Knowing that KC-46 Operators are only US, Japan, and Israel, meanwhile, the operators for A330 MRTT are basically everyone who doesn't have any obligation to the US. Yeah, it shows.
To be fair, many European countries that purchase the A330 MRTT are "connected" to Airbus because Airbus is European. But their global customers? The A330 MRTT is absolutely dominating the market, even if we count KC-767s as KC-46s.
@@SomeoneFromBeijing The fact that Italy, a customer of the KC-767 that would therefore have all the logistical and training advantange to stick with the 76 platform, is buying the MRTT instead tells you all you need to know about how crap the KC-46 is.
I visited Boeing Seattle a few years ago and asked a question a question. Re the army coloured tails amongst all the commercial planes. The oroud answer I got was they had won a new contract. Later I was told on the quiet that Airbus had won but then Boeing with some sort of help re bid and suddenly they'd won. It seemed fishy to me particularly as the Boeing was an inferior plane.
As the now retired Airbus Australia Pacific A330 MRTT (KC-30) Australian Program Manager, I found the entire US process flawed in that ultimately, the USAF has ended up with a significantly reduced Capability. Being ex-Royal Australian Air Force, I know how the USAF must rue the decision making undertaken by the US Government after the competition determined that the A330 MRTT (US KC-45) was clearly the best capability. It is also worth noting that some 100 A330s provide the same coverage of the 179 767 based tankers.
I would be interested to hear your perspective on specific points made in the GAO report. Its general reputation within the USA is that of an impartial congressional "watchdog".
@@marcmcreynolds2827 The original RFT neglected to seek the best overall Capability. It instead focused on a one for one replacement of the tanker being replaced. The GAO identified this deficiency and determined that the USAK should go back to the market and seek a whole of capability response which it did, and Boeing won after shaving many billions of dollars off the original tendered price. Of course, the 767 solution was little more than good intentions where the Airbus solution was more mature, but certainly not fully mature at that time. The risks associated with the 767 solution weer significantly greater as has proven to be the case.
Interesting to note that Northrop Grumman/EADS was the only contractor to deliver an actual working prototype to the competition. In addition, this prototype fulfilled the actual requirements set by the US Airforce. Boeing did not even bother to submit a working prototype. They released their army of lobbyists (locusts) instead. Now the Airforce has an airframe which is a 20 years older design than the Northrop Grumman proposal, one that is not upgradeable to a more efficient neo configuration, plagued with refuelling boon problems, and one where newly built tankers constantly have to be rejected by the Airforce on the grounds of shoddy built-quality, including massive amounts of FOD - foreign object debris (ladders, hammers, rugs, rivets, drinks cans) left in the wings and airframe, which can damage crucial components. What a mess Boeing has become. Boeing should be forced to spend all their lobbying money on paying their engineers and technicians a living wage. Stock buybacks should be eliminated. CEO compensation should be tied to actual quality criteria which ensure the long-term survival of the company.
With all the problems the KC46 and it's manufacturer are facing. I think a point will come where the US Air Force will have no choice but to go for the KC45.
Haven't Boeing had many problems with actually getting fuel to refueling aircraft?? Something about the boom operators can't actually see the boom with new software ???
Yes, and the fact that the underfloor fuel tanks leak & they cannot seem to resolve that. Think Boeing dumped so many Sr. engineers over the years, very few people left that actually know how to build aircraft. In retrospect, the KC-45 would by far have been the best choice.
having flown the KC-135 and seen the KC-46 struggle.... america's airmen got screwed on this deal. The KC-46 still does NOT have WARPS (wing air refueling pods) certified, cannot do 100% of receivers WITHOUT limits, and still cannot replace all of the KC-135 missions. Now the pivot to the pacific is left with small KC-46s opposed to the larger KC-45s which could have made the pacific AOR "smaller". Its so ironic that the USAF correctly identifed the KC-46 as high-risk, while Boeing claiming it was low-risk and still doesn't have it fully operationally capable in 2025. Cheap does NOT mean capable.
And the MRTTs are not even A330neos, they're CEOs. They could build them from neos and get 14% more range. Is the KC46 also a cargo aircraft at the same time like the MRTT?
