Again, Boeing v. Airbus in Tanker War III
In this corner, the Boeing KC-767
Stop us if you’ve heard this one before: Sometime in the next few weeks, the Pentagon will release its final bid specifications for a new generation of Air Force refueling tankers.
Wait. Didn’t that happen in 2002? Didn’t Boeing Co. win that contract? Yes, it did, only to have the contract thrown out after Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., raised holy hell about corruption in the bid process.
And then didn’t the Pentagon rebid the tanker contract and award it in 2008 to a partnership between EADS, the European parent company of Airbus, and Northrop Grumman Corp.? Yes, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates threw it out after finding that the bid process had been tilted heavily toward the Airbus plane.
So now comes Tanker War III. Even though final bid specs haven’t been released, both Boeing and EADS-Northrop are complaining, as are their political supporters on both sides of the aisle in Congress. The stakes are high: a $40 billion contract that will create thousands of jobs somewhere — either in Washington state and South Carolina for Boeing, or in Toulouse, France, and Alabama for EADS-Northrop.
And in this corner, a Northrop-EADS KC-30
St. Louis has a hometown favorite: Boeing’s tanker program is part of its defense unit headquartered here. Boeing needs to win this contract, both for prestige and the future of its commercial aviation line, which makes the platforms for the military tanker. Boeing also would like to keep Airbus from opening a U.S. assembly line that could be used to build commercial aircraft.
But the early betting line says Boeing’s best hope is a tie: a split contract that would build some relatively small tankers on its 767 platform and some larger tankers built atop the Airbus 330 platform. Mr. Gates has said that for cost reasons, he doesn’t want to split the contract, but politics eventually could force him to change his mind.
Boeing’s supporters are complaining that the draft specifications for the new “KC-X” tanker released in September — despite being far more transparent than those issued in 2007 — still tilt toward the Airbus plane. The Airbus 330 tanker variant could carry more fuel longer distances than Boeing’s 767 tanker.
Boeing could design a larger, longer-range tanker atop its 777 commercial aircraft platform, but probably not in time to meet the 18-month deadline for delivering a preproduction model.
Boeing’s supporters in Congress also want the Air Force to consider a September ruling by the World Trade Organization that Airbus unfairly benefitted from European government support. But last week, Ashton Carter, the Pentagon’s top procurement official, ruled out adding a penalty to the Airbus bid.
Boeing’s supporters also are raising the specter of the still-unexplained crash of Air France Flight 447 into the mid-Atlantic on June 1. That aircraft was an Airbus 330.
Whichever side loses Tanker War III surely will complain and appeal, possibly for years. The surest and fastest solution to replacing the Eisenhower-era KC-135 tanker fleet — and putting people to work — would be to split the contract. It might also be the best solution.
My view is very simple. This is a military air refueling platform for the United States of America and should be made by an American originated and domiciled company, especially in this economic condition. There are likely members of the Circle of Distrust (CODs) as discussed on http://www.twitter.com (@CoveRealty) on the EADS side that are profiting. Our country needs a restoration of the manufacting sector and I cannot even conceive of any good reason to go anywhere by here. EADS is European military entity renamed. Why would we build up off-shore manufacturing when the future of Europe is unpredicable and we have major economic needs at home. In my view, this isn’t even a topic for discussion, it should go to Boeing and/or a Northrop partnership that is 100% domestic.
They are not all Eisenhower era aircraft. Production continued [according to Boeing] until 1966 - that is into Kennedy and Johnson.
Just sayin’
Mr. Labbe, you are 100% correct. Not only is this a matter of national security, it makes absolutely no sense to spend money that will not create the maximun number of jobs for US workers. When we have thrown away hundreds of billions of dollars through a so called ’stimulus pacakage,’ this should be a no brainer.
Agreed that perhaps these hard times dictate a deviation from standard procedure and require the production of the aircraft to be done entirely in the US. But divulge that aspect only after the bids are in. That way Boeing gets the work but at a fair price and we get another small shot in the arm of our economy, something we need.
Does that give Boeing an advantage? Yes. Tough. Times are hard.
