all of Airbus' materials and labor expenses are calculated in Euros, so every time the dollar falls 10 cents it costs them about 1 billion Euros. With the labor of the aircraft final assembly and many large parts being built in the US, the KC-45 (as well as the new civilian A330F, which will also be built in Alabama) they will be somewhat insulated from currency fluctuations. Of course if the Euro starts to tank vs. the dollar, which is possible since this is a long-term contract, Airbus would be sort of screwed.

But more importantly it is my understanding that no matter what their contract says, the Pentagon often comes back with scores of expensive tweaks to new aircraft, as we've recently seen in the case of the extraordinarily expensive new Marine One, and many of those costs must be absorbed by the manufacturer. In the end this might not be such an amazing deal for EADS.

[Matt Molnar]

Also, the original model designation was KC-30. Anyone know why they changed it?

[SengaB]

Here are 2 nice shots I came accross on the net of the aircraft OPF the RAAF.

http://www.ausairpower.net/EADS-A330MRTT-RAAF-06122007-1S.jpg
http://www.militaryaviation.eu/images/Airbus/A330MRTT_EC-330.JPG
I think it looks pretty snazzy expecially with the refueling probes installed.

Senga

[moose135]

Also, the original model designation was KC-30. Anyone know why they changed it?

That was Airbus' designation for the aircraft, just like Boeing called their aircraft the KC-767. It was never the USAF designation, which follows certain numbering conventions.

[Nonstop2AUH]

Yes,the strong euro has been hurting European manufacturers' competitiveness, especially in the US market but also in any global market where pricing is dollar-based like commercial airplanes. It's why Euopean automakers have been considering setting up more US assembly plants (BMW and Mercedes are already here, VW is in Mexico, etc.) The fact that this tanker contract volume makes setting up a US assembly line for commercial Airbii economically viable levels the playing field and eliminates whatever exchange rate cost advantage a US competitor would have over them. However, that it encourages export sales by US companies is pretty much the main reason given by our government for telling us not to worry about the sinking dollar. So, in sum, our government encourages export sales of US companies, but also encourages foreign companies to move their production here so they can better compete with US companies. Globalization really mixes things up, but it's also inevitable. You have to figure out how to benefit from it, because none of the potential successors to the W administration are protectionists either.

I'd have liked to see this contract go to Boeing as a shareholder and someone who has generally tried to buy American in recent years (even though I've lived overseas and worked for foreign entities), but even Boeing has globalized with the 787 to the point that it's hard to say that product is any more 'American' than an Alabama-assembled A330. The WSJ had a good article not long ago about how a US-assembled Toyota Camry by some measures had more US content than a Ford Mustang (I'd rather drive the latter, but not my point). Anyway, I do hope from this tanker situation that a) people will have a better understanding of the increasing globalization of projects like this and b) the 'Scarebus' bashers in the A vs. B forums finally shut up, because it was good enough for Uncle Sam.

[T-Bird76]

The problem is Airbus will do ANYTHING and I mean anything to get an order including take a loss for the order.

Ryan to be blunt I read your last two posts and both are just without merit... In no way did the US Airforce slap the U.S.A in the face and two, often times in business you choose to offer products at great discounts and even take a one time lose upfront in order to capitalize on the other streams of revenue that will come in from this contract.

It would have been a slap in the face for the USAF to have gone with Boeing who proved it couldn't deliver on a product which in the long run would have cost the U.S tax payer more money in the end.

I think everyone here needs to drop this entire BS complaint "Oh poor us." Here's the deal boys and girls we are in a global economy now and deals like this just don't flow back to France...this deal will create tons of jobs right here in the U.S and contracts like this serve to also benefit our relations worldwide. We can't afford to isolate our economy from the rest of the world. So drop the BS and accept that Airbus won this deal fair and square. If you want to be pissed at someone write Boeing and ask them why they sat on their a$$es and didn't come to the table with a real solution.

[Midnight Mike]

Ryan to be blunt I read your last two posts and both are just without merit... In no way did the US Airforce slap the U.S.A in the face and two, often times in business you choose to offer products at great discounts and even take a one time lose upfront in order to capitalize on the other streams of revenue that will come in from this contract.

It would have been a slap in the face for the USAF to have gone with Boeing who proved it couldn't deliver on a product which in the long run would have cost the U.S tax payer more money in the end.

I think everyone here needs to drop this entire BS complaint "Oh poor us." Here's the deal boys and girls we are in a global economy now and deals like this just don't flow back to France...this deal will create tons of jobs right here in the U.S and contracts like this serve to also benefit our relations worldwide. We can't afford to isolate our economy from the rest of the world. So drop the BS and accept that Airbus won this deal fair and square. If you want to be pissed at someone write Boeing and ask them why they sat on their a$$es and didn't come to the table with a real solution.

Damn, I hate when I have to agree with Tommy :wink: :mrgreen:

[stuart schechter]

Viva France!!!