Considering what happened with the KC-46 after it won the competition proved that Boeing was indeed the higher risk manufacturer. As they say, Hindsight is 20/20. IMHO, The USAF unfortunately settled for 2nd best.
European companies does not get a fair treatment in US "open" competitions for arms. 35bn$ was too much not to give to Boeing. Time has proven the first choice of N-G-Airbus was the right one. EU should treat US companies wanting to bid on EU arms similarly...
@@CineZoneYTreally, Europ is building better tanks, better Submarines, better air to air missiles for Planes and also better short range air defense, better and faster Frigates and corvettes, better artillery. The only thing the US has is that they are cheaper bc they are building more.
@@CineZoneYT Whether or not America has a higher defence industry (which the US taxpayer pays dearly for) is irrelevant in a conversation on what the better plane was. Surely the US should know that a strong armed forces does not guarantee effectiveness, else you'd still be a British colony from our Royal Navy which was the strongest of its day.
Worse is subjective when you look at how the KC-45 is actually used and price point more expensive planes means more expensive taxes for the rest of the United States citizens. Congress was right to think about that, plus the a330 mrt has extra stuff that they didn’t need for their tankers so just more money for an optional thing
Congress lies all the time. With that said given all the current problems the KC-46 program is having its actually costing us MORE tax dollars Aka again Boeing is suppling an EASY fix over all their impending problems it already has Don’t get me wrong I prefer Boeing aircrafts over Airbus “All Day” and I LOVE the 767… but I admit the KC-45 program overall is a better product for the long term
I'm 100% Boeing. But...having said that, a SEVERE investigation of Boeing needs to be done to find out WTF is going on in there. They've been building the best aircraft in the country for 100+ years, but the last 50 years they've been sliding downhill faster every year & it's in the money management section, NOT the design & engineering departments.
@@BernardBailey-ri2tothe USAF has ended up paying much more for the Boeing than originally planned. The rest of the world are very happy with their MRTTs
This is a misleading title. Northrop Grumman was the prime contractor who won the contractor with Airbus as a subcontractor. I know because I was an employee at NG.
Guess you had to comment without even watching the video, like every person on every social media who had to give their opinion based on a headline and not reading anything in an article. The NG contract was the first thing mentioned in the video, and NG again mentioned several times all through it!
@kamui004 I did. I know the story well as I was an employee of NG when we unseated Boeing.....only to have the Boeing protest succeed and cause USAF to rebid the contract with more favorable requirements for Boeing. Bruh.
@@kamui004 What does "misleading title" mean to you? Correcting misinformation at the start of or early on in a mislabeled video doesn't undo the mislabeling -- it simply acknowledges the deception promptly. The current example would be akin to referencing "the Convair DC-10".
The A330MRTT is a better plane, made in the USA, run by a leader (Northrop-Grumman) and Congress should be ashamed of themselves, like that will ever happen!
These decisions have nothing to do with the quality of the product. The Boeing lobbyists and certainly some hand money or great trips for influential politicians do the rest
Look, I love the 767 but the A330 was the better choice. I guess lobbying is as American as hotdog, and knowing Boeing it is today even the government gets the shaft. Wanna bet that the DoD puts the B2 program as an excuse deep inside?
It was very strange how Northrop Grumman lost that contract. And I am sure that the American MoD must have had a lot of doubt about that choice after all the problems with the development of the KC-46.
15 countries have selected and are operating the A330MRTT. Three have selected the Boeing. Two are still waiting for them, and a third (USA) seems to be dissatisfied with the Boeing's performance. Does Airbus have problems delivering fuel like the KC-46 apparently does? I'm trying to convince myself that the cost overruns and operational problems are common to both types.
The sad thing is even as of today (2025) the KC-76 is still not fully operational and continues to be plagued with technical issues. Meanwhile, the A-330 MRTT has been trouble-free in services with many air forces around the world. It is sad, and a big sink hole of America's treasury! The only people benefitted from Boeing getting this contract are the corrupt politicians & bureaucrats and Boeing shareholders.
