Opinion
A Call for Boeing on Boeing Action
Since 2001, the Boeing/Airbus(t) drama surrounding the selection of the U.S. Air Force’s (USAF) next airborne tanker has provided opportunities for even casual observers of the aerospace industry to witness the sausage-making of major defense contracting.
What’s happened? Hold on to your goggles fellow Boeing Nerds, it’s a sordid tale.
First things first. What is a tanker? It is a flying gas station. Those USAF bombers don’t have enough juice to get to Khandahar and back. They need to be tanked up in the sky, at 300 MPH.
Currently the USAF is flying the KC-135, a Boeing built beauty from 1957. It is time to get some new flying gas pumps so we can keep dropping Boeing bombs from Boeing-built bombers to keep the world safe for Boeing passengers.
In 2001 Boeing won a contract to lease the USAF 100 new, KC-767 tankers. Sen. John McCain (R-France) called it "a sweet deal" for Boeing. Soon afterward, the company and USAF were caught in some ethical hanky panky over the contract award. The deal was ripped up in 2004 and heads rolled at Boeing. In 2006, a competition was announced. Airbust’s parent company, EADS, teamed up with U.S. company Northrop Grumman to bid against Boeing. In 2008, the USAF, still smarting from the ethics shenanigans, awarded the contract to EADS/Airbust.
An early version of the Boeing’s latest airborne tanker
Boeing threw a royal hissy fit and the Government Accountability Office agreed that the competition was flawed. Contract shredded again! Currently, we have a new contract out to bid worth $50 billion. Northrop Grumman claimed the contest was tailor made for Boeing and took their ball and went home, opening up the field considerably. The Russians are looking at bidding, and Airbust—still the real competition—is exploring a partnership with L-3 (who?).
It is amazing that Airbust even wants to compete, given this tortured process and recent events. Yet $50 billion is a lot of Alpine chateau, and they do owe Boeing payback, even if just to make them stay honest on the pricing of their tanker through competition. Besides, Airbust is still smarting from Boeing spit shining the gracefully aging 747 to make it competitive with the monstrous, expensive A380.
An Airbust tanker used by the Aussies. Pictured here on the ground, where it belongs.
Boeing vs Airbust Round II
So we find ourselves back to the original billion dollar Thunderdome. Which is the better tanker?
In terms of workmanship, Boeing has the edge. The 767 production line in Everett is staffed by mustachioed union workers in Steve Miller Band concert t-shirts, pounding rivets and manipulating miles of electrical wire with their callused hands. Their uncomplicated worldview is influenced primarily by the NFL in hi-def and snowmobiling. Over in Airbust’s HQ in Toulouse, the turtleneck-sporting “workers” periodically assemble aircraft when their characteristic ennui is not crushing le soul.
It should be noted that the good people up in Everett and their partners around the world have already produced 767 tankers for the Italian Air Force (IAF). That’s right, Boeing made a tanker so foolproof that it is capable of being safely operated by Italian military personnel who have not exactly built a reputation for excellence—or even competence—in the last few centuries.
Also, in-flight refueling is a suggestive act with lots of probing, coupling, and even an exchange of fluids. To be honest, we’re not even sure we morally approve of the practice. But Boeing tankers have been giving American fighters and bombers the business since the early days of the Cold War (which we won). The thought of a French jet fueling up our Doomsday Machine makes us want to take a scalding hot shower and maybe even go to church.
Do we want an Airbus sticking its lavender and Galoise-scented French probe in our true blue B-52s? Not even in Obama’s America!
Hot Boeing on Boeing action, as God intended
Boeing Nerds’ Unbiased Tanker Decision: BUY BOEING
Thanks for checking out the inaugural Boeing Nerds! Stay tuned for more.
Mason Lowe is a former teenage Civil Air Patrol cadet who dreamed of defending the airspace above Thurston County from the Russians in a Cessna 150. He works as a non-profit do-gooder and moonlights as a glam hippie.
