HeyJoe

Granted, I'm biased (work at Boeing, although in R&D and not in defense or commercial aircraft), but something is a bit odd about the whole thing. The A330 and 767 are about the same age (A330 mid-late 80s, 767 early-mid 80s); one could say the A330 is really just an extended A300 which makes it older. Both airframes are ok. Avionics on the 767 were based on 777 (and in fact did have a HUD!). There were delays in the other tanker progs, but the deliveries are happening now (first one to Japan in Jan or Feb this year). A330 tanker variants are in early development; avionics are I'm sure fine. The oddities to me are: A quote from Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne in Jan 2007: "We want to buy a tanker. We do not want to by a cargo airplane that tanks, we also do not want to buy a passenger airplane that tanks. We want to buy a tanker," Wynne stated emphatically. "It's primary mission is going to be a tanker. The fact that it can carry cargo or passengers is a benefit, but it is not the primary reason for the procurement." And the fact that Boeing talked to the USAF in 2006 about using the 777 (which is a better and more modern airframe than the A330), but the USAF indicated it wanted a medium sized aircraft. One of the other Boeing statements about the lost tanker bid said: “We bid aggressively with specific focus on providing operational tanker capability at low risk and the lowest total life cycle cost,” said McGraw. “For instance, based on values disclosed in the Air Force press conference and press release, the Boeing bid, comprising development and all production airplane costs, would appear to be less than the competitor. In addition, because of the lower fuel burn of the 767, we can only assume our offering was more cost effective from a life cycle standpoint." “Initial reports have also indicated that we were judged the higher risk offering. Boeing is a single, integrated company with its assets, people and technology under its own management control – with 75 years of unmatched experience building tankers. Northrop and EADS are two companies that will be working together for the first time on a tanker, on an airplane they’ve never built before, under multiple management structures, across cultural, language and geographic divides. We do not understand how Boeing could be determined the higher risk offering." Sooo....either the Boeing interfaces to the USAF were clueless and incompetent (possible, but hopefully doubtful for a contract this size), or the USAF somewhere along the lines changed major criteria for the competetion, or...who knows. I just find it bad that a lot of negative stuff has been leaked and conjectured about without people knowing the facts...