Originally Posted by
Asturias56
At the end of the day Boeing took a commercial decision - no doubt at the highest level- to go lo-ball on a technical spec that was challenging -I'd love to know if they were warned what the risks were...
Boeing was well aware of the risks and put in place various measures to mitigate the risks. Not all were successful. Boeing took similar and significantly greater risks to win the MQ-25, T-X trainer, and UH-1N replacement programs. Several contractors are crying foul because none have the cash flow that Boeing's commercial airliner business generates and are consequently forever disadvantaged.
Maybe Airbus dodged the bullet..............
I personally believe they consciously did so by submitting a final bid that was essentially non compliant in addition to being significantly pricier than Boeing's. But by staying in the program they ensured Boeing would 1) have to put the KC-10 boom and some other improvements on it and 2) force them to bid low. If Airbus had not bid, the project would have been sole source and Boeing could have effectively written the contract. Strategically it was a good decision on their part even if they knew they could not compete, because it kept Boeing's feet to the fire.