I don’t know if I agree that it ‘must’ be produced by an american manufacturer given the economy, but I will say this: it is extremely frustrating, disappointing, and more than a little suspicious that this process has dragged on as long as it has, with as much infighting and alleged corruption as it has.
Simply put, this needs to be done ASAP. So if we are going to give the contract to boeing on the basis of ‘america first’, then do so. Now. State the reasons why publicly, and clearly, and stand by them. If not, then have a clear and transparent process that is as unpolitical as possible. Give it to the GAO; they’re notorious for being apolitical bean-counters. Let them do what they do so well.
And someone (either Obama ot Gates) has to stand at the gate and say ‘no corruption here; go away till we make the decision.’
You’re thinking right now, ‘how naive IS he?’ Yeah, this is a pretty damn optimistic assessment. But what else can we do? We’ve got 40+ year old tankers in the air that have waited 7 years to be replaced because of politics and corruption. Seems to me we can make a national security argument to justify a decision, one way or another, and the hell with politics. Aren’t we so in favor of supporting the military? Does that get short shrift if the jobs aren’t ‘in my district’?
Let’s imagine 20 years into the future — when China has increased their EADS ownership stake to 25%.
China will begin clamoring for increased Airbus parts production / refurbishment in Chinese plants.
Will that make our military strategists sleep well at night?
I have flown and instructed on both the A330 and the B767. I have also flown the KC135. I can unequivocally say that the A330 does not come close to the 767. The Airbus does not in actuality have the ability to carry that much more or fly that much further in the tanker configuration. Futhermore to introduce the Airbus into the USAF fleet would be a nightmare for the tanker mission.
For all you yappers spouting off about being made in America, you realize final production of the Airbus planes will be in Alabama? Yes, the airframe will be made in France, but… If you thing Boeing’s planes are all 100% American, think again. A number of the parts are produced all over the world and shipped into Seattle for final assembly. With the 787 they even outsourced the engineering to Russia.
This will never be over. Each loser will say the bidding was rigged and then the AF will rewrite the specs. Once the local Congressmen get involved and spout “jobs” is when the field gets muddied. This has never been about flying the best tanker to meet the specs, it’s been about who gets the jobs. If I’m in the AF and fly or work on one of these old tankers, I’d be pretty upset I’m being sold out by a politician….again.
“For all you yappers spouting off about being made in America, you realize final production of the Airbus planes will be in Alabama? Yes, the airframe will be made in France…”
And so the airframe, wings, tail section and everything else is made in Europe and shipped to the US to be screwed together for the KC-30. The fact is the 767 design submitted by Boeing was greater than 85% US manufactured, while using some dubious calculations the best Northrop could come up with was 57% at most for the A330. For a $40 billion dollar contract this is over $11 billion in work that would be offshored with the KC-30. This is simply unnacceptable.
“With the 787 they even outsourced the engineering to Russia.”
And your solution in this case though is mind boggling, because a small amount of engineering work for an unrealated Boeing design was done in Russia, your suggesting purchasing an aircraft whose engineering is done almost entirely in Europe? I’ll take your comment at face value that you are 100 percent against the KC-30 since nearly 100 percent of the engineering was done in Europe! Please think before you post, almost all of the KC-767 was designed here in the US.
Also, the Defense Aquisition Reform Act of 2009 requires the military to consider the effect on US design and engineering capabilities in acquistions. So far they haven’t in this contract because the KC-30 falls so short in this area. But it’s the law and they’ll have to consider this issue when making a final decision, and the KC-30 utterly fails in meeting this new and important legal requirement.
… so if the tankers have to be US-built in order to support a US military and revive a US economy, is it OK that us Brits don’t buy your goods anymore and don’t accept your invites to Vietnam Mark 2? Or would that be protectionism? And if the global economy is in recession, whose inept handling of their own economy kicked it off in the first place? Just because you have no history doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t benefit from learning from it (not that recent British governments would set you a good role model). There really are some days when you make Chinese hegemony look like a good idea. Please wake up before it’s too late; for all our sakes.
Bet you don’t publish this.