Boeing Goes Public With Case Against USAF

It sounds like they have some strong arguments, but given their earlier shenanigans, they're lucky they have no viable competition in this country—many would argue they should not have been allowed to bid at all. Anyway, this could get ugly.

Complaint 1: USAF added last minute changes to the mission performance requirements that put Boeing's bid at a competitive disadvantage. The new formula was co-developed by a separate unit of Northrop-Grumman, which would have given the KC-30 unit more time to respond to the new requirements. Boeing claims the change was made because the KC-30 was too large for ramp space on certain missions, and the new formula simply invented ramp space that does not exist in the real world.

Complaint 2: Boeing says USAF refused to look at their stellar history of airliner programs when calculating program risk.

Complaint 3: Boeing says the KC-767 exceeded the USAF's fuel offload requirements by 20%, and USAF said increasing that number would not result in a stronger bid, so the KC-30 being larger should not have been a key factor in the decision. Had USAF expressed interest in a larger plane, Boeing would have offered a 777-based aircraft instead.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... irbus.html

Boeing may have some valid points, but, I noticed that Boeing is only talking the positives.

If the USAF gave extra points to the Airbus aircraft even though it was bigger than the bid requirements, then, that is not fair to Boeing.

But, Boeing proposed an aircraft that does not exist & the USAF considered that a risk, while the Airbus proposed aircraft is presently flying.

I have heard comments that Boeing was cocky in that they felt they knew more about the customers need than the customer did.....

Wondering if pissing the Air Force was a factor in Boeing losing the bid....

methinks that the decision was based more on the fact that boeing screwed up once before rather than the superiority of the KC-30 design.