Basically this is the problem with the company and hence come out with aircraft with full of problems right from the start. The QC is so low that aircrafts with problems are a non issue
The usaf are at least a decade behind in acquisition of new tankers because of this, so the extra money they have had to spend keeping old aircraft in the air must astronomical. If they'd gone for the Lockheed offering they would have replaced old aircraft earlier, acquired more aircraft at lower cost (due to inflation) and generally have a better proven aircraft.
A330 MrTt won in the first round because it had an airlift capability (can carry cargo other then fuel). The AF at the time touted this as a major point in selecting the airbus. Trouble was, that was not a requirement in the original request. Thus, Boeing lost because of a requirement that did not exist. That was Boeing's leverage to ask for a re-due. This was a case where the AF screwed up. I was there.
A side point is longevity as ik the airforce got these built new but down the line they want to re engine make upgrades the A330 is still in production with a next gen option available whereas boeing is only keeping 767 production open for this military contract and will end right after they finish witch at this point we all know boeing is good for. Even in the commercial market where boeing held the market are not even trying to compete with the newer airbus offerings a re engined 767 with some upgrades could compete with the A330 but boeing doesn't even try
If the USAF did went ahead with the KC-45 program. Will this be the first time that USAF fly an airframe made by non-US company? (Since it’s based on A330)
We all know retiring the KC-10 and not building more is the real mistake here, had beat the KC-46 and KC-45 in payload, fuel, and range, and overall capabilities.
I wonder why Airbus doesn't reconfigure A340s for tankers? Loads of unwanted airframes, with plenty of life left, available for peanuts. It's basically a 4 engined A330, so a lot of the work is already done. Could be a good sales opportunity for countries who can't really afford a tanker, and don't need it too often.
Mainly bc it's to big, the 330 platform fits perfectly it's large enough to carry shit tonn of fuel and cargo but small enough to land everywhere. Iirc but I'm not completely sure but I think the 340 would need new wings bc the is no room for wing fuel pods and the fuel system. And definitely new strong engines. Bc there is reason Pilots said I can only take off bc of the earth's curvature. I think Airbus made the right choice and 90% market share proved that.
Am I reading sarcasm in its purest form? Great! And what pressure was Congress under? It is overrun by Boeing lobbyists and influenced by politicians sympathetic to Boeing. But the better product doesn't matter
Because it is a Multi Role Tanker Transport, meaning they are not just for refuelling, but also for transport (including passengers) taskings. All MRTTs start as regular (passenger) A330s and are then flown to Spain for modification to military standard.
Because it is a multifunctional airplane. On top of being a refueling tanker it can also be used as a troop transport plane or, if so configured, be used to transport wounded service personnel. The A330 MRTT or KC45A is simply a much more capable aircraft.
@@Ed-tx4zf thank mate. It thought it was built specifically for military purposes so other then tanker, cargo snd troops it’s unnecessary to have that many window
We should have seen the signs of Boeing's downfall back then already... When their product was objectively worse than the competition, instead of going back to the drawing board and asking the engineers to surpass expectations to win hands down the next round as they should have, they moaned about the contract, did some ugly lobbying and dragged down the whole company, industry and military. But why would they care? They got their billions...
You need to go back further to 2001. The first round of competition that saw Michael Sears being fired from Boeing, pleading guilty to aiding and abetting an illegal employment negotiation, and also sentenced to prison. Phil Condit, Boeing's CEO, resigned under pressure, though he was not charged with any crime. And a member of the DoD official in 2002, Darleen Druyun who was No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force only got 9 months in prison, a $5000 fine and 150 hours of community service. Druyun agreed to a higher price than appropriate for a proposed deal to lease 100 tanker planes from Boeing, which she called "a parting gift" to her future employer. She also shared a competitor's proprietary data with Boeing. She was looking to get on the board of Boeing where her daughter also worked. More the fact that Northrop Grumman/Airbus got it when the program the competition in 2008, Boeing got the tender taken from Grumman because Boeing didn't like the outcome and was awarded it in 2011. No wonder Lockheed/Airbus pulled out. Nothing says the free market by rigging it. Yet, the KC-46 still has problems. Not to say that Airbus gets away scot-free and their bribery in other countries.