Derek Wildstar sadly followed a cowardly career path in relativism instead of an honest job like riveting a 737 in Auburn or dying at Thermopylae.
What’s happened? Hold on to your goggles fellow Boeing Nerds, it’s a sordid tale.
First things first. What is a tanker? It is a flying gas station. Those USAF bombers don’t have enough juice to get to Khandahar and back. They need to be tanked up in the sky, at 300 MPH.
Currently the USAF is flying the KC-135, a Boeing built beauty from 1957. It is time to get some new flying gas pumps so we can keep dropping Boeing bombs from Boeing-built bombers to keep the world safe for Boeing passengers.
In 2001 Boeing won a contract to lease the USAF 100 new, KC-767 tankers. Sen. John McCain (R-France) called it "a sweet deal" for Boeing. Soon afterward, the company and USAF were caught in some ethical hanky panky over the contract award. The deal was ripped up in 2004 and heads rolled at Boeing. In 2006, a competition was announced. Airbust’s parent company, EADS, teamed up with U.S. company Northrop Grumman to bid against Boeing. In 2008, the USAF, still smarting from the ethics shenanigans, awarded the contract to EADS/Airbust.
An early version of the Boeing’s latest airborne tanker
Boeing threw a royal hissy fit and the Government Accountability Office agreed that the competition was flawed. Contract shredded again! Currently, we have a new contract out to bid worth $50 billion. Northrop Grumman claimed the contest was tailor made for Boeing and took their ball and went home, opening up the field considerably. The Russians are looking at bidding, and Airbust—still the real competition—is exploring a partnership with L-3 (who?).
It is amazing that Airbust even wants to compete, given this tortured process and recent events. Yet $50 billion is a lot of Alpine chateau, and they do owe Boeing payback, even if just to make them stay honest on the pricing of their tanker through competition. Besides, Airbust is still smarting from Boeing spit shining the gracefully aging 747 to make it competitive with the monstrous, expensive A380.
An Airbust tanker used by the Aussies. Pictured here on the ground, where it belongs.
Boeing vs Airbust Round II
So we find ourselves back to the original billion dollar Thunderdome. Which is the better tanker?
In terms of workmanship, Boeing has the edge. The 767 production line in Everett is staffed by mustachioed union workers in Steve Miller Band concert t-shirts, pounding rivets and manipulating miles of electrical wire with their callused hands. Their uncomplicated worldview is influenced primarily by the NFL in hi-def and snowmobiling. Over in Airbust’s HQ in Toulouse, the turtleneck-sporting “workers” periodically assemble aircraft when their characteristic ennui is not crushing le soul.
It should be noted that the good people up in Everett and their partners around the world have already produced 767 tankers for the Italian Air Force (IAF). That’s right, Boeing made a tanker so foolproof that it is capable of being safely operated by Italian military personnel who have not exactly built a reputation for excellence—or even competence—in the last few centuries.
Also, in-flight refueling is a suggestive act with lots of probing, coupling, and even an exchange of fluids. To be honest, we’re not even sure we morally approve of the practice. But Boeing tankers have been giving American fighters and bombers the business since the early days of the Cold War (which we won). The thought of a French jet fueling up our Doomsday Machine makes us want to take a scalding hot shower and maybe even go to church.
Do we want an Airbus sticking its lavender and Galoise-scented French probe in our true blue B-52s? Not even in Obama’s America!
Hot Boeing on Boeing action, as God intended
Boeing Nerds’ Unbiased Tanker Decision: BUY BOEING
Thanks for checking out the inaugural Boeing Nerds! Stay tuned for more.
Mason Lowe is a former teenage Civil Air Patrol cadet who dreamed of defending the airspace above Thurston County from the Russians in a Cessna 150. He works as a non-profit do-gooder and moonlights as a glam hippie.
Derek Wildstar sadly followed a cowardly career path in relativism instead of an honest job like riveting a 737 in Auburn or dying at Thermopylae.
