We could know something this week about the long-stalled Boeing tanker deal.
But does that mean a new lease on life for the Boeing Co.’s 767 assembly line in Everett? Analysts, staring into their magic eight balls, say the outlook is not so clear.
“It sure sounds like the 767 is not the top choice,” Leeham Co. analyst Scott Hamilton said.
The Department of Defense plans a closed-door briefing for key members of Congress on Thursday, said George Behan, press secretary for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks.
At the briefing, Pentagon officials are expected to finally release the findings of last year’s Rand Corp. study, which looked at the future of the U.S. Air Force’s aerial refueling fleet and options for replacing the 400-plus KC-135 tankers, which date back to the Eisenhower administration.
Dicks’ staffers expect there will be some sort of announcement following the meeting. The players aren’t likely to emerge with a precise plan, Behan said, but rather a broad outline describing what the Pentagon wants for its next aerial refueling jet.
You no doubt recall that two years ago Boeing appeared to have sewn up a deal to provide 100 KC-767s to the Air Force. But the deal was derailed in the wake of the Pentagon procurement scandal, which sent two Boeing executives to prison.
When the scandal broke, the deal was put on hold to allow the Pentagon to study its options. The generals hired Rand to do that study, which was completed last year but never released.
What the Rand study says has been a closely guarded secret. But Hamilton said a few hints have surfaced: Airbus parent company EADS will almost certainly be allowed to bid on the contract, and the 767 no longer appears to be the Air Force’s tanker of choice.
“It’s a good airplane,” Hamilton said. “It’s just an old airplane.”
Dicks, speaking at Monday’s Aviation Futures Alliance breakfast in SeaTac, said he remains opposed to allowing the Pentagon to consider buying the KC-30 tankers proposed by EADS and American defense contractor Northrop Gruman, which are based on Airbus A330s.
Congress recently dropped a “buy America” provision that would have blocked the Air Force from buying Airbus planes, but Dicks said that even so, “I don’t think Airbus should be able to compete for this deal as long as they’re receiving illegal subsidies.”
Inside the Beltway, scuttlebutt suggests that the Air Force wants an airplane larger than the 767 for its next-generation tanker, Hamilton said. The thinking is that a bigger plane would be more flexible – big enough to carry cargo or passengers or even electronic eavesdropping equipment while still refueling fighters and bombers.
While that would be bad news for the 767 line in Everett, it wouldn’t necessarily be bad for Boeing. Analysts say Boeing could offer the Air Force a 777 tanker that would be far superior to anything Airbus could put up against it.
And Hamilton said the latest rumor is that the Air Force might want a smaller tanker for short-range missions – maybe something based on a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320.
“That was a real interesting twist to the whole thing,” he said.
Whatever the study recommends, it’s a good thing that the process is moving forward, Behan said. And even if the Pentagon decides to buy both Airbus and Boeing tankers, the fact the Air Force needs to replace so many means there’s a lot of business to go around.
“We’ve been stuck in the mud two or three years without doing anything,” he said.
In the meantime, the already-old KC-135s have just gotten older, Behan continued. “They’re going to be 50 years old before we have any replacements in the fleet. It’s ridiculous.”
Reporter Bryan Corliss: 425-339-3454 or corliss@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