Ah, good ol' politics. That's how Boeing wins big contracts. But I wonder if that opened the door for a future where a Canadian company that makes a wonderful aircraft could ally with a European aircraft maker and establish a production facility in the US, specifically in Mobile, Alabama. Huh, karma?
Boeing was desperate to keep Airbus out of the United States. They thought that they had succeeded by basically stealing this contract. Unbeknownst to them at the time, Airbus already had thoughts of assembling their A320 family jets in the US. In 2015 Airbus opened their new A320 FAL at the original site of the tanker assembly line in Mobile Alabama. Airbus may be quietly thankful that they didn't win the contract seeing all the trouble that Boeing has had with it. 😂
This whole debacle stems from corporations desire to reduce competition when they acquired and absorbed other aerospace companies to grow. The lack of competition bidding is starting to show in the lack of innovation and poor quality in building these products. The commerce department needs to look at the results of these mergers to see if the antitrust statues are appropriate to implement. Boeing being the only commercial US aircraft builder has really lost its way on quality over profits. Innovation during the early days of the airline development from multiple companies accelerated innovation. Now its one company putting out a product... take it or leave it.
I am quite sad that Boeing countered the tanker contract and won instead because it would have been quite fun to spot A330’s in my hometown of Mobile, Alabama. Moreover, it would have added more jobs at the Alabama FAL and in my opinion, the 767 tanker has PLENTY of problems and the A330 tanker would have done better for the Air Force. Thank you @Long Haul By Simple Flying for covering this. Boring clearly stole jobs out of my hometown of Mobile, Alabama that would have been to build those A330 tankers and they would have been flown to Georgia for conversion to tankers. 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
I don’t see a foreign-made airplane being utilized in the Air Force for fueling capabilities at all. Do I think it was a good decision? Not really, but I don’t see this changing anytime in the future
Until they picked the Airbus offering... And then Congress and Senators got their marching orders to lobby the USAF buy a more expensive and less capable aircraft.
I think a reason why they had to rethink this contract was the fact that the KC-45 _would not have fit in the same hangar and parking space on the ground as the KC-46_ , which mean a lot of very expensive rebuilds at airfields that would have hosted the plane. The KC-46's ground footprint was not much different than the KC-135R, and as such could fit inside hangars and plane parking areas used by the older tanker.
meanwhile having been stationed at McConnell AFB they tore down and built new hangars. its a moot point. Fact is the Airmen have a less capable tanker that is still not fully capable 14 years after contract.
The conversation is much more nuanced than "Boeing bad, Airbus good." The A330MRT alone is the better aircraft, but the US Govt has a need for multiple different types of Aircraft and dealing with just Boeing instead of multivendor is always going to be the cheaper option in the long run fleetwide. The AWACS, Poseidons, E-4s, VC-25Bs, C32As, and the C-40s are all Boeing. And that excludes many of the modern fighters that are made by Boeing or a consortium including Boeing. The maintenance procedures and able to deal with just a single entity will always save vast amounts of money in the long term.
So don't bother with procurement competitions? Just pick a company and buy as many things as possible from them? That doesn't sound cheaper -- that sounds like handing a checkbook to a for-profit company full of executives with bonus incentives and letting them just fill in the blanks.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Airlines do the same thing... It is cheaper to have a whole bunch of the same plane, and fleet commonality is even more important for the military so they don't need to bring as many parts with them to fight a war. That is the reason everything in the military can run on jet fuel.
@@CineZoneYT Depends on the airline. Most of the larger ones have mixed fleets, because cheaper isn't the same as more profitable. In any event, whether an airline goes one way or the other is a separate subject from whether the airline is going to pay more or less if there is no competition. Having a Boeing competing against a McDonnell Douglas (or an Airbus) is the primary factor in whether an airline gets the best price -- not whether they stick to one model or not.
The fact of the matter is that the contract should only ever have gone to a company, or consortium, that is wholely based in the US. Other factors are secondary.
then you're probably forced to buy only Boeing aircraft, with all the problems they've had in the past decades. That means you'll never have a good offer because they'd have no competition. That would run you up in the price as well, making a $40B USD program probably $60B for a lower quality product (not even considering future fixes to potential problems and the real operating costs). That's how you want your taxes to be spent?
