If a new round of bidding for an Air Force refueling-tanker contract is to be fair, size can’t be all that matters.
Along with overall mission capability, cost should be a top-of-the list item in deciding whether Boeing’s 767-200 or Airbus’ A330-200 is the winning platform. With fuel costs high and likely going higher, that should be obvious.
When it awarded the tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and EADS (Airbus’ European parent company) last spring, the Air Force said one of the key advantages the A330 had over the Everett-built 767 was its larger size, enabling it to carry more fuel, cargo and troops. But that wasn’t an attribute sought by the Air Force in its request for bids, a key reason Boeing filed what turned out to be a successful protest. But the Pentagon official now in charge of the process, Undersecretary John Young, has suggested that a larger air frame will again earn extra points this time around.
If so, the Pentagon will need to explain its reasoning, and convincingly, or it may face another formal protest, this one immediate. An explicit preference for a larger air frame would be a huge advantage for Boeing’s competitor because Boeing, having been misled into believing the 767 was the right size, doesn’t have a ready alternative at hand. Aviation experts doubt the company could put forth a credible bid based on the larger 767-400 or much larger 777-200 in the short (five-month) time frame the Pentagon has laid out.
But it will be important to consider that the larger A330-200 frame is far less fuel-efficient than the 767-200. Boeing announced Wednesday that a company-funded study found that the Air Force could save more than $40 billion in fuel costs over the tankers’ 40-year life cycle if it chooses the 767. That’s more than the total value of the contract. In addition, the 767 would save the Air Force the cost of remodeling air bases to accommodate a larger tanker.
“Any change in the criteria has to be equitable,” said Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. “You can’t change the priority list and have it benefit only one provider.”
The Air Force already got burned by changing the rules in the middle of the game. That decision led to a successful protest and a delay in replacing the Air Force’s aging tanker fleet, which has an average age of nearly 50 years. Now it’s up to the Pentagon to ensure that fairness underscores any further changes, so it can get on with modernizing of this critical piece of our nation’s defense.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
