Even if Boeing were to have offered a KC-777, it still would not be ready to enter service when the AF stated they needed the new tankers in service. Also wouldn't a KC-777 been too big and expensive compared to the KC-330? I think Boeing should let this round go for 179 tankers and instead focus on winning KC-Y and KC-Z in the future with a KC-787. Our Air Forces planes are suffering due to the delay of this competition, the military is here to fight and win wars with the best equipment money can buy, and the AF has decided the KC-330 was the best. I think recent competitions in Australia, UK, UAE, and Saudi Arabia have shown that the KC-330 is the right choice of plane for the job.

I am finding it difficult to understand the rational behind this decision from a total cost point of view. Prime example. Boeing has spent the last couple of years working with Japan & Italy producing a product that has been thoroughly tested and is now in the process of being fielded. It would seem to me that this testing process alone will save our country a great deal of time & money. The aircraft will get to the warfighter quicker.

If Boeing followed the rules as has been claimed, why would the Airforce wish to take such a big gamble on an untested product that will take longer to thoroughly test & field?

As a nation, we will have have many challenges to face in the future. Challenges that will stretch
our economy, Federal budget & citizens to their limits. At best all this decision by the Airforce did was waste the time and money of the American Taxpayer. At worst, this decision may cost someone on the front line their life. And that is the point of all this, isnt it?

With out a doubt if this were a commercial airliner choosing a plane the A330 would have been picked hands down. But the Air Force is not a commercial profit making enterprise. In other words the lowest cost and most reliable airframe that meets the requirements should be the winner. Hence the 767. No doubt that the A330 is more advanced, but plain and simple---- a tankers role does not require any of the fancy electronic stuff all it need to do is haul gas. I especially like the fact that the A330 burns 25% more fuel than the 767. This only leaves me to believe that if you give the Air Force more $$ they will recklessly spend it on not need equipment.

The biggest question that I have here is financial stability. Airbus just posted millions of losses for FY07 and the A380 needs 409 orders just to break even, currently there are only 192. Then there is EADS, which also posted Euro 446Milion in losses with their A400M. The biggest yet is the Dollar Decline. The Dollar is expected to keep getting lower in at least the near future of 3 years. Airbus has even said that for every 10cent drop in the dollar to the Euro is 1 Billion in Euro in losses to airbus. They have already slated to cut R&D development, lay off 10,000 employees, and has dropped their Stock dividend by 83% sense 2005. With that in view there is a big doubt that Airbus will be able to supply the A330 at the quoted price for many years to come.

My father flew KC & RC-135 aircraft for over 10 years, and I personally have a love affair with Boeing aircraft. But when (as an outsider)I learned that the 767-200 was going against the A-330, I knew that the A-330 would win. It's just the better aircraft. If Boeing would have put up the 777-200 has it's offering, I think Northrop / EADS would have lost the competition. Boeing, stop being a sore loser. We need the new tankers now! Stop waving the flag, and let the Air Force have the best they can get. Then go out there with a 777 or 787 in the next round and kick EADS rear-end.

I think Boeing is paying the price today for unethical practices with USAF higher ups several years ago.

-------------------------------------

Air Force Pitch for Boeing Detailed
E-Mails Show Pressure by Roche
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63815-2004Nov19.html

The stated purpose was to replace the KC-135 with an aircraft that could access the same bases.

Yes the KC-30 can carry more of everything. But it is also to large for many of the airfields it would be required to operate from.

The strategy is to put more booms in the air allowing greater flexibility. If you only have room for a few BIG KC-30s you will still have planes that need tanking waiting in line.

Add to the operational shortcomings the fact that by awarding this contract to EADS thru NG. We have given the governments that hold stakes in the EADS political leverage to hold over us.

If you do not think that will happen you are plain DUMB. The fact is the U.S. does this very thing with our Foreign Military Sales. Those countries that purchased from us depend on us for spares and support. That is political leverage.

This is yet another U.S. DoD contract heading offshore disguise under the banner of U.S. corporation. Add to that the prestige of Marine One based on EADS 101 helicopter (which as usual for Lockheed the cost for the program are already being increased) or the purchase by the Army of huge fleet of Eurocopters (that are having many of the same issue that U.S.C.G. Dolphins were having and had to retrofitted add increased cost) and of course the U.S.C.G. notorious for buying foreign has purchased the CASA aircraft a subsidiary of EADS (funny thing is this aircraft is also all screwed up).

Storm You Could See:
Well, who did not see this coming? This procurement was lost long before the submission of proposals to the USAF. Since the USAF 'courted' EADS in as much as they needed prodding to submit a bid in order for the USAF image of looking 'fair' and 'impartial' after the Druyun affair. Back in those early days when the Tanker Lease package was getting tossed out EADS had NO product sell. In the intervening years EADS has spent a ton of money to develop something they can now sell at a much lower risk. Who's fault? I'd say the USAF simply because they needed another player to dance against Boeing and they did not care where that party came from. I am sure they would have courted Antonov or Tupolev if they had a working wide body or IFR system. But alas, it was Airbus.

Stating the Obvious:
The sad part in all this is the continued loss of aerospace manufacturing to the Europeans. The recent win of 322 UH-72's to fill the Army Domestic Utility Helo to EADS and of course the win by the Lockheed 'Consortium' building the next Presidential Helo using the Agusta/Westland EH-101 as the basic airframe are the two most glaring examples of this practice of "Branding". Putting a US Major in front of a European airframe and then calling it a 'domestic' product. A practice I feel is a simple con game used to garner the placement of a U.S. flag on their product. We don't have the manufacturing capacity to be giving it away to anyone much less the Europeans. And once that capability is lost, it is not so easy to get it back again.

Going Forward:
I fear the only way to keep our Military programs in America is for the Congress to pass a Law that dictates domestic origin. My fear comes from the fact that we have to rely on the Congress to do that and they will only make a mess of things as they do when ever they get involved.

No doubt the USAF is hurting for a replacement for the KC-135's as they are not cheap to operate and maintain. But it's their fault that this is now an emergency. They put off starting the replacement for this airframe while they were buying more and more 'Stealth' products, bombers and fighters both. None of them cheap by the way, and all of which need to feed off a non-Stealth tanker. A real waste of all that stealth capability.

Makes you wonder.

Your company should not have tried to milk the government for millions , if not billions of dollars the first time around. This is why they probably do not trust your figures and bookeping. I know people were held accountable for their actions and delt with accordingly, but a huge bond of trust was broken and this may be how that wound will heal.

Phil (Mobile, AL):
"Perhaps the AF would have chosen the Boeing tanker if it had been what they had asked for."

Your statement does not make any sense.

The RFP from the Air Force for the new tanker was for a mid-sized tanker, ie the 767, not a large tanker as proposed by EADS (the A330).