OH, GOD! MY inner evil twin brother took control for a second. How unpatriotic could this buy be? American economy tanking? I think so. Au contraire, good day for France, but still, Airbus?

http://bp0.blogger.com/_7vlWajAXeJs/RoF_C8immHI/AAAAAAAAAGI/BjoRby3nStI/s400/BoeingVsAirbus.jpg

[MORS-AB-ALTO]

After picking my jaw up off the floor my knee jerk reaction was how could the USAF do this? The patriotic side of me says with the economy in recession (face it people) we're forking over tens of billions of dollars to Airbus and costing thousands of US jobs. Not to mention the mental stigma of the of the backbone of the USAF's logistcal fleet for the next 50+ years wil be basically a European aicraft.

But after soaking it all up for a few days my sense of reason comes up with a far different answer. The fact is that the A-330 is far more capable of meeting the needs of the USAF as a whole. I believe the biggest impact on the decision may well have been the current crisis the USAF is facing with strategic air lift. 40-50 year old KC-135's, 30+ year old C-5's with a upgrade program for them in limbo and C-17's pushed to the brink after their 1 for 2 takeover of the C-141 fleet. The Airbus will carry more fuel and cargo than the 767. Multiply that difference by the projected 400 aircraft fleet and the final numbers were fat too much for an already overstretched USAF to overlook.

To sum it up I'm OK with deal but will not believe the final assembly taking place in Alabama story until I see the aircraft rolling off the line and rotating for take off. Had Boeing submitted a serious 777 proposal 4 years ago and pursued a flying example as Airbus did the outcome may have been very different. In closing I say what about some USAF heavy lift AN-225's? They would look pretty nice lined up at Dover AFB!

[DHG750R]

To sum it up I'm OK with deal but will not believe the final assembly taking place in Alabama story until I see the aircraft rolling off the line and rotating for take off. Had Boeing submitted a serious 777 proposal 4 years ago and pursued a flying example as Airbus did the outcome may have been very different. In closing I say what about some USAF heavy lift AN-225's? They would look pretty nice lined up at Dover AFB!

I agree , If there was a B777 tanker prototype , it may have swayed the brass a little better? That is not to say the B767 based tanker isnt a good product. I imagined a mixed order. In some cases a 767 can operate into places the -330 cant because of it's size. In the end , would it have been better to order both? I guess time will tell.

BTW . Its not uncommon to see an A124 sitting on the ramp at Dover or Charleston , flying under contract to the AMC...

[Midnight Mike]

I would love to get my hands on the US Air debrief :mrgreen:


Boeing to File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080310/aqm146.html?.v=30

[Midnight Mike]

I would love to get my hands on the US Air debrief :mrgreen:


Boeing to File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080310/aqm146.html?.v=30

[Midnight Mike]

Additional information:


The team has been criticized for offering too complex an aircraft, with the 767-200 airframe; over-wing exits from the -300; floors, doors and structurally enhanced wings from the -300F; a cockpit, tail section and flaps from the -400ER. However, the Boeing executives said their model of building in as many of these features as possible, limiting the military modification work, was less risky than the Air Force rated.

Now I can see the risk factor that the US Air Force was speaking about, the A330 is the same aircraft that the Aussies have...

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/HALT03128.xml&headline=Boeing%20Protest%20Halts%20USAF%20Tanker% 20Work&channel=defense)

[FlyingColors]

It's flat out WRONG.

[DHG750R]

I fail to see the risk in the 767's design, I'm no expert in that, It would seem by using components of aircraft already built and in service would not add risk but reduce it.

Seems like Boeing has valid points regarding how the USAF changed the ramp and runway requirements.

Im sure there will be many more twists and turns to come...

[Midnight Mike]

I fail to see the risk in the 767's design, I'm no expert in that, It would seem by using components of aircraft already built and in service would not add risk but reduce it.

Seems like Boeing has valid points regarding how the USAF changed the ramp and runway requirements.

Im sure there will be many more twists and turns to come...

The risk has to do with the proposed 767 model has never been built before, the Boeing proposal had parts of the 767-200, 767-300, & the 767-400, so, there was some risk. The A330 proposal has already been designed.....

[Matt Molnar]

Now I can see the risk factor that the US Air Force was speaking about, the A330 is the same aircraft that the Aussies have...
The Aussies have them on order but I don't think any have been delivered yet. Delivery is set for early 2009, which is a few months delayed from the original schedule.

[Midnight Mike]

The Aussies have them on order but I don't think any have been delivered yet. Delivery is set for early 2009, which is a few months delayed from the original schedule.

If delivery is set for early 2009, that means the aircraft has been designed, constructed & has had the various test flights, which reduces the risk......

[DHG750R]

The Aussies have them on order but I don't think any have been delivered yet. Delivery is set for early 2009, which is a few months delayed from the original schedule.

If delivery is set for early 2009, that means the aircraft has been designed, constructed & has had the various test flights, which reduces the risk......

The 1st 2 KC-767's have already been delvered to the Japanese Air Force. So in that regard the Boeing is ahead of the Airbus.

By the 767 sharing the -300F's wings is no differrent than what Boeing has already done with the BBJ / C-40.

Since the -400 is merely an evolution of the -200 . Why would the flightdeck be a risk?

[adam613]

Boeing took out a full-page color ad in the New York Times yesterday titled "THE TANKER DECISION: WHY IT DOESN'T ADD UP.". I would scan and post it, but I can't seem to find a copy of the paper around here :shock: