Do you people not remember EADS winning last time? I think that alone is enough evidence that this was anyone's game.
Originally Posted by
Spooky 2
Actually the rumors around the company for the last couple of months were that Boeing was not going to win this contract.
This. I personally couldn't understand why the Pentagon would ever take the A330 platform over the 767, seeing as the 767 nearly perfectly fits their desired mission profile and the A330 is way too much airplane, but the rumor mill was not very optimistic for B.
Originally Posted by
Brain Potter
What, just like Boeing and it's political cronies did when they lost the original competition. Also, especially with our economy the way it is, why would we spend our money overseas for an oversized and overpriced solution instead of right at home for an almost-ideal solution?
Best of three?
If my history is correct, Boeing won the first competition (rescinded for inappropriate conduct), EADS won the second (rescinded for inconsistent scoring), and now Boeing won this competition.
Originally Posted by
BEagle
Except that you would need rather more KC-46As to the same work as a smaller number of KC-30s if you were intelligent enough to have realised that in the first place, instead of looking at aircraft numbers!
The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's
be
ancounters allegedly made...
Yes, and I could buy a 15-passenger van to take my kids to soccer practice, but my Mazda 3 does the same job with a lot less fuel and a lot less car. Why don't the airlines use A380s or 747s to fly between Wichita and Pensacola? Because there's no use for that capacity.