Tanker Truths

15 Apr 2008
Boeing Ad Spreads Misinformation, False Data
Boeing is at it again. Today, the company has taken out a costly full-page ad in The Washington Post in which it makes up numbers and relies on wholly-false data to claim that its losing bid to build America's next generation of aerial refueling tankers would cost less than Northrop Grumman's winning bid.

Once again, Boeing's claims don't get off the ground, and insult the integrity of the U.S. Air Force by ignoring or misstating the facts the Air Force developed when it selected the Northrop Grumman KC-45. The ad is so misleading that it raises a fundamental question: Whose calculations would YOU believe? The Air Force's, or Boeing's?

Among the false claims: Boeing's plane - which hasn't even been built - would cost less to produce and less for the government to acquire. In fact, as Reuters reported on April 11, the Northrop-Grumman KC-45 will cost "$15 million less per plane than what the Boeing 767 would have cost." This underscores why the Air Force has said Northrop Grumman offered a plane of superior value at a lower cost than that offered by losing bidder Boeing. On the issue of cost, the Air Force also assigned Boeing a higher risk factor. That means it concluded there was a good chance Boeing's billings would increase if Boeing had been selected — leaving taxpayers with a higher bill.

The losing bidder continually and falsely claims that its plane would be more fuel efficient — ignoring the Air Force's conclusion that Northrop Grumman's winning plane is 6% more fuel efficient than Boeing's proposed tanker. In continuing its attack on the credibility of the men and women of the Air Force, Boeing ignores the Air Force's findings, and instead is creating its own calculations that are designed to reach a wholly-false and self-serving conclusion.

Boeing also says its plane would cost less to maintain, pointing to construction costs for new hangars to house the aircraft. In fact, the Air Force found that new hangars would need to have been built regardless of which bid was accepted, at relatively little difference in cost.

Boeing falsely claims that its proposed aircraft would cost less when all costs — from design to production to maintenance — are considered for the entire life cycle of the aircraft. In fact, the Air Force concluded that the overall costs for both bidders are nearly identical. The Air Force also noted that Northrop Grumman offered an array of extra services and flexibility — which was a key reason why the Air Force determined that Northrop Grumman offered a superior aircraft at better value to taxpayers.

Boeing's arguments simply don't add up, and they insult the integrity of the men and women of the U.S. Air Force who concluded that Northrop Grumman's bid was a better deal for taxpayers.

< Back to index