New Twists as Tanker Drama Continues

I've been following the competition for the new USAF tanker for quite a while. I was excited when the Northrop/EADS A330 won. A friend of mine who has multiple combat tours in the KC-135 and got to provide input to the tanker decision said the A330 is a superior aircraft. I live right down the road from Mobile, AL, where residents were ecstatic about a new airplane factory and thousands of associated (American) jobs coming to town. I was quite pleased that the Air Force made an effort to be fair and open with the competition following a shady tanker lease deal that got some people in trouble in 2004.

Then, after the A330 was officially named the winner and ground was already broken on the new factory in Mobile, Boeing complained and got the decision overturned and the competition reopened. I was very disappointed. Reopening the competition guaranteed several more years of waiting for a new tanker while the ancient KC-135s continued to serve past their lifetime. It also showed severe prejudice against a foreign product, even if it meant a superior to our warfighters.

The Pentagon released their new request for proposals recently. Sadly, the new specifications so obviously favor Boeing's 767 that Northrop and EADS have decided not to even enter the competition.

Yes, you heard me right. You can read the statements on the Northrop and EADS websites. Both statements unabashedly declare that the new competition is unfair and reaffirm the position that the A330 would better serve the Air Force. (It has won the last 5 major tanker competitions around the world.) The companies note that they have such low expectations of the Pentagon that their shareholders couldn't possibly be well-served by this competition. EADS mentions that it will continue to support the Army's Light Utility Helicopter program and all the other programs it has with the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard. (I wrote about the Army's UH-72s earlier.) EADS said they're glad to continue to contribute $11 Billion to the US economy every year along with the 200,000 jobs Americans have with the company.

As far as I can tell, this is the most gracious way they could have possibly told the US Government to stick their tanker you-know-where.

Boeing hasn't published a reaction to this on their website, as far as I can tell. Their most recent statement about the tanker competition details their plans to put the 787 cockpit in their 767 tanker and tries to justify their plane as being a better match for the Air Force's needs. The Seattle PI (paper for Boeing's home town) notes excitedly that with Northrop/EADS out of the competition, production could start on Boeing's tankers sooner. They're absolutely right, but should they be proud of that?

DefenseTalk.com quotes Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman as saying, "To suggest that we should conduct a competition that would result in the department paying a much higher price for capabilities that are not needed isn't effective competition..." I'd say it's still pretty debatable whether the A330's superior capabilities were unneeded or if there are other reasons we aren't buying a European aircraft.

The UK's FinancialTimes.com may have best identified the rub in all this by saying recently, "Washington has taken Airbus for a four-year ride." FT.com wondered if Boeing is waiting to get the contract at which point they'd pull a switch and offer their larger 777 instead of the 767. Doing so would essentially say that the A330's increased capabilities were the ones the US needs. Everyone help me watch for that. If it happens, there will be no possibly way to say that this competition was ever fair.

Northrop also mentioned that they were awarded a deal for $184 Million per aircraft and that the Boeing 767 is smaller and less capable than their aircraft, so it should cost less. The idea behind a competition was to keep costs low. Make no mistake, with only one option to choose from the USAF will have to buy Boeing's tanker. Northrop's point is: if Boeing were to end up asking for or getting anywhere near $180 Million each for its aircraft, the American people would immediately know that they were being treated unfairly. They had a contract for a great tanker at that price. Now they'll be getting less. We definitely need to watch out for unfair pricing in this unfair competition. I challenge Boeing and the Pentagon to do the right thing and keep the price for these tankers where it should be...well below $180M each.

Please don't get me wrong, I like Boeing. I think they make great aircraft. This is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the US military, foreign air forces and airlines all over the world fly their airplanes. They are generally a great American company and I hope great things continue to happen for them. However, I think they should be ashamed of their actions in and the outcomes of this tanker competition. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the A330 wasn't a better tanker and my sources and the Air Force's competition missed something. I just don't like the way the situation looked before and I don't like the way it looks now.