WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner (R-AL) issued the following statement in response to H.R. 6426, the KC-X Tanker Recompete Act, introduced by Congressman Todd Tiahrt (R-KS):
“There they go again.
“Just 24 hours after the full GAO report is released, the Boeing strategy becomes clear: Air Force, take the Boeing tanker or face years of delay to conduct a new competition. It will be a competition, by the way, that is stacked in such a way that only Boeing can possibly win. Boeing believes it simply must win at all costs and obviously so do some of their foot soldiers in Congress.
“It makes one wonder why there was even a competition at all, if the only “acceptable” winner was Boeing.
“The company’s sense of entitlement and arrogance are breathtaking. Remember this is the same Boeing whose officials pleaded guilty and went to jail over corruptly influencing the last tanker contract in 2003.
“Never mind that the GAO found only administrative and procedural errors and did not offer any opinion even hinting the Boeing plane is anything but second best when compared to the Northrop Grumman KC-45 in capability.
“In fact, the Boeing plane is second best—it is a 15-year older design that offloads less fuel, is less fuel efficient, and is based on a commercial aircraft that is at the end of its production life. Boeing desperately needs this contract to keep the 767 production line open. Some call the 767 a dinosaur. In contrast, the A-330, on which the KC-45 is based, is still a bestseller in commercial markets worldwide.
“Yet, Boeing says, Air Force, accept the old model—take it or leave it. If you heard a car salesman say that, you would be on your way to another dealership. Of course, Boeing seeks to be the only dealership in town.
“Boeing claims to have 50 years of tanker expertise and is currently under contract to deliver KC-767 tankers to Italy and Japan. Never mind Italy’s delivery is over three years late with no resolution in sight, and Japan’s delivery was a year late and the aircraft is still not certified. It is no accident the A-330-based tanker has been selected over the Boeing tanker in the last four international competitions.
“It is also worth noting the tanker Boeing offered the Air Force is not the same tanker it is building for Italy and Japan. To meet the Air Force’s requirements, Boeing offered a tanker configuration consisting of components from various models of aircraft. Never mind that configuration has never been built, flown or tested; it truly is a paper airplane. In contrast, the Northrop KC-45 airframe is built and flying—in fact, Air Force aircraft one and two are ready now and aircraft three and four are under construction. Because of its established design and lower risk, the KC-45 offers “rubber on the ramp” earlier than the KC-767, and the Air Force desperately needs new tankers on the ramp now.
“To be fair, the GAO did note some computational errors that would have very marginally reduced Boeing’s cost, but remember what the Air Force said at the award announcement on February 29, 2008: even if Boeing’s cost had been lower, they still would have awarded to Northrop Grumman based on superior capability.
“The ultimatum issued to the Air Force by Boeing and its supporters is unconscionable. Our men and women who go into harm’s way in our defense should not have to face such an ultimatum… take the second best equipment or no new equipment at all.”
—30—