Según The Economist, la política ha decidido que avión será el futuro avión cisterna de Estados Unidos The Economist.com se hace eco de la reciente retirada de Northrop EADS del concurso KC-X (Futuro avión cisterna de la USAF), acusando a Estados Unidos de proteccionimo, en favor de Boeing.
Boeing ganó el concurso en 2002, pero se demostró favoritismo por parte de oficiales de la USAF. Seis años después el concurso fue ganado por Northrop EADS, con el KC-45, basado en el A330, mas moderno y superior en capacidades al Boeing B-767.
Expertos neutrales afirman que el KC-45 es mejor avión, puede trasvasar mas combustible y transportar mas carga y tropas, pero el congreso norteamericano no ha querido adquirirlo, argumentando que estaría fabricado por compañías europeas subvencionadas, lo cual sería competencia desleal. Boeing acusó a la USAF de no tener en cuenta este factor en su elección.
Desde Europa, se ha mostrado preocupación y se acusa a Estados Unidos de proteccionimo.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Politics decided the contest to supply America’s new aerial fuel tanker In the end, they bowed to the inevitable. The decision this week by Northrop Grumman and its partner, EADS, to withdraw from a $35 billion contest with Boeing to provide the United States Air Force (USAF) with a new generation of aerial tankers had been well trailed, but it was still a bitter blow to the two defence firms. It was also a bad day both for America’s taxpayers and its armed forces.
Political controversy has never been far from the battle to replace USAF’s 500 or so Eisenhower-era KC-135 tankers. Boeing first won the contract in 2002 and then lost it when a congressional investigation discovered criminal collusion between the aerospace firm and an air-force official. Six years later, Northrop and EADS, the parent company of Airbus, pulled off a surprise victory when the USAF decided that the KC-45, its bigger and more modern (though more expensive) plane, based on the Airbus A330, represented better value than Boeing’s offering, based on the 767.
Most neutral experts agreed that the KC-45 was the better aircraft. But the Pentagon’s willingness to brave outraged claims from Congress that it was showering money and jobs on a European company “unfairly supported and subsidised by foreign powers” was a surprise. When Boeing protested, producing 110 complaints about the bidding process that (partly because of the earlier scandal) had been unusually fair and transparent, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog, upheld seven of them. The nub of Boeing’s complaint was that the USAF had used subjective criteria to reach its decision in favour of the KC-45, which had inherently disadvantaged its smaller plane.
The GAO has the power only to recommend, so the Pentagon could have stuck to its guns. Instead, the air force issued a new draft Request for Proposals (RFP) last September that in effect nullified the KC-45’s advantages—that it can deliver more fuel to front-line aircraft and evacuate more troops. Northrop told the Department of Defence that unless the RFP was revised in its final version, it would not bid. Apart from some minor tweaks, nothing changed, ensuring that Boeing would be left as the sole bidder. The two Republican senators from Alabama, where EADS was planning to establish an assembly line to build the KC-45 and a freighter version of the A330, were quick to condemn what they regard as a political stitch-up that put jobs in traditionally Democratic Washington state (Boeing’s home) before employment in their region.
There have also been expressions of anger in Europe. Germany’s economy minister, said he saw “signs of protectionism”. The European Commission issued a statement saying that it “would be extremely concerned if it were to emerge that the terms of tender were such as to inhibit open competition for the contract.”
