Originally Posted by
George K Lee
But was the risk of late deliveries and development cost over runs worth it? Almost certainly yes.
Most likely you're right, if you're Boeing. The customer may have a different perspective.
Different perspective? Why? Boeing is covering the extra costs
and is paying penalties for the late deliveries. After this batch, each new batch of tankers will require a new negotiation. It's up to the customer on how to handle that negotiation.
Originally Posted by
George K Lee
Because we know where the guy who set up the KC-46 deal is sitting today, do we not?
Loren Thompson?!! Set up the KC-46 deal? Really?!!! That's delusional.
Originally Posted by
George K Lee
And of course that consultant still cashes Boeing checks.
You appear to have a fixation on Loren Thompson being a "Boeing Consultant". He is not. Yes Boeing pays the Lexington Institute, but the Lexington Institute is a lobbying firm who's mission is to "
inform, educate, and shape the public debate of national priorities in those areas that are of surpassing importance to the future success of democracy, such as national security, education reform, tax reform, immigration and federal policy concerning science and technology." Yes, they do influence Congress to support a wide range of defense and technology programs, which is clearly in Boeing's interest. But no, they have zero influence on specific defense programs, and no special insights into what and how EADS/Airbus (or any other contractor) is bidding.
And of course (it's your MO) you're deflecting my question about your assertion that EADS submitted a grossly noncompliant bid. How about some evidence for that?
My MO? Really? On what do you base this specious claim? In any event, this was well covered in another thread well over a year ago. EADS (now Airbus) bid a tanker based on the passenger version of the A330 because at first there was no requirement to base the tanker on a freighter. (Remember that the original KC-X competition was in 2007. The A330F did not fly till 2009). But the final RFP
did require a freighter aircraft, and EADS would not offer the freighter version. Why? Hard to say, but my understanding is that the freighter is a converted passenger airplane. Converting a passenger plane to a freighter and then converting that to a tanker was too big a bite to chew. It's one reason why Northrop pulled out of the partnership. Several guys on this forum justified EAD's decision to not base their offer on a freighter by stating that because the A330 is bigger than the 767, it "did not need" a cargo door nor cargo floor nor under floor fuel tanks. That may or may not be true but is totally beside the point that unlike the first RFP, the final RFP mandated a cargo door and floor.