Airbus boss slams US over 'biased' military tanker tender

How typically American! The best airplane is chosen two years ago, Boeing snivels that it was all so unfair so the US Government changes the rules to ensure they are the winners this time round. As a result an inferior product is utilised and the Amereican taxpayer coughs up several extra billion dollars. Well done America!

Perhaps after the incident off the coast of Brasil they just opted for an aircraft manufactured to a higher set of quality standards that would not drop out of the sky fully loaded with passengers and fuel.

as that's never happened to a Boeing plane!

@ Lunavation

Ah yes, and thats why they prefer the 767 that scored 40 accidents (inlcuding 11 hull loss accidents) combining to 598 fatalities since its introduction.

"Perhaps after the incident off the coast of Brasil they just opted for an aircraft manufactured to a higher set of quality standards that would not drop out of the sky fully loaded with passengers and fuel."

Lunavation........I work on both types of aircraft and I would hate to burst your bubble, so I will leave you in your ignorance.

Wrong comparison. The A400M is the better comparison. On a military situation, Germany, France, Spain, England and others decided to not-allow ANY North American content (explicitly, the engines) and didn't care what anyone else thought.

This one isn't that blatant. It seems as though the US courted an EADS bid, but EADS doesn't want to do a bid alone.

The problems with the first bid were technical, but real.

What I cannot understand is how so many people with absolutely no knowledge or understanding about the tanker program in general and as a whole, making some of the stupidest comments I have ever read here. First off, this should never have gone to bid with EADS and Northrop Grumman in the running. EADS and France are a protectionist society when it comes to their defense industry. We may sell lots to the entire EU, but when it comes to France, we sell them nothing as they are not buying our products. Funny, when this tanker RFP first came out, it specified that the size of the airplane would be roughly that of the B767, not the size of the A330 by Airbus. But somewhere along the line, John McCain and the Air Force changed the requirement to allow a much too large aircraft into the competition illegally!!!! They changed the requirement and tilted the playing field to the Airbus advantage just to keep this away from being a sole-source contract. Problem is that the airplane that was described in the original RFP that was changed, was put back into the most recent RFP because THAT IS WHAT THE AIR FORCE REALLY WANTS. All you whiners out there that cry for NG/EADS, Alabama, Mississippi, Richard Shelby, James Bonner are fools at the very least as the Air Force has the right to determine what they need and they went back to the basics on this one and asked for what was originally sought before NG/EADS whined so hard that they got the original RFP changed in their favor with a way too large pig of a plane as their bid. Maybe when the USAF decides to retire the KC-10s, an airplane in size that would warrant using the A330 as its replacement, then, and only then, can NG/EADS truly provide what the Air Force said that their warfighter needs. So all of you in the south and at EADS and at Northrop Grumman need to shut up and learn from this instead of crying over the loss of your hugely tilted former victory. Go USA, go America, the warfighter will finally have what they need without being told by the French and the EU that they need an airplane that will cost them billions more in infrastructure to own and operate. No more whining, lets get these airplanes built.

Well, this is surprisingly one of the most heated debates I've ever seen here on TheLocal. But why? They are just airplanes. Yes, jobs are involved, but the lives of millions of people are not at stake.

I'm both American and European. Therefore I can speak neutrally.

Did anyone really expect the US to buy planes from a company that directly competes with one of their largest companies, especially a company it says does business illegally?

The comment made by Lunaviation was way out of bounds.

Boeing has done well overall. But he truth is, they have had far more jet airliners to malfunction and crash, than any other manfacturer in history. How many people died in all of the crashes?

There have been eingines that fall off 747's, 737 and 747's fuel tank explosions, 737 and 747 shedding fuselage parts, out of control 737 rudders, 767 thrust reverser problems and so fort.

The fact is, according to all of the evidence, no Airbus airliner has ever crashed due to a catostropic mechanical failure. Flight #447 was probably pilot error, because ALL airliners experience inconsistent speed readings. Had they not flown into that violent storm, then surely the A330 would not have crashed.

