Analyst: Boeing Wasn't Even Close to Winning Tanker Deal

[Matt Molnar]

An analyst noted for his knowledge of military contracts has published a brief on the Airbus vs. Boeing tanker bids. His analysis: Airbus won the deal decisively, with Boeing competitive in only one of the five key aspects of the deal.

:arrow: Tanker Competition: Northrop Won By a Wide Margin (http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml) [Lexington Institute]
:arrow: Boeing lost air tanker deal decisively - analyst (http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7354103) [Reuters, via The Guardian]

It sounds to me that Boeing assumed the Pentagon would never go with Airbus in a million years and they tried to get away with hobbling together an updated design using old parts without doing any major R&D.

[Nonstop2AUH]

Not saying Airbus didn't win on the merits of the product, but it bothers me when they quote people from places like the Lexington Institute as impartial experts without divulging their economic or political orientations.

If you read their mission statement, part of which I posted below, you'll see the Lexington Institute advocates for small government and less regulation of big business (read: it's a conservative think tank). Organizations of that mindset are generally pro-globalization and anti protectionism of US companies and labor. Not saying any of this is a bad thing, but readers should know when they quote this guy that his organization is not an aerospace consultancy and is hardly impartial.

Personally, I am doubtful that Northrop won by such a wide margin as he is claiming, because if it was so clear to anyone early on that Boeing had no chance, Boeing would have surely amended its bid to be more competitive. He makes it sound like the Air Force told them they wanted a bigger plane and Boeing said no you can't have one, I find that ridiculous, along with the claim that Northrop has a better track record - Northrop doesn't even currently manufacture a large aircraft, so it seems like an apples vs. oranges comparison.

"The Lexington Institute believes in limiting the role of the federal government to those functions explicitly stated or implicitly defined by the Constitution. The Institute therefore actively opposes the unnecessary intrusion of the federal government into the commerce and culture of the nation, and strives to find nongovernmental, market-based solutions to public-policy challenges"

You don't find partisan political statements like that on websites of real aerospace industry consultants like Teal Group, JSA etc.