An Airbus Tanker?

What nonsense! The "Europeans" did not submit the bid. The prime
contractor was Northrop Grumman -- an American company. EADS is merely
a subcontractor (aka teaming partner).

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:38:20 -0800, Airbus wrote:

Completely agree!
The Europeans showed fantastic bargaining prowess, when the dollar/euro
conjecture should have made their bid nearly untenable. By offering production
jobs in the US they sweetened their offer, while making good on their offer to
their own shareholders of increasing production activity in the dollar zone.
Good show - and a considerable move forward for all.





In article ,
says...

You can bet that the procurement was squeaky clean, with the previous
scandals during the tanker lease fiasco. Reports are that the
Northrup/EADS bid scored first in every major category: Can carry more
payload, more passengers, uses less fuel, higher availability, lower
maintenance cost, etc. etc. In short, it's a better airplane.

As far as outsourcing, consider that at one time EADS claimed to have
more US content in their proposal than Boeing. Whether you believe that
claim or not, it's clear that Boeing had a substantial international
content in their proposal, and that it wasn't a pure US deal.

Remember that the 767 was originally developed as a partnership between
Boeing, Japan, and Italy. Many of the parts are made in those
countries. Who do you think has already bought some of the 767 tankers,
and why?

Finally, if you expect the Europeans to continue to purchase US arms,
rather than develop their own, then you had better accept the fact that
we need to buy some of their products to keep everyone happy. If they
can compete on capability and price, then it's a good deal. Especially
since they will be setting up passenger aircraft manufacturing in the
US. With the low US dollar, that puts people to work in relatively
high-tech jobs.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)