Your post proves that point.
Why did the GAO, the Government Accounting Office decide that the last round was not fair to all parties?
You seem to have left out the fact that Airbus EADS provided a product that did NOT meet the specs, in the last go-round.
It was the GAO which made them start the entire process over.
BTW, “it takes fuel to carry fuel” -— so, after a certain level of capacity, you find that a large portion of the fuel that you must carry is devoted to the job of transporting more fuel.
The Boeing Tanker can be based in more places, since it does not need as much run way, and does not need as much in the way of hangars and storage space.
The EADS tanker could not be based in as many places, so it would have to waste fuel to carry fuel as it would often be forced to travel a longer distance, on its mission.
Could you cite your source on this? I believe you are doing nothing more than pushing Boeing propaganda. I work at 2 AF bases (Eglin and Hill) and I see KC-10s parked at these base all the time.
Actually it needs more. On of the reasons the 767 lost to the 330MRTT in the UK competition was that the 330 could operate from every required RAF airbase, the 767 couldn't.