Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Over such a massive deal, I can understand protectionism. Far from being an expert on tankers, I would imagine that both sides were offering effectively the same thing, maybe one offered more value for money blah blah blah... When you are talking multi billions, being able to keep that 'in house' is almost an end in its own right.
I'm not suprised nor am I particularly enraged that they should choose to favour one of their own.
This was never about the technical capabilities, effectiveness or otherwise of the technical bids.
It was always about pork. Basically, this programme is a huge undeclared subsidy to Boeing who will be using an obsolete airframe as the basis of this tanker, so getting a huge second bite of the cherry using a production line that had already paid for itself and was about to be closed and the tooling broken up and the workforce made redundant.
Ever since the 50's, Boeings civil aircraft division has been able to rely on a huge and very lucrative standing order book with the US DoD that ensures it always has plenty of money to fund it's civilian R&D and keep itself in the game.
EADS had the best bid, but Boeing owned more Congressmen and Senators.