@sam.ramphall No. Of course not. I stated the above with a sense of irony. It's the same reason the government gives as to why the POTUS has to fly a US made plane. I'm with you. The taxpayer should get the best deal possible but that is almost never the case with those in government preferring to give cockamamie like the one above for the good of the people or for National security.
Lots of anti 767 comments They are both equal.better at different things The KC-46 is better for U.S.A ops, where the runways are dirty and you need to get up quickly The MRTT is better for euro ops, where you need to carry a heavy payload to distant countries, and your runways are a marvel of engineering. The MRTT does beat the KC-46 slightly, but there are places where the MRTT is less useful than a chocolate boiler
as a USAF pilot that has flown the KC-135 and seen the KC-46 struggle... the 46 is NOT better. It has cargo floor loading problems, the refueling cameras have problems, the refueling monitors are black and white, it can't refuel all the receivers without limits, it still can't replaced the 135 1-for-1 mission wise. It's late. It's not capable.
as a former USAF pilot... what looks bad is not having the capabilities promised by boeing 14 years after they won the contract. CAPABILITY is what matters.
@ True, and the A330MRTT is capable. That’s why I don’t think the “American made” thought matters, the best aircraft suitable for the military’s needs is what matters. And just because the US is capable to build a military aircraft from scratch, doesn’t mean it needs to imo.
Knowing that KC-46 Operators are only US, Japan, and Israel, meanwhile, the operators for A330 MRTT are basically everyone who doesn't have any obligation to the US. Yeah, it shows.
To be fair, many European countries that purchase the A330 MRTT are "connected" to Airbus because Airbus is European. But their global customers? The A330 MRTT is absolutely dominating the market, even if we count KC-767s as KC-46s.
@@SomeoneFromBeijing The fact that Italy, a customer of the KC-767 that would therefore have all the logistical and training advantange to stick with the 76 platform, is buying the MRTT instead tells you all you need to know about how crap the KC-46 is.
I visited Boeing Seattle a few years ago and asked a question a question. Re the army coloured tails amongst all the commercial planes. The oroud answer I got was they had won a new contract. Later I was told on the quiet that Airbus had won but then Boeing with some sort of help re bid and suddenly they'd won. It seemed fishy to me particularly as the Boeing was an inferior plane.
Even the Republic Of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) bought the A330 MRTT instead of KC-46 to replaced their aging KC135.
There will be ITAR restrictions, so it's not necessarily true, especially sales.
The lobbying wing is the only thing in Boeing that works.
And misinformation across all channels
Fortunately, it did not work for the A220 case. And for all those in Mobile, Alabama, that was mighty good news!
Sadly it’s only got worse since then.
As the now retired Airbus Australia Pacific A330 MRTT (KC-30) Australian Program Manager, I found the entire US process flawed in that ultimately, the USAF has ended up with a significantly reduced Capability. Being ex-Royal Australian Air Force, I know how the USAF must rue the decision making undertaken by the US Government after the competition determined that the A330 MRTT (US KC-45) was clearly the best capability. It is also worth noting that some 100 A330s provide the same coverage of the 179 767 based tankers.
I would be interested to hear your perspective on specific points made in the GAO report. Its general reputation within the USA is that of an impartial congressional "watchdog".
@@marcmcreynolds2827 The original RFT neglected to seek the best overall Capability. It instead focused on a one for one replacement of the tanker being replaced. The GAO identified this deficiency and determined that the USAK should go back to the market and seek a whole of capability response which it did, and Boeing won after shaving many billions of dollars off the original tendered price. Of course, the 767 solution was little more than good intentions where the Airbus solution was more mature, but certainly not fully mature at that time. The risks associated with the 767 solution weer significantly greater as has proven to be the case.
Interesting to note that Northrop Grumman/EADS was the only contractor to deliver an actual working prototype to the competition.
In addition, this prototype fulfilled the actual requirements set by the US Airforce.
Boeing did not even bother to submit a working prototype. They released their army of lobbyists (locusts) instead.
