By Julie Johnsson
| Boeing Co. may face new European and Russian competition for a $35-billion contract to provide the U.S. Air Force with tankers.
It had appeared that Chicago-based Boeing would be the only bidder for the contract when California-based Northrop Grumman Corp. withdrew March 8, concluding it stood little chance of winning with a tanker based on the Airbus A330 jetliner.
But the France-based parent of Boeing-rival Airbus SAS, European
Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., said Friday it was considering bidding
on its own after receiving assurances the Defense Department “would
welcome” a tanker bid from the company’s North America subsidiary.
The Pentagon indicated it was willing to extend the May deadline for proposals in order to attract other bids, EADS said. That may allow a third party to enter the fray, a plane-maker affiliated with the Russian government that is also poised to bid, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.
Defense officials prefer to competitively bid large, high-profile contracts to drive prices lower and reduce the likelihood of improprieties. Both are concerns with the deal to replace the U.S. Air Force’s fleet of aerial gas stations, which has dragged on for nearly a decade.
Adding overseas entries to the contest may ease strained trade relations with European Union officials, who have accused the Pentagon of protectionism. They claim the latest round of the contest was rigged to favor the smaller, older Boeing 767 over the Airbus A330.
While EADS hasn’t committed to entering the race, it may be willing to pursue winning the deal despite odds of success that Northrop CEO Wes Bush considered unacceptably low.
”Northrop has a different yardstick to measure this program than EADS,” Allan McArtor, chairman of Airbus Americas told the Tribune Friday. “Their strategic interests are different.”
Both Boeing and Airbus airplanes would be excellent replacements for the half-century old tankers currently used for aerial refueling. But highly charged politics surrounding the bids have made it virtually impossible for the government to select a plane without creating a furor.
Military planners likely concluded in devising rules for the current contest that a Boeing tanker, made in Seattle and supported by Democrats, stood a greater chance of quickly gaining funding from a Democrat-controlled Congress than EADS’s Republican-backed tanker, said aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group, a Virginia-based aerospace marketing and consulting firm.
There are two ways that EADS’s bid could still succeed, Aboulafia added: “One is to use all the political leverage possible and try to change the [request for proposal]. The other is to discount your way into the market.”
There have been many bizarre twists in the tanker odyssey over the last decade. The series of contracts to replace the 415 Eisenhower-era tankers is expected to top $100 billion, making it one of the largest ever awarded by the Defense Department.
Two earlier contests ended without producing a winner, the first was cancelled amid an ethics scandal that saw two Boeing officials end in jail in 2004. The Northrop-EADS team won a 2008 contest, but that decision was later over-turned after the Government Accountability Office determined the Air Force hadn’t followed its own rules.
So now Airbus wants to bid, but only if the Air Force ‘adjusts’ the scoring matrix to improve their chances.
Hmmm.
Wouldn’t that be kind of like ‘bid-rigging’?
“Smaller” and “less capable”? Smaller, yes. That was actually a requirement so that the Air Force wouldn’t need to build new hangars for the aircraft. The 767 is 30% larger than the KC-135 it will replace. The KC-330 would represent an 86% footprint than the KC-135, which would require new ground facilities to maintain the fleet. Less capable, sort-of. In terms of payload, the KC-767 would be able to carry a little less fuel and cargo than the KC-330, but is more fuel efficient (longer loiter times) and needs a shorter runway for take-off and landing (which would allow the KC-767 to operate out of many more airfields than even the current KC-10). Both aircraft can carry over 200,000 lbs. of fuel, well beyond the KC-135’s 80,000…
In the final analysis, Boeing had the only aircraft that met the needs of the Air Force. If Boeing hadn’t gotten stupid and rigged the financing deal, the Air Force would already be flying the new tankers. I like the A330. It’s a great aircraft. But EADS wants to sell us another transport aircraft that can carry fuel. If you follow what’s going on at the Pentagon, we already have far too many transports. We need tankers.
What’s EADS? One rule of journalism: no jargon, especially unexplained acronyms.
Let’s definitely send more money to manufacturers overseas. If we keep on doing this we will have successfully ruined all manufacturing in America.
Let me get this straight. We, the USA folks only have one country, one land and EADS has many countries with many languages that use the same money. They did withdraw their bidding and now–for some reason–wants back in!!!I wonder what part of our government has made what deal???? It seems to be a revolving door with no exit.
EADS is an acronym that when translated from the original French means “we will whine regardless and we won’t support NATO”
Any participation or support by any entity, affiliate or surrogate of Russia at any level or time must be totally and immediately prohibited. Period. Any attempt by any other bidding party to change this immutable requirement should cause that bidder to be immediately disqualified.
Additionally, any US governmental official, elected representative or their support staff who would attempt to change, mitigate or soften this exclusion should be immediately removed from office and tried for treason.
Russia, or any “private” Russian-based organization (ha!) having any hand in building anything for the US military … are they nucking futs?
‘Let’s definitely send more money to manufacturers overseas’
48% of the price of an Airbus330 goes back to U.S. manufacturers, such as GE
A Russian aircraft supplying in air refueling to US Air Force aircraft? Is this April 1 already?
It appears that the article:
“Boeing to speed up production of 777s, 747s”
wasn’t worth anyone foaming opinions about.
3rd paragraph:
European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co
Your Rss does not work properly in my browser (opera browser) how can i fix it?