Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said the victory could help Boeing in its battle with Airbus in the much larger market for passenger jets and freighters.
If EADS had won the tanker contract, it planned to eventually assemble commercial freighter planes at the Mobile plant, giving it a manufacturing beachhead that could help it expand other sales in the United States.
And with sharp budget cuts in Europe, “EADS also faces a home defense market that is imploding like black hole,” Mr. Aboulafia said. “So it was imperative that they get this contract.”
The award also could mark the end of a long and often embarrassing effort by the Air Force to replace its aging tankers, which date back to the Eisenhower and Kennedy years.
Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said the victory could help Boeing in its battle with Airbus in the much larger market for passenger jets and freighters.
Allstarflyer wrote:And, as an aside, I've been monitoring for other opinions on the outcome from others we've known to have an interest in the matter, no outrageous remarks (yet).
“I’m disappointed but not surprised,” Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama said. “Only Chicago politics could tip the scales in favor of Boeing’s inferior plane. EADS clearly offers the more capable aircraft. If this decision stands, our warfighters will not get the superior equipment they deserve.”
graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.
ShanwickOceanic wrote:graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.
Has it been that long? Wow.
graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.
JeffSFO wrote:No, longer, if you include how long Boeing was lobbying for the lease option which dated back to 2001.
Airfoilsguy wrote:Good, Americans should build the equipment that the American military uses.
ShyFlyer wrote:While I'm glad that Boeing got the contract, I don't think anything has ended, yet. I expect EADS to protest this, just as I would have expected Boeing to protest had the contract gone to EADS.
ShanwickOceanic wrote:JeffSFO wrote:No, longer, if you include how long Boeing was lobbying for the lease option which dated back to 2001.
I'd love to know how much all this governmental fannying around has cost, denominated in 767s...Airfoilsguy wrote:Good, Americans should build the equipment that the American military uses.
Even if it's inferior (I'm talking generally, not slagging the 767), or if American jobs are put at risk? I can definitely see it your way, I'm just not sure it's that simple in a world of licence-building, global supply chains, etc. What exactly does that "Made in the USA" sticker mean? I'd hazard a guess that the A330 tanker would have been more "American-made" than your average 787.ShyFlyer wrote:While I'm glad that Boeing got the contract, I don't think anything has ended, yet. I expect EADS to protest this, just as I would have expected Boeing to protest had the contract gone to EADS.
There has to be a lesson in this for future large contracts. This multi-billion-dollar kindergarten benefits nobody, least of all those of us paying for it (which, since EADS is involved, probably includes me somehow).
Airfoilsguy wrote:Just to elaborate a bit more. I believe that all major military hardware should be built in the country that is using it. Not only for political reasons but for tactical. What if we go to war with Europe? Sure I know the possibility is remote but if we did they would cut us off. Look at Iran, we sold them a bunch of fighter jets that became almost worthless as soon as we decided to hate them.
JLAmber wrote:179 frames
ShanwickOceanic wrote:Airfoilsguy wrote:Just to elaborate a bit more. I believe that all major military hardware should be built in the country that is using it. Not only for political reasons but for tactical. What if we go to war with Europe? Sure I know the possibility is remote but if we did they would cut us off. Look at Iran, we sold them a bunch of fighter jets that became almost worthless as soon as we decided to hate them.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. But if that's an argument for buying American, then you have to be buying American. Your 767 can't have any bits on it that aren't made in the US. If the gear's made in Italy, say, and you rip it off in an overrun, you're as boned as Iran in terms of getting replacements.
graphic wrote:Thank god that 7 year circus has ended.
JLAmber wrote:
All politics aside, it's good for aviation in general that the 767 frame finds another use, in the same way that the 707 did and is still flying in the form of the KC-135. The A330 line is working overtime to keep up with the orders that came in up to eighteen months ago. With a backlog still exceeding 300 frames, many on the A330 line will privately be breathing a sigh of relief that their order book will be staying manageable. Adding another 179 frames, and the hassle that comes with dealing with a government department, to the mix would have caused more problems than the additional orders would ever have been worth.
ANCFlyer wrote:So, an AMERICAN company building planes to fuel the AMERICAN AIR FORCE!
What a concept.
Should never, ever have been a contest, period.
Seriously, I think the Boeing airframe better anyway. And I'm disgusted this has taken so long. I know I'm letting my US Flag fly here, but, well . . . too bad.
Queso wrote:THAT's what all this crap has been about? Only 179 of them? 800 KC-135's were built with over 400 of them still in operation, I thought this was actually going to be something worth writing home about and a suitable "replacement" for the KC-135 and KC-10, too.
Fumanchewd wrote:How many times has this contract been awarded now?
ShanwickOceanic wrote:Hopefully the US Government has at least got a good deal out of this farce.
Queso wrote:JLAmber wrote:179 frames
THAT's what all this crap has been about? Only 179 of them? 800 KC-135's were built with over 400 of them still in operation, I thought this was actually going to be something worth writing home about and a suitable "replacement" for the KC-135 and KC-10, too.
JLAmber wrote:Then there will be some KC-135s in operation for a good while yet. The first batch of 18 KC-767s won't be available until 2017, so we should see KC-135s in service well beyond 2020. What plans there are to account for the lesser numbers is anybody's guess.
halls120 wrote:I don't know what the plans are, but I suspect they include fewer deployments of fewer airplanes, given the realities of budget issues.
JLAmber wrote:The first batch of 18 KC-767s won't be available until 2017, so we should see KC-135s in service well beyond 2020. What plans there are to account for the lesser numbers is anybody's guess.