Now the Airforce has an airframe which is a 20 years older design than the Northrop Grumman proposal, one that is not upgradeable to a more efficient neo configuration, plagued with refuelling boon problems, and one where newly built tankers constantly have to be rejected by the Airforce on the grounds of shoddy built-quality, including massive amounts of FOD - foreign object debris (ladders, hammers, rugs, rivets, drinks cans) left in the wings and airframe, which can damage crucial components.
What a mess Boeing has become.
Boeing should be forced to spend all their lobbying money on paying their engineers and technicians a living wage.
Stock buybacks should be eliminated.
CEO compensation should be tied to actual quality criteria which ensure the long-term survival of the company.
Boeing won. Politicians won. Lobby apparatus won.
Airforce lost. Taxpayer lost. Defense lost.
With all the problems the KC46 and it's manufacturer are facing. I think a point will come where the US Air Force will have no choice but to go for the KC45.
Haven't Boeing had many problems with actually getting fuel to refueling aircraft?? Something about the boom operators can't actually see the boom with new software ???
Yes, and the fact that the underfloor fuel tanks leak & they cannot seem to resolve that. Think Boeing dumped so many Sr. engineers over the years, very few people left that actually know how to build aircraft. In retrospect, the KC-45 would by far have been the best choice.
Also build quality issues with hammers found inside bulkheads & potential frayed wiring
having flown the KC-135 and seen the KC-46 struggle.... america's airmen got screwed on this deal. The KC-46 still does NOT have WARPS (wing air refueling pods) certified, cannot do 100% of receivers WITHOUT limits, and still cannot replace all of the KC-135 missions. Now the pivot to the pacific is left with small KC-46s opposed to the larger KC-45s which could have made the pacific AOR "smaller".
Its so ironic that the USAF correctly identifed the KC-46 as high-risk, while Boeing claiming it was low-risk and still doesn't have it fully operationally capable in 2025. Cheap does NOT mean capable.
And the MRTTs are not even A330neos, they're CEOs.
They could build them from neos and get 14% more range.
Is the KC46 also a cargo aircraft at the same time like the MRTT?
@@MostlyPennyCat yes but half as much by weight or bulk. half the passenger capacity, and 10% less fuel.
Fukraine, not our war.
Considering what happened with the KC-46 after it won the competition proved that Boeing was indeed the higher risk manufacturer. As they say, Hindsight is 20/20. IMHO, The USAF unfortunately settled for 2nd best.
European companies does not get a fair treatment in US "open" competitions for arms. 35bn$ was too much not to give to Boeing. Time has proven the first choice of N-G-Airbus was the right one. EU should treat US companies wanting to bid on EU arms similarly...
The EU defense industry is nothing compared to the US 🤣. You would be screwed without our weapons
@@CineZoneYTreally, Europ is building better tanks, better Submarines, better air to air missiles for Planes and also better short range air defense, better and faster Frigates and corvettes, better artillery. The only thing the US has is that they are cheaper bc they are building more.
@@CineZoneYT Whether or not America has a higher defence industry (which the US taxpayer pays dearly for) is irrelevant in a conversation on what the better plane was. Surely the US should know that a strong armed forces does not guarantee effectiveness, else you'd still be a British colony from our Royal Navy which was the strongest of its day.
Boeing should be ashamed of themselves to be forced to deliver a worse product than what Airbus could have supplied to the USAF.
Worse is subjective when you look at how the KC-45 is actually used and price point more expensive planes means more expensive taxes for the rest of the United States citizens. Congress was right to think about that, plus the a330 mrt has extra stuff that they didn’t need for their tankers so just more money for an optional thing
Congress lies all the time. With that said given all the current problems the KC-46 program is having its actually costing us MORE tax dollars
Aka again Boeing is suppling an EASY fix over all their impending problems it already has
Don’t get me wrong I prefer Boeing aircrafts over Airbus “All Day” and I LOVE the 767… but I admit the KC-45 program overall is a better product for the long term
I'm 100% Boeing. But...having said that, a SEVERE investigation of Boeing needs to be done to find out WTF is going on in there. They've been building the best aircraft in the country for 100+ years, but the last 50 years they've been sliding downhill faster every year & it's in the money management section, NOT the design & engineering departments.
