Summary
In what can only be described as a facetious attempt to discredit Boeing because of the 747-8 and 787 woes, why does the Alabama press avoid the mention of the WTO ruling against Northrop Grumman’s KC-X tanker partner, EADS/Airbus?
Analysis
The difficulties Boeing has faced in the last two years with the 787 have been well documented, in part because the company was slow to make known issues that had arisen and also because of the sheer engineering challenges that the new technology brought.
Like the 787, the 747-8 has been a victim of delays, so the opinion piece of the Press Register (Alabama) quick to introduce the concept of corporate credibility. Boeing has lost notable defense contracts, most recently the maintenance contract on the KC-10 Extender fleet – but it still remains a close second to Lockheed Martin for the US Government for procurement.
But if its credibility, why then does the Alabama press (and Northrop Grumman team) deliberately avoid bringing to the KC-X table the issue of illegal aid for Airbus?
Why do they not want to illustrate this?
If it’s about credibility, why not let the USAF examine just how and why the A330 came into existence?
If it’s about credibility, why not factor in the illegal aid EADS/Airbus got for its products that Northrop Grumman now wants to use for a military platform?
If it’s about credibility, why isn’t Northrop Grumman or its supporters asking why the A330MRTT tanker has thus far failed to verifiably demonstrate active fuel transfer through the boom?
One would surmise that the USAF eventually hopes to take delivery of a tanker that has a functioning boom! (Rather like the KC767, for example.)
So, if it’s about credibility why not judge, contrast and compare on merit. The 747-8 and 787 woes have absolutely nothing to do with the tanker contest, just as the continually ballooning costs of the A380, A350 and A400M have nothing to do with the tanker contest for Airbus.
Let’s bring parity to the debate. Yes, Boeing has let itself and its customers down.
That alone does not qualify for the endless corporate mudslinging that Northrop Grumman and EADS are tacitly endorsing and encouraging throughout the Capitol.
Granted, competitions are as unpleasant as they are healthy – but you have to delve behind the rationale as to why this is even happening.
The reality is that when the USAF and the US Defense Secretary have to factor in key infrastructure costs to the KC-X equation, the Northrop Grumman-EADS team will have their work cut out and could well lose critical points on this element.
So yes, if it’s about credibility, how about we discuss the very points that Northrop Grumman-EADS/Airbus are so quick to avoid?
Over to you, Alabama.
This author consults with leading institutions through GLG
Analyses are solely the work of the authors and have not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
