If you could optimize the 767 tanker size, which way would you go and by percentage how much? Based on the off load requirements of this competition to get the best 40 year fuel savings.

Unfortunately, what Mark McGraw fails to mention in his commentary about the AFE metric is that this was a criteria presented in the RFP for the KC-X program. The Boeing team knew full well that this was the metric that both aircraft would be graded against and they agreed to such a criteria. As well, at any time during the selection process, if Boeing somehow changed their mind about the fairness of the criteria, they could have protested. The Boeing team, however, and for whatever reason, did not exercise that option. That is obvious. What is more obvious, is that Boeing only chose to protest this decision, and the criteria that it was based on, after they lost the competition.

Another fallacy of Mark McGraw's argument is the historical data relating fuel offload. While the statistic he uses may be accurate, it belies the nature of the KC-X program which is to create an aircraft with equal or greater capability than the one it is intended to replace (i.e., the KC-135). This implies a changing of the status quo, meaning creation of an aircraft with greater fuel offload capability at a greater range. In other words, the aircraft is a game-changer where previous operational behaviors need not apply. To use Mark McGraw's analogy, the Air Force may have traditionally put two or three people in the Chevy Malibu, but now it hopes to move at least twice that many people in one Suburban. What makes more sense: one Suburban or two to three Malibus?

Boeing's argument is from a historical perspective (i.e., static, no change) and neglects that the fundemental purpose of the contract which was to create something different.

Thanks, Boeing,

We finally are given some analysis,
even mathematics.

I would have liked a little more fleshing out,
but this is certainly on track for presenting
the different kinds of reasoning methods
to chose from, and the consequences.

Joel Ellis seems the "most" right here.
USAF-AMC did want something it
does not now have, and the RFP,
it was hoped, reflected that.

But, to some extent, Boeing's point
has merit, too, sometimes.

So, a "mixed fleet" seems desirable.
- A few larger: KC-10/KC-777
- Some medium: KC-30(KC-45)
- Many smaller: KC-135/KC-767BCT/KC-787

Something like that, maybe.

Thank you,
Eddie Maddox

Yet again we see that a large american company cannot deal with someone else delivering a far superior product.

I notice that boeing made a big fuss when the Chinook contract was questioned and now that the umpire has made the decision you are bleating.

Not everything designed and made in the USA is the worlds best. Australia chose the KC-30 over the 767 based model because it is simply a better product.

This is about a company that already has a monopoly being beaten.

What strikes me as most hypocritical is the hyde of boeing to claim they are doing this for the warfighter. The men and women in Iraq and Afgahnistan (Including Aussies) need the equipment now.

You dishonor the american warrior by doing this.
Shame on you boeing.

Be suprised if this gets published!

Jason
Staunch US allie.

First I think that in these days that we are iving , is important to us , to airlines , governments,etc to save fuel , Imagine the USAAF using unefficient
aircraft , and for political reasons , I will choose
de KC-767