• Ethical lapses on the first go-round of the bid by Boeing left a bad taste in the DOD's mouth.

• A perceived Boeing attitude that “assumed” a foreign company would never get the order may have caused a less-than-competitive bid by the US plane-maker.  Apparently Boeing forgot that Northrop Grumman is the lead on this one. Airbus provides the A330 airframe and NG handles the modification, support and  “secret” development on the aircraft.

• Sources close to the deal say the A330 was a better aircraft for the mission... period.  The  A-330 passenger jet is bigger, carries 20%-30% more payload, including 45K more pounds of fuel than the B767.   NG/EADS showed that the A330 could fuel 4 fighters "simultaneously" which the B767 could not.  Boeing scoffed at the necessity for fueling multiple aircraft at one time. The fact that this was a requirement in the RFQ apparently meant less to the Chicago-based aerospace company's recommendation. It has also been reported that the European bid was a bit less expensive.

• Manufacturing location (Alabama) for the NG/EADS offering is at issue for reasons on many levels. not only does it represent an assembly in a location the in on US soil, it has strong local and governmental support. While it is a final assembly location, it also represents cheaper US dollar assembly and could be the US foothold EADS has been trying to garner for offsetting the Euro/Dollar balance that favors US manufacturing. Latest Euro labor rumblings echo that sentiment.

• Boeing has had a history of B767 Tanker delivery delays with Italy and Japan models and it should be noted that the B787 is so much in the forefront at Boeing that a number of Defense honchos were recently transferred there to lend a hand.

• The B767 represents an older airframe and possibility the newer A330 offered greater performance and payload for the buck.

• Once the debriefing occurs later this month, official squawking will commence. About the only things that could change the outcome  at this point is impropriety by Northrop or the Air Force or a blow-up in the legislative branch. You can bet the Air Force will have to have their ducks in a row on this one.

So, we decided to poll a few of our "experts", many drawn from the retired ranks at Boeing and from Aerospace companies. Here are just a few of the responses... the names will be omitted by request but boy did they feel strongly about this one!

"Well deserved... lost on price... lost on schedule... lost on technical... lost on fleet assessment... won on past performance.  One out of five doesn’t get you a winner.  And ‐ it provides no basis for a challenge to the award.  Don’t look for much vocalizing on this from Boeing’s seniors ‐ they ignored the factual situation surrounding this program and are now reaping the benefits of astoundingly poor judgment all the way to the head office."

"I hear on the media that Boeing is planning to conduct a heavy 'patriotic' themed lobbying campaign to turn around the tanker decision, which is to emphasize that we are jeopardizing our Military's safety by 'outsourcing' our ability to produce tankers to Europe... makes sense to me, but because Boeing dropped the ethical ball on the first tanker award, I think it will be a hard sell to Congress and the DoD".

"It's ironic... the Airbus tanker is going to be assembled in Alabama, possibly, along with commercial freighter A330's; I presume the fuselage sections and wings will be made in Europe.  Sounds a lot like the 787, doesn't it?  Boeing doesn't have any case for playing the patriotic, keep it in the USA card.  They already set the precedent themselves with saying that it didn't really matter where the pieces were made but rather where it was system engineered and assembled.  They just got a taste of their own medicine."

"Lets see, lost $40 to $100 Billion dollars, I wonder whose heads will roll because of this one?"

Afterthoughts: What ever happened to those demo plans from AirCell and Lumexis? IFE watchers had better keep their eyes on American and US Airways and remember the old saying, "Just because the jungle is quiet does not mean that the snakes have left!" 

Here are a few links that you might want to dig a little deeper. There a lot of blogs too, try googling "Blog KC 45 Tanker". 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_KC-45
• http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/flexibility.html
• http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/benefits/impact.html