Matt Molnar
2008-03-14, 06:31 PM
It sounds like they have some strong arguments, but given their earlier shenanigans, they're lucky they have no viable competition in this country—many would argue they should not have been allowed to bid at all. Anyway, this could get ugly.
Complaint 1: USAF added last minute changes to the mission performance requirements that put Boeing's bid at a competitive disadvantage. The new formula was co-developed by a separate unit of Northrop-Grumman, which would have given the KC-30 unit more time to respond to the new requirements. Boeing claims the change was made because the KC-30 was too large for ramp space on certain missions, and the new formula simply invented ramp space that does not exist in the real world.
Complaint 2: Boeing says USAF refused to look at their stellar history of airliner programs when calculating program risk.
Complaint 3: Boeing says the KC-767 exceeded the USAF's fuel offload requirements by 20%, and USAF said increasing that number would not result in a stronger bid, so the KC-30 being larger should not have been a key factor in the decision. Had USAF expressed interest in a larger plane, Boeing would have offered a 777-based aircraft instead.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... irbus.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/14/222217/boeing-unveils-case-against-usaf-decision-to-buy-airbus.html)
Complaint 1: USAF added last minute changes to the mission performance requirements that put Boeing's bid at a competitive disadvantage. The new formula was co-developed by a separate unit of Northrop-Grumman, which would have given the KC-30 unit more time to respond to the new requirements. Boeing claims the change was made because the KC-30 was too large for ramp space on certain missions, and the new formula simply invented ramp space that does not exist in the real world.
Complaint 2: Boeing says USAF refused to look at their stellar history of airliner programs when calculating program risk.
Complaint 3: Boeing says the KC-767 exceeded the USAF's fuel offload requirements by 20%, and USAF said increasing that number would not result in a stronger bid, so the KC-30 being larger should not have been a key factor in the decision. Had USAF expressed interest in a larger plane, Boeing would have offered a 777-based aircraft instead.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... irbus.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/14/222217/boeing-unveils-case-against-usaf-decision-to-buy-airbus.html)