Not only a better product, but the USAF could have had a fleet of fully mission capable of KC-45 MRTTs years ago.
@@BernardBailey-ri2tothe USAF has ended up paying much more for the Boeing than originally planned. The rest of the world are very happy with their MRTTs
This is a misleading title. Northrop Grumman was the prime contractor who won the contractor with Airbus as a subcontractor. I know because I was an employee at NG.
He explains it in the video.
Guess you had to comment without even watching the video, like every person on every social media who had to give their opinion based on a headline and not reading anything in an article. The NG contract was the first thing mentioned in the video, and NG again mentioned several times all through it!
@kamui004 I did. I know the story well as I was an employee of NG when we unseated Boeing.....only to have the Boeing protest succeed and cause USAF to rebid the contract with more favorable requirements for Boeing.
Bruh.
@@kamui004 What does "misleading title" mean to you? Correcting misinformation at the start of or early on in a mislabeled video doesn't undo the mislabeling -- it simply acknowledges the deception promptly. The current example would be akin to referencing "the Convair DC-10".
The plane was designed and is built by Airbus. NG was just here to write Made in the US on the deal
The A330MRTT is a better plane, made in the USA, run by a leader (Northrop-Grumman) and Congress should be ashamed of themselves, like that will ever happen!
These decisions have nothing to do with the quality of the product. The Boeing lobbyists and certainly some hand money or great trips for influential politicians do the rest
The 767 program was plagued with scandals from the beginning. The former SECAF daughter during the first competition was on the Boeing payroll.
Look, I love the 767 but the A330 was the better choice. I guess lobbying is as American as hotdog, and knowing Boeing it is today even the government gets the shaft. Wanna bet that the DoD puts the B2 program as an excuse deep inside?
It was very strange how Northrop Grumman lost that contract. And I am sure that the American MoD must have had a lot of doubt about that choice after all the problems with the development of the KC-46.
Do you know how high the cost overrun for the KC 46 is?
15 countries have selected and are operating the A330MRTT. Three have selected the Boeing. Two are still waiting for them, and a third (USA) seems to be dissatisfied with the Boeing's performance. Does Airbus have problems delivering fuel like the KC-46 apparently does? I'm trying to convince myself that the cost overruns and operational problems are common to both types.
Italian Air Force finally said NO to the KC 46. 😇
The sad thing is even as of today (2025) the KC-76 is still not fully operational and continues to be plagued with technical issues. Meanwhile, the A-330 MRTT has been trouble-free in services with many air forces around the world. It is sad, and a big sink hole of America's treasury! The only people benefitted from Boeing getting this contract are the corrupt politicians & bureaucrats and Boeing shareholders.
Write a Boeing Contract & get a Boeing Product.
Spend all the money you think you are going to save, fixing it so it actually works
the only saving-grace of the boeing contract is it is a fixed-price. Taxpayers haven't had to pay for the cost overruns. only the troops lose out.
Basically this is the problem with the company and hence come out with aircraft with full of problems right from the start. The QC is so low that aircrafts with problems are a non issue
The usaf are at least a decade behind in acquisition of new tankers because of this, so the extra money they have had to spend keeping old aircraft in the air must astronomical. If they'd gone for the Lockheed offering they would have replaced old aircraft earlier, acquired more aircraft at lower cost (due to inflation) and generally have a better proven aircraft.
I don’t think Airbus will care about losing the US market in defence sector given that they have dominated almost the rest of the world.
Well, the US military is by far the largest and best funded. If you total all the defense spending of NATO members, the USA accounts for 2/3 of it.
and a few decades later we now hear of boeing overcharging the air force for soap dispensers of all things
A330 MrTt won in the first round because it had an airlift capability (can carry cargo other then fuel). The AF at the time touted this as a major point in selecting the airbus. Trouble was, that was not a requirement in the original request. Thus, Boeing lost because of a requirement that did not exist. That was Boeing's leverage to ask for a re-due. This was a case where the AF screwed up. I was there.
