KC-X Winner to be Announced Later Today

[Flying Toaster]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.0e409dafc18367e33fb3689dce6ce4ac.461

Should be interesting, but with all the politics involved it still seems like this is largely irrelevant until that first plane rolls of the line. I wonder what the chances are this decision goes down without any protest, especially after the AF sent the confidential bids to the opposing parties.

 

[VmiMMXI]

Apparently Boeing won it, again. KC-46A

http://www.dailytech.com/Boeing+Wins+35B+USAF+KCX+Tanker+Contract+Again/article21000.htm

 

[HooverPilot]

And the winner is...Boeing.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/24/news/economy/pentagon_tanker_contract/

 

[A4sForever]

It's EXACTLY the result I was expecting ... I mean, how COULD one resist the sweet, tender ministrations of these two ladies ???

I KNOW I COULDN'T ... !!! Resist them, that is ...

BOTTOM LINE:

 

[Flying Toaster]

Not sure what people in the know think about this, but I'm happy to see Boeing get it over EADS. In addition it seems with that to me there is less likelihood of this dragging out with the Boeing select (for said reasons A4's just posted).

 

[Swanee]

Wasn't the EADS entry a more capable platform?

 

[Recovering LSO]

its all well and good that Boeing gets the contract, keep the work in the US. It will be interesting to see how the timeline proceeds. Seems from many reports of late that Boeing is having a hard time meeting timelines for commercial sales.

This next question is not MEANT to sound sarcastic - genuinely interested in feedback from folks in the know: this whole process seems like there were two options, the government (with normal amount of govt acquisition shadiness) chose to go with EADS. Boeing threw a fit and got the process restarted - and Boeing ends with the contract.?. What were the grievances that justified restarting the competition/review?


BTW - A4s, thanks for ruining my evening with the sight of "our" (yours and mine) senators....real mother theresa's those two...

 

[Flying Toaster]

Wasn't the EADS entry a more capable platform?

Depending on what one views the criteria for "more capable" as. The A330 proposal was obviously larger and could carry more fuel, but then again, so could a 747 or A380. There was a lot more to the contract than simply how much fuel it could carry, in fact Northrop pulled out and left EADS to go at it alone because they felt it "favored" a smaller tanker.

 

[Swanee]

Depending on what one views the criteria for "more capable" as. The A330 proposal was obviously larger and could carry more fuel, but then again, so could a 747 or A380. There was a lot more to the contract than simply how much fuel it could carry, in fact Northrop pulled out and left EADS to go at it alone because they felt it "favored" a smaller tanker.

So in what world does carrying less fuel and cargo mean more capable?

 

[that mike guy]

@ Swanee - I also heard that EADS had the overall better plane.

@ 129P - Even though EADS is a European company, [I heard] the planes were going to be built in a plant that was to be constructed in south Alabama and employed by American workers. I guess the profits would still support an overseas company and that could be viewed as a negative. And yes, the way you described the situation is exactly the way that I am understanding it as well; Boeing didn't feel that they got a fair chance to bid and threw a fit. Anyone else have some better insight as I'm sure this couldn't be solely it.

 

[helolumpy]

Does this mean that Darleen Druyun is finally vindicated???

 

[jmcquate]

its all well and good that Boeing gets the contract, keep the work in the US. It will be interesting to see how the timeline proceeds. Seems from many reports of late that Boeing is having a hard time meeting timelines for commercial sales.

This next question is not MEANT to sound sarcastic - genuinely interested in feedback from folks in the know: this whole process seems like there were two options, the government (with normal amount of govt acquisition shadiness) chose to go with EADS. Boeing threw a fit and got the process restarted - and Boeing ends with the contract.?. What were the grievances that justified restarting the competition/review?

BTW - A4s, thanks for ruining my evening with the sight of "our" (yours and mine) senators....real mother theresa's those two...

It was originaly sole sourced to Boeing until a DOD higher-up assigned to the project was accused and convicted of negotiating for a position with Boeing. Boeing brought this circus on itself.

 

[A4sForever]

It's always money and power (political power, in this instance) ... money and power ... money and power ...

Here's some more 'news' from da' local boys ... the Aerospace page from the Seattle Times:

BOEING A 'CLEAR WINNER' IN TANKER CONTRACT, PENTAGON SAYS ...

 

[jmcquate]

Politics aside, how hard is it to convert an existing, proven, commercial airframe into a tanker?

 

[Recovering LSO]

A4's the linked article mentions 11,000 direct and indirect jobs for WA. It will be interesting to see if and when these jobs come about - and if they come anywhere near the 11,000 total. The "indirect" title allows for quite a bit of wiggle room.