Therefore let's leave emotions out of. They don't help improve anything. I persoanlly expected the US to give it to Boeing. France would do the same with Airbus.

The 777 is a jewel by the way. I really like it.

Well, Beachrider, I doubt that there is any modern aircraft right now that doesn't have a substantial content of both US and European parts.

I do not claim tin depth knowledge of aircraft but I am surprised that the new tanker for the US Air Force is based on an aircraft that is already on the way out in the civilian market.

BTW, hasn't Boeing be years late in delivering the tankers to the Italian Air Force?

I still recall very well the Lauda Air disaster in 1991 when their brand new 767 initiated reverse thrust in mid flight.

Why? Perhaps it has something to do with EAD's mess with the A400M and national security.

Try to find any significant Canadian or American content in the A400M, there isn't any (don't hide this behind individual doubt). The airframe & engines have no North American content and that isn't by mistake.

Airbus requestedd that Pratt & Whitney Canada provide an engine. Some EU politicians decided to remove P&W and chose a Europe-only vendor that had not never done a military jet. It has been cited over-and-over as one key reason that A400M was so late. Next look at the software work for terrain following that will be a large part of the next few years of development. The Honeywell system isn't being used, but a new Europe-only group is developing that mechanism.

We are big-boys in the USA. Fool us once shame-on-you, fool us twice shame-on-us.

This is a parochial argument between two protectionist entities -- the US and the EU.

The American political issues at play are lost on most Europeans, precisely because they are parochial. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby wants the Airbus plant built in Alabama because Alabama is a "right to work" state (meaning that it is non-union). Shelby is one of the Republicans who has criticized Obama's stimulus plan while accepting stimulus money for his constituents (pork is bad unless it comes to my district). Boeing is a union company located in the northwest, which rankles the Shelbys of the south. Boeing also has a long history of a monopoly on government aerospace contracts, with mixed results. But EADS has no such history, and its recent debacle with the A400M should rightfully disqualify it from a U.S. government procurement contract. Why should American taxpayers subsidize waste and fraud in Europe when they can subsidize waste and fraud right there at home with Boeing?

Boeing has better stats regarding flight hours per accident than airbus. A340 is currently lowest, but with only 350 planes in service. 777, 747, 737, 767, and 757 dominate the ranking ranking in hours/incident.

Perhaps we should replace the Humvee Toyota next. Safety does matter.

Well, from what I can remember, the 747 actually has the 2nd worst accident rate of all mass produced jet airliners ever.

And I beleive that the 737 is right behind it.

Although the DC-10 has the highest accident rate, it however had only one crash (when the rear cargo door came off) that was the fault of the manufacturer. Bad pilots are going to find a way to crash airplanes. Surely they are the blame for most crashes.

The goal is to design and build aircraft that won't malfunction, to the point to where the pilots have no opportunity to save the plane, crew and passengers. Whether you like them are not, Airbus has been perfect in this way.

I would however recommend that they eliminate the "potential" for cockpit mistakes. This has been their problem.

1. Thus far all comments seem to omit the fact that Boeing originally "won" the tanker contract with an uncompeted, backdoor deal that had the US Air Force LEASING the 767 tankers from Boeing at an incredible cost. I guess the Air Force needed the tax advantage of a lease. That acquisition is what McCain originally exposed & canceled.

2. Boeing publicly admits that thay need the contract to prevent the shutdown of the 767 line, as there are no commercial customers.

3. Oblomov, commenting above, is correct. The 767 tanker was due to be delivered in 2006 and has yet to complete certification for refueling & be delivered.

4. In the 90's when Boeing sought Congressional approval to take over McDonnell Douglas, their PRIMARY antitrust (anti-monopoly) defense was that AIRBUS was competition, therefore liquidation of McDac was harmless. Now that they have a monopoly, they cry "USA" in the parrotriots line up to push the corporate welfare.

1. Air Force doesn't pay taxes. Just wanted to help you with that.

2. A seemingly irrelevant piece of info. Is 767 a good tanker or not?

3. 767 tankers (of different configs) are flying for others. The USA 767 is quite different than the Italian ones.

