EADS: Lost in Translation; Boeing Sets the Record Straight

Building the next aerial refueling tanker for the U.S. Air force is an extremely important program for our servicemen and servicewomen, as well as for American taxpayers and U.S. workers. Given that it’s all about selecting an aircraft that will be serving the warfighter for more than 40 years, we can’t allow the truth to become a casualty of our competitor’s marketing campaign.

In that spirit, we’ve created some ads to help ensure interested parties separate fact from fiction in the claims of recent EADS North America tanker ads.

The following are offered as proof points to back-up the fact-based assertions being made in the Boeing ads.

1) EADS North America (a subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company and parent company of Airbus) claims that the KC-45 aircraft it is offering the U.S. Air Force is “flying and ready now.” That’s simply not true.

• All EADS international tankers, including the Australian Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), fall far short of meeting all 372 critical requirements in the USAF RFP. To cite just a few of the critically important USAF requirements not met by the MRTT under development for the Royal Australian Air Force:
- The Airbus MRTT has no centerline drogue refueling system.
- The Airbus MRTT has no cargo door.
- The Airbus MRTT cannot use standard USAF aeromedical equipment.
- The Airbus MRTT cannot refuel all USAF aircraft.
- The Airbus MRTT has no cockpit armor or KC-X defensive systems.

• Boeing did not presume to know the Air Force’s requirements before they issued their final Request for Proposals. Boeing has always said that it is up to the Air Force to determine those requirements. Now that we know and understand exactly what they need in a tanker to replace the KC-135 fleet, Boeing will propose an offering that meets all of those requirements by building on the experience of developing and delivering operational 767-based tankers to international customers and drawing on the company’s 60 years of tanker experience.

2) EADS NA claims that “… our (Boeing) competitor’s concept aircraft exists only on paper …”

• Boeing 767-based tankers have been built, flown, tested, delivered and are in operational service with the Japan Air Self Defense Force. These aircraft will participate next month, with U.S. and allied Air Forces in Red Flag, a simulated combat exercise. EADS/Airbus has yet to deliver any A330-based MMRT tankers to any customer. Additionally, media reports out of the United Kingdom indicate that the current A330 on offer is unsuitable for combat.

• Boeing has delivered over 2,000 tankers worldwide. While EADS/Airbus has delivered just six A310 tankers they have yet to deliver an A330 tanker to any customer, anywhere. And none of the A310 tankers was equipped with a refueling boom, which is a major requirement of the U.S. Air Force.

• Both competing tankers require development to meet USAF requirements. However, Boeing’s proposal will be based on the Air Force’s requirements versus the force-fitting of one specific airplane that is being offered elsewhere to meet different requirements. Our experience with 767 derivatives enables us to tailor a configuration that best suits the mission and avoids billions in unnecessary operating costs.

• As an example of Boeing’s competitive advantage in delivering military aircraft derived from commercial airplanes, the Boeing’s P-8 commercial derivative aircraft has been praised by the U.S. Navy as a model DoD acquisition program. Boeing will build the NewGen Tanker following the same successful formula.

3) EADS NA claims that its offering will have a lower price than its Boeing competitor.

• The published sticker price for the commercial Airbus A330 is $50 million higher (36% higher) than the Boeing 767. When you also include service life costs, fuel burn differences, and infrastructure improvements, independent analysis concludes that the price difference between the Airbus A330 and Boeing 767 should well exceed $10 billion. This same independent analysis postulates that the only way the Airbus A330 can achieve pricing parity with the Boeing 767 is through massive European government subsidies, like the $5 billion Airbus received in the initial development of the A330/A340 family of airplanes.

• By every measure the Boeing tanker will cost less to own and operate than the EADS/Airbus tanker over the anticipated 40 years of operation.

• The commercial A330, from which the Airbus tanker is derived, weighs 80,000 pounds more than a Boeing 767 – that is 40 tons of unnecessary extra weight it drags through the sky every time it takes off.

• The heavier A330 burns up to 24% more fuel, day in and day out, than a standard commercial Boeing 767. That equates to tens of billions in additional fuel costs.

• Maintenance costs for a commercial A330 are up to 20% higher than a commercial Boeing 767, resulting in hundreds of millions in additional maintenance costs.

4) EADS NA claims that, “Our warfighters deserve a real tanker … “

• Boeing agrees. BUT… the “real tanker” is that plane that is a variant of a currently operational tanker and backed by an experience base that is unmatched in the world.

• Boeing invented the aerial refueling boom employed by tankers and has 60 years of experience building and supporting those tankers. EADS/Airbus has 8 years experience and has yet to certify and deliver its first boom-equipped tanker.

• Boeing has built, certified and delivered 4 modern 767-based tanker aircraft to Japan that entered military operational service in 2009 – real tankers flying real military missions.

5) EADS NA claims that their tanker is, “… built here in the U.S. by tens of thousands of Americans.”

• The EADS/Airbus tanker will be designed and manufactured predominantly in Europe, which is why European political leaders have announced how important the KC-X program is to their national economies.

• Only about 5% of the total labor hours that go into the production of an A330 represent final assembly – and final assembly is all that is planned for the Mobile, AL facility. The other 95% of production labor hours will be spread across four European countries. The engineering design work will be done in Europe, as well.

• The Boeing tanker will be designed and built in the U.S.A.

• The Boeing production facility is in-place and is producing 767 aircraft now with a skilled American workforce. The proposed EADS/Airbus facility in Mobile, AL is a green field with no people, no processes, and no tools in place today.

• The Boeing tanker will support 50,000 American jobs with over 800 suppliers in over 40 states.

• At least 85% of the value content of the 767 Tanker is domestically produced, as opposed to what EADS/Airbus have identified as between 50%-60%. Furthermore, since the withdrawal of their major U.S. partner Northrop Grumman it is unclear how much U.S.-produced content remains.