Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.

Abstract

In March 2007, both Boeing and Northrop Grumman-Airbus offered their KC-767 and KC-30 military aerial refuelling and strategic transport aircraft, in a bid to secure a $40 billion contract to replace United States Air Forces'' (USAF) KC-135 air refuelling tankers. Boeing was earlier disqualified in 2003 due to a procurement scandal which led to a public debate on the ethics, syndication and lobbying prevalent in awarding multi-billion dollar contracts for armed forces. Observers felt that the fight for the total bid worth $100 billion between Boeing and Airbus is much more complex than supplying the refuelling tankers. The concerns included sentiments like US taxpayer''s money flowing to Airbus, arming it to compete more aggressively with Boeing in the US and other commercial airplane markets. American political supporters of Airbus, mostly from the state of Alabama, where Airbus had promised to build two aircraft manufacturing plants, said that the Airbus'' tanker aircrafts should be encouraged since an international competitor would bring more value to the bid. Anticipating that Airbus would bring more jobs and expertise to the state, the state extended incentive support to Airbus. Meanwhile, for the first time in US Defence contracting, the Request for Proposal had asked the bidders to indicate the launch aid, support and subsidy received by them from their respective governments. This has been necessitated by an ongoing tussle between the US and EU (European Union) in the WTO (World Trade Organisation) charging each other with providing undue subsidy aid to their aircraft manufacturers and undermining other''s competitiveness in the global arena. This made the awarding of the controversial bid by October 2007, a much awaited contract in US Defence history.
Location:
Industry:
Other setting(s):
2003-2007

About

Abstract

In March 2007, both Boeing and Northrop Grumman-Airbus offered their KC-767 and KC-30 military aerial refuelling and strategic transport aircraft, in a bid to secure a $40 billion contract to replace United States Air Forces'' (USAF) KC-135 air refuelling tankers. Boeing was earlier disqualified in 2003 due to a procurement scandal which led to a public debate on the ethics, syndication and lobbying prevalent in awarding multi-billion dollar contracts for armed forces. Observers felt that the fight for the total bid worth $100 billion between Boeing and Airbus is much more complex than supplying the refuelling tankers. The concerns included sentiments like US taxpayer''s money flowing to Airbus, arming it to compete more aggressively with Boeing in the US and other commercial airplane markets. American political supporters of Airbus, mostly from the state of Alabama, where Airbus had promised to build two aircraft manufacturing plants, said that the Airbus'' tanker aircrafts should be encouraged since an international competitor would bring more value to the bid. Anticipating that Airbus would bring more jobs and expertise to the state, the state extended incentive support to Airbus. Meanwhile, for the first time in US Defence contracting, the Request for Proposal had asked the bidders to indicate the launch aid, support and subsidy received by them from their respective governments. This has been necessitated by an ongoing tussle between the US and EU (European Union) in the WTO (World Trade Organisation) charging each other with providing undue subsidy aid to their aircraft manufacturers and undermining other''s competitiveness in the global arena. This made the awarding of the controversial bid by October 2007, a much awaited contract in US Defence history.

Settings

Location:
Industry:
Other setting(s):
2003-2007

Related