U.S. Airforce to fly European tankers

[PeppyGPhiB]

Well, I also have information from insiders that tell me Boeing initially presented the 777 to the Air Force for this project, but that the Air Force shot it down (no pun intended) and instead specifically requested the 767 in part due to the 767's superior fuel savings. The 767 uses 24% less fuel than the Airbus plane selected. Kindof ironic for a fuel tanker. If the Air Force requested the 767, I don't see how they can really criticize Boeing's "choice" to use that plane over another.

Also, the Air Force made last minute changes to the list of "must haves" that were, according to reports, much more favorable to Airbus.

And another also, according to a few articles I've read, and a statement by Hillary Clinton, our government is actually suing EADS in the WTO right now for illegal subsidies. So we're suing them, but we just awarded them this contract.

Anyway, with a few days passed now, and with some details coming out about the selection, I've managed to chill out a little Some people at Boeing actually think this is a good thing because it will allow the company to focus on fulfilling all of its 787 orders, which it has more than 800 of.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Well, I also have information from insiders that tell me Boeing initially presented the 777 to the Air Force for this project, but that the Air Force shot it down (no pun intended) and instead specifically requested the 767 in part due to the 767's superior fuel savings. The 767 uses 24% less fuel than the Airbus plane selected. Kind of ironic for a fuel tanker. If the Air Force requested the 767, I don't see how they can really criticize Boeing's "choice" to use that plane over another.

Also, the Air Force made last minute changes to the list of "must haves" that were, according to reports, much more favorable to Airbus.

And another also, according to a few articles I've read, and a statement by Hillary Clinton, our government is actually suing EADS in the WTO right now for illegal subsidies. So we're suing them, but we just awarded them this contract.

Anyway, with a few days passed now, and with some details coming out about the selection, I've managed to chill out a little Some people at Boeing actually think this is a good thing because it will allow the company to focus on fulfilling all of its 787 orders, which it has more than 500 of.

Boeing is also being sued in the WTO for the same reason(s).

[PeppyGPhiB]

More details about the requirements and changes to the RFP, and the official memos between Boeing and the Air Force regarding those changes:

Boeing's tanker bid damaged when Air Force changed criteria, Dicks says
By Alicia Mundy
Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — During a contentious hearing Wednesday over the Air Force tanker deal awarded to Airbus parent EADS and Northrop Grumman, Rep. Norm Dicks said the Pentagon changed contract specifications to favor that team's bid over Boeing's so they wouldn't drop out of the contest.

Waving documents, the Bremerton Democrat asked Air Force acquisitions director Sue Payton whether she had made changes "at the last minute" to the air-lift standards in the Request for Proposal (RFP) after the bidding process started Jan. 30, 2007 for the $40 billion contract.

"I urge you not to say 'No,' " Dicks said, adding, "I have the letter. You did it."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...hearing06.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2004263239.pdf

[KDAngel]

For Congress to reverse the decision on “Buy America” grounds would be bad for taxpayers: requiring them to pay for aircraft that provide less value for the money. It would also be bad diplomacy and bad business. Hardly good for the country...

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Well, I also have information from insiders that tell me Boeing initially presented the 777 to the Air Force for this project, but that the Air Force shot it down (no pun intended) and instead specifically requested the 767 in part due to the 767's superior fuel savings. The 767 uses 24% less fuel than the Airbus plane selected. Kindof ironic for a fuel tanker. If the Air Force requested the 767, I don't see how they can really criticize Boeing's "choice" to use that plane over another.

Heh... I read Boeing's analysis too

I also read the tech specs of the A330s and KC-767s actually deployed operationally and something interesting popped up - Boeing calculated the fuel consumption rates for the A330 based on it's 20 year-old commercial aircraft engines, not the Rolls Royce high performance engines that the tanker uses; additionally it seems they calculated the fuel rates based on the commercial airframe not on the military airframe... seems like they are cooking the numbers to try and look better.

Anyways Janes has the KC-767 as slightly better in fuel consumption savings (6-8% at cruising speed), but the Rolls engines on the A330 have significantly higher tolerances as well as lower failure and replacement rates. In the end the USAF looks like it actually went with the better choice economically and operationally.