Major manufacturers such as Boeing Co., General Electric Aircraft Engines and Bombardier/Learjet often cut costs by allowing foreign suppliers to make airplane components, but do not adequately supervise the quality of their subcontractors’ work, said the report this week from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s inspector general.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080301/BUSINESS/834977225/1006
Northrop offered more bang for the buck.
Boeing’s Tankers did not perform as well as Northrop’s
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/05/why-boeing-lost-the-100-billion-air-force-tanker-deal/
The truth hurts.
From what I “heard” airbus has never built a tanker and is years behind on the ones being produced for Australia.
I find the treads here rather amusing. A year ago there was nothing but praise for Boeing and disdain for Airbus over commercial airlines. Everyone was cheering the great Boeing product and running down the Airbus product. Day by day, week by week acclaim for Boeing getting deals.
All this is very confusing.
“Northrop offered more bang for the buck.
Boeing’s Tankers did not perform as well as Northrop’s”
You may want to reconsider...
“When Northrop threatened to pull out of the competition altogether, U.S. officials again changed the competition to add features - including extra credit for cargo and passenger carrying capabilities that aren’t required for the refueling mission.
Those factors, which go toward providing the “more” as described by Gen. Arthur Lichte, Air Force Air Mobility Command chief, during the tanker-winner announcement, tipped the choice toward Northrop and EADS.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/PAC03048.xml
“The big question now is whether Boeing will protest the award. Spingarn thinks a protest is likely after Boeing receives its debrief from Pentagon officials on March 12. He and other analysts expressed surprise that Air Force procurement officials appeared to favor the A330’s bigger capacity over the 767’s apparent lower operating costs. “We think Boeing would have bid the 777, rather than the 767, if that weighting had been clearer,” Spingarn writes.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/WALL03038.xml
This deal was rigged. Boeing could have added the 777 to the mix but was discouraged. Airbus is desperate to get into the US market and we owe the French for taking a stand against the Iranians. By the way capacity isn’t always the best choice. I think durability is the better choice in these upcomming lean procurement years. However I dont’ have access to billions of dollars in US Taxpayer funds :)