Boeing wins contract to make Air Force tanker
The Pentagon is expected to buy 179 refueling tankers from Boeing Co. at a cost of $35 billion.
February 24th, 2011
05:21 PM ET

Boeing wins contract to make Air Force tanker

The Pentagon says Boeing Co. has been awarded a contract to make the Air Force's next generation refueling tanker, the KC-X. Boeing will get $3.5 billion to deliver 18 aircraft by 2017.

The Pentagon eventually is expected to order a total of 179 planes for a total cost of $35 billion.

FULL STORY
Post by:
Filed under: Business • Jobs • Military • Uncategorized
soundoff (73 Responses)
  1. Good union paychecks

    excellent use of resources. Its all about those liberal drug dealers just like quadddahhfi says. American unions can smell a good harvest when the paycheck has the correct flag. Say no to liberal drug dealers and support the true world leaders.

    February 24, 2011 at 8:14 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Field reporter/correspondent (the stupid one)

    This just in ; banasy and I will be on our honeymoon and appearing at a Circus Side Show all across the country this spring ….join us, mmmmm? Check your area for local listings ….. Barnum & Bailys Ringling Bros. Circus and Circus Side Freak Show…….

    February 24, 2011 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
  3. ed bailey

    Remember the words of the long forgotten Tom lehrer song, WHO'S NEXT. "then France got the bomb but don't you grieve, their on our side, I believe!" the last line is stll a laugh for me. "We will all stay serene and calm when Alabama GETS THE BOMB!" I will never go back to France!!! Smelly as it is, flap your wings Boeing!

    February 24, 2011 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
  4. rod

    couldnt you balance more then a couple state budgets with 35 billion dollars?

    February 25, 2011 at 5:18 am | Report abuse |
  5. ed bailey

    Of course it needs to stop but the train is sooo big and mean we would have to tear up the tracks BEFORE it ever moves!

    February 25, 2011 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
  6. igor borcea

    A few years ago, an European Consortium -with massive European backing- decided to push forward the idea of a European military cargo plane. There were two competing engine proposals: one from Pratt & Whitney Canada (a subsidiary of an American company), the other a common effort of a hodge podge of European companies (French, German, British...). When word came that the Canadian offer was significantly more cost efficient and superior in other respects, and that the Canadians are just about to win, then -it is said that in the highest French political circles slammed his fist on the table, saying something like: "There will be an European engine, or there will be no airplane!".

    Now, should America do anything different???? Why?

    February 25, 2011 at 12:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • BBC

      Because we're better than they are. Show them that we don't make uninformed, emotional, irrational decisions. We base our decisions on facts. And the facts are... EADS had a better proposal. The AF knew it in 2008, and they know it now. The only difference in the decision now, is that lobbyists and certain congressional members have had 2 years to find a way into the pockets of those that made the decision.

      February 26, 2011 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sack

      BBC – You should really quit drinking the Alabama kool-aid. Check the facts as reported by the GAO and independant review. The only reason that Airbus won the first round was that the rules were changed multiple times after the bidding. They could not win based on their product, so the rules kept changing until John McCain got his way and Airbus won. The simple fact is, the Airbus plane is bigger and cannot operate from 1/3 of our bases. There would be BILLIONS spent reworking the airfields to accomodate the larger plane. The current planes only offload an average of 64% of their fuel, so why pay for an oversized gas hog? The Boeing plane is the right size to fit 98% of the military missions. It is the better plane despite what the Alabama Airbus throng want you to think.

      March 1, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Bill

    No more French company in the US?? Awww French girls are hot.

    February 25, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
  8. wAYNE

    These refueling tankers will help the mission.

    February 25, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Tomaz

    Shameful. Pastor carrying ak-47. Should he be reminded guns has death to offer? What happened to the bible and its principles? Peace and democracy can never be fathered by $30.5bil war products. Their birth path is an idea of trust, honesty and mutual respect. For it to come from us, as we'd like for some reasons, washington must be willing to take a leading responsibility role to undo what we and our partners have been doing. End the indirect colonization of smaller countries. End planting fake democratic leaders for cheap deals and building weapons for wars. To have a congregation to preach to, the pastor must try coming to church with his bible. A 30.5bil war machines has no salvation for a world constantly fighting for freedom and peace. This is 2011!

    February 25, 2011 at 4:28 pm | Report abuse |
  10. John

    Both planes met all requirements. The decision was based on that over the lifetime of the fleet (40 years) the Boeing plane is much cheaper due to lower fuel cost because it is a smaller plane. This is why Boeing successfully protested the last award. There were no extra points given in the most recent contest for extra fuel or troop carrying capability. Boeing had said they would have offered a 777 based tanker if that was the case. BTW, the EADS plane is only assembled in Alabama, the majority of it is made in Europe. The vast majority of the 767 is made in the USA. Boeing has 60 years experience building and supporting tankers. EADS just now is getting into the business. Seems like a no brainer.

    February 25, 2011 at 9:47 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Scottsdale Boy

    I think we have to applaud the decision to award this contact to Boeing. In addition to the obvious benefit of creating employment in the U.S., the decision protects the United States against any possible adverse political decisions the principal shareholde­rs (i.e., France, Germany) of Airbus could make over the 50+ years lifespan of this contact. Had the contract been granted to Airbus, no one today can guarantee that in the next 50 years its owners would not exert political influence re delivery, maintenanc­e, parts etc. contrary to our national interest.

    As to Senator Shelby and his disgracefu­l behavior, I wouldn't mind if Congress permitted the Alabama National Guard to acquire 100 staff cars from Volkwagen. A small mind at least deserves a small contract.

    February 26, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • BBC

      I bet Sen. Shelby would go for that... VWs are a lot nicer and better built than Fords and Chevys.

      February 26, 2011 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Seamus McDermott

    Well, 35 Billion is fully HALF the amount the GOP wanted to trim from the domestic budget (health, education, welfare). Why? So they could pay the Boeing bill? And here we are, six months later, and Boeing has created how many jobs with the money? Hmmmm?

    About half the news organizations report this contract as being $3.5 billiion (not that that isn't bad enough), neglecting to mention the total cost. Well, hope you like it, 'cause you're going to pay for it. Divide $35 billion by the number of people in the country and you get: $109 for every man, woman and child in the country. Of course, with tax cuts, that will be borne by massacred middle class, not the wealthy. They wealthy MAKE money on this stuff. The rest of you just pay for it.

    July 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3