Lawmakers Grill Air Force on Tanker Deal

Oh, so an American company should automatically win the contract? Boeing rips off the Air Force, remember that lease fiasco that McCain shut down? Who wants to bet that if Boeing got the contract, it would come in over budget and late? Wasn't there a dual-boom competitor that got disqualified a while back? That's the plane I want... or better yet, a 787 refueler. Yeah, I know, when pigs fly.
Military contracting is in shambles, but I believe it is improving.

Lol thats aA330 MRTT(Multi Role Tanker Transport) and no american production!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

American industry can and does produce great aircraft. There must be a level playing field.

Aim High! Go Air Force.
USAF SAC 380th BW / SAW vet.

Yes, on FB-111A, B-52 and KC-135A aircraft. All built in the USA.

Two points:

The 787 plane by Boeing is built in Japan and Italy and assembled in USA. Over 80% of that plane is built using foreign pieces

Boeing has the right to file a lawsuit against the US Air Force if they determine that the competition was unfair to them

But they didn't.
Boeing Cried like WHORES, and used its political influence to censure the deal and freeze it

Now the US Air Force has attended GAO pressures and has canceled the contract, settling a new concourse

BOEING SORE LOSERS

It seems the Americans can't accept the fact that European companies produce better technology. Whatever happen to freedom of choice? Yet these are the same Boeing directors who after work drive home in their German made BMW or MB and watch their Japanese made TV. I'm currently somewhat p'off about my Australian Government still committed with this JSF-35 crap, where the RAAF said the Eurofighter is far more superiour for the protection of Australia.

the airforce dosent know how to think right the KC-30 is the same size as a KC-10 it delivers 100,000 gallons less fuel and carriers less cargo. while boeings kc-767 caries about the same or more than the kc-135. i realy dont see the logic in this. the militairy has always stuck with boeing and some of the companies from the "US" but now it seems that the airforce trusts more Boeings rival than "their own side" man talk about irony.

So, what now? We have a choice of 3. 1. The 767, imho the best tanker for the job, but deal with bad management practices. 2. The EADS tanker, a much larger airframe that we don't really need, and deal with having to pay to upgrade existing runways, ramps, and hangers for the larger size (would create more jobs, but unskilled labor instead of high tech). last and worst of all #3. buy a portion a of both tankers (see choices 1 and 2 for reasons) plus the logistics of having 2 airframes. We lose!

The American taxpayer will lose a buttload of money on this contract and the sad thing is it is because the business practices of The Boeing Company and passed Air Force leadership. We would at this very moment in time have new tankers in the Air Force inventory. More than a dozen years back, instead of just selling the Air Force the new 767 tanker, Boeing wanted to lease them to the government. The whole deal was just eye candy for the average taxpayer, and would make money for Boeing VIPs

The only thing you said right is the EADS tanker carries more fuel. Everything else are wrong. For the last statement, did you just said Boeing wins, because the GAO said the life cycle cost of the KC767 is a lot less than the EADS tanker so Boeing is cheaper? Best means a tanker that can refuel all the airfoce's airplanes in the inventory. Better chance of surviving an attack. Best value for the taxpayers. And fuel savings for the Airforce for 40 years of the life of the tankers. Is it EADS?

An American who does not want to pay for the pig.