Boeing flexible on tankers

For several years, Boeing Co. has been consistent on one point: The best aircraft to replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet is a modified version of its 767 commercial jet.

On Tuesday, however, Chicago-based Boeing said it was ready to build a new tanker based on any of its airframes, including the next-generation, fuel-efficient 787 Dreamliner.

"We have a full family of aircraft, and if the Air Force and the Department of Defense determine a new aircraft is the best solution for replacing the KC 135 tanker, we think we can ensure their requirements are met," said Brian Ames, a Boeing spokesman.

Boeing's flexibility comes a week after European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co., its chief rival for the tanker pact, announced it was partnering with U.S. defense giant Northrop Grumman Corp.

EADS and Boeing are waiting for the results of an intensive study ordered by the Pentagon of the Air Force's tanker needs. Neither Boeing nor EADS has been briefed on the contents of the study, conducted by the Rand Corp.

"Previously, Boeing maintained that the 767 was the best replacement for the aging tanker fleet. But Washington watchdog groups have suggested that position was more about keeping orders flowing to Boeing's endangered 767 production line than meeting the Air Force's tanker needs.

The Air Force isn't expected to put out its revised tanker-bid requirements until early next year.

Until then, Boeing and EADS are waging a public relations battle.

EADS has announced that it would build an assembly facility for its tanker in Mobile, Ala., a state with two powerful Republican senators.

On Tuesday, Boeing said its 767 tanker "could support significantly more U.S. aerospace jobs than any other competitor" because it draws from direct and indirect suppliers with 1,000 locations in more than 40 states."

I was in the Air Force on KC-10's when this boondoggle was shot down. Don't get me wrong. It is a great airplane. Just like Cadillac is a great car. The trouble was a lease for pretty much the life of the airplane with no discernible return benefits.

Like I said Cadillacs are great but no one would lease one under the provisions of paying for all the maintanence in addition to that which the person does himself on the car. That is pretty much the deal Boeing was pushing.

"EADS has announced that it would build an assembly facility for its tanker in Mobile, Ala., a state with two powerful Republican senators.

On Tuesday, Boeing said its 767 tanker "could support significantly more U.S. aerospace jobs than any other competitor" because it draws from direct and indirect suppliers with 1,000 locations in more than 40 states."

It's interesting how the "facts of life" of politics will probably settle the decision between EADS or Boeing. Which manufacturer will provide the most jobs in this country and thus the most political pull from its respective constituency?

EADS teams up with Northrup Grumman to put their plant on our soil. Isn't that strange? Airbus already has a plant in Wichita, maybe that's one reason why Boeing sold its plant there.

The BEST tanker should get the deal period.

"Keeping jobs and $$ here at home" should not be at all a factor.

Now, if there could be a problem with maintenance, replacement parts, etc, then that should be considered.

You forgot to mention that Linda Daschle, wife of then Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, was the lobbyist for that awful deal.

And I think there was something about Boeing reorganizing a certain department, once the details of their
"proposal" became known.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.