4. Soooo, we should automatically give everything to the European monopoly?

If EADS wants to bid, they can. If they want to question the selection criteria, they can ask. It isn't like we summarily dismissed a competitive bid. But the EU did exactly that with P&W Canada and Honeywell.

... fool us twice, shame on us...

"Uncompeted back door deals" are a way of life within the American military-industrial complex. The Bush administration was a particularly egregious offender, giving no-bid contracts to corrupt war profiteers such as Haliburton, Kellog-Brown-Root (a subsidiary of Haliburton) and Blackwater, the infamous right-wing Christian mercenary company known for murdering innocent Iraqi citizens with impunity. As Cheney had been the CEO of Haliburton before he decided to return to politics to become the shadow president, the award of these no-bid contracts surprised no one, although they were illegal. So why the big bruhaha over Boeing? Boeing has been one of the major players in the culture of corruption in Washington since Christ was a corporal. They make airplanes. Most of them work. They provide jobs that are vital to the economy of the west coast. Why in the world should the U.S. military buy tankers from a European competitor with a dicey track record at the cost of thousands of American jobs? Any American politician who supported that idea should be booted out of office, and quickly would be.

"Northrop Grumman chief executive Wes Bush said Monday it would withdraw the joint proposal"

This statement speaks volumes. Everyone who is complaining about the US ought to rethink their positions until more details are released. As it stands we only have one side of the story.

For the record EADS was given the UH-72A helicopter deal for a BUNCH of hardware, training and maintenance. No one here is automatically sliming that deal.

The US pretended to put the deal out to tender as a stick to beat Boeing with, back when the level of corruption in Boeing became embarrassing even by American standards. They cancelled their initial contract and presented a pantomime of a contest with EADS-Northrop. But with no intention of ever going anywhere but Boieng. Pure theater.

Guess they'll soon be asking for bids for European countries to send soldiers to Afghanistan. Well dont hold your breath waiting for responders.

As to the Boeing design being inferior, we are only hearing that from EADS-centric sources. The Boeing planes are smaller and you can buy more of them for the same cost. That was what the Air Force wanted. If there is some intrinsic defect in the 767 airframe, not enough people believe that.

If EADS invested poorly in trying to convince congressmen to change the Air Force, spec, sorry about that.

Dragonmaster, you are either being argumentative or don't understand that EADS won the SECOND tender. It was reversed when the GSA objected to the congressmen changing the specs to fit the EADS design.

I suppose that you could feel that whenever the government a request so that only local builders could win, that such a change is unfair. You would, of course, then be speaking first about the A400M, though.

... fool us twice, shame on us...

I would think all EU pacifists would applaud the decision , having lost the contract the EU can proudly proclaim they would not be supporting the US war machine!

Likewise the Norwegians and the UK can proudly proclaim they don't extract oil to sell becaue it contributes to global warming! Yeah right.....

Do Europeans understand that the USA uses two classes of Air-Refueling planes? We have KC-135 and KC-10. The smaller is based on early-1960s Boeing 707 (90+ tons of fuel) and the larger is based on early-1970s McDonnell DC-10 (178 tons of fuel). We are replacing the smaller ones (KC-135) in this contract, we are keeping the bigger ones (KC-10).

The USAF wants to maintain both lines. EADS is attempting to tell the USAF that they don't need the smaller tanker and that they will be fine with a much smaller number of larger tankers. The USAF is the customer and disagrees.

The GSA said that the US Congress cannot override the USAF, that would be the President's job. So EADS either needs to do a KC-135 size tanker OR convince the President that the Air Force is wrong.

We will see.

I know this is an old article, but I was just reading post #8 by Logic Guy who said:

"The fact is, according to all of the evidence, no Airbus airliner has ever crashed due to a catostropic mechanical failure."

That's completely untrue. I could rattle off a list of catastrophic Airbus accidents caused by mechanical failures. How about American Airlines flight 587, an A300 on which the vertical stabilizer just broke off in flight killing everyone on board and several people on the ground. There are many more, but your sweeping statement that an Airbus aircraft has never suffered catastrophic failure is flat out wrong.