A side point is longevity as ik the airforce got these built new but down the line they want to re engine make upgrades the A330 is still in production with a next gen option available whereas boeing is only keeping 767 production open for this military contract and will end right after they finish witch at this point we all know boeing is good for. Even in the commercial market where boeing held the market are not even trying to compete with the newer airbus offerings a re engined 767 with some upgrades could compete with the A330 but boeing doesn't even try
If the USAF did went ahead with the KC-45 program. Will this be the first time that USAF fly an airframe made by non-US company? (Since it’s based on A330)
its called having senators bought and paid for.
We all know retiring the KC-10 and not building more is the real mistake here, had beat the KC-46 and KC-45 in payload, fuel, and range, and overall capabilities.
A DC-10?!
No, I think maybe an A330, even in ceo format, beats a DC-10...
I wonder why Airbus doesn't reconfigure A340s for tankers? Loads of unwanted airframes, with plenty of life left, available for peanuts. It's basically a 4 engined A330, so a lot of the work is already done. Could be a good sales opportunity for countries who can't really afford a tanker, and don't need it too often.
Mainly bc it's to big, the 330 platform fits perfectly it's large enough to carry shit tonn of fuel and cargo but small enough to land everywhere. Iirc but I'm not completely sure but I think the 340 would need new wings bc the is no room for wing fuel pods and the fuel system. And definitely new strong engines. Bc there is reason Pilots said I can only take off bc of the earth's curvature. I think Airbus made the right choice and 90% market share proved that.
The KC46 is made in my home state, and I still think the Air Force should have chose the kc45 with the information I’ve heard over the years.
I'm sure the deal was made fairly and not under the massive pressure from US Congress right??
Am I reading sarcasm in its purest form? Great! And what pressure was Congress under? It is overrun by Boeing lobbyists and influenced by politicians sympathetic to Boeing. But the better product doesn't matter
why does the MRTT still have window ?
Because it is a Multi Role Tanker Transport, meaning they are not just for refuelling, but also for transport (including passengers) taskings. All MRTTs start as regular (passenger) A330s and are then flown to Spain for modification to military standard.
Because it is a multifunctional airplane. On top of being a refueling tanker it can also be used as a troop transport plane or, if so configured, be used to transport wounded service personnel. The A330 MRTT or KC45A is simply a much more capable aircraft.
@@Ed-tx4zf thank mate. It thought it was built specifically for military purposes so other then tanker, cargo snd troops it’s unnecessary to have that many window
@@Ed-tx4zf thank you
@@Ed-tx4zfI believe the Raf use one for vip transport especially uk air force one
BRIBERY, its called *Bribery* 😂😂
We should have seen the signs of Boeing's downfall back then already... When their product was objectively worse than the competition, instead of going back to the drawing board and asking the engineers to surpass expectations to win hands down the next round as they should have, they moaned about the contract, did some ugly lobbying and dragged down the whole company, industry and military. But why would they care? They got their billions...
They should have stayed with the A330 platform.
Airbus/EADS are more reliable than Boeing.
You need to go back further to 2001. The first round of competition that saw Michael Sears being fired from Boeing, pleading guilty to aiding and abetting an illegal employment negotiation, and also sentenced to prison. Phil Condit, Boeing's CEO, resigned under pressure, though he was not charged with any crime. And a member of the DoD official in 2002, Darleen Druyun who was No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force only got 9 months in prison, a $5000 fine and 150 hours of community service. Druyun agreed to a higher price than appropriate for a proposed deal to lease 100 tanker planes from Boeing, which she called "a parting gift" to her future employer. She also shared a competitor's proprietary data with Boeing. She was looking to get on the board of Boeing where her daughter also worked. More the fact that Northrop Grumman/Airbus got it when the program the competition in 2008, Boeing got the tender taken from Grumman because Boeing didn't like the outcome and was awarded it in 2011. No wonder Lockheed/Airbus pulled out. Nothing says the free market by rigging it. Yet, the KC-46 still has problems. Not to say that Airbus gets away scot-free and their bribery in other countries.
Make America Hilly Billy country again! 😂
No surprise, in the small arms world sig sauer is supplying handguns that shoot the user cause they under cut the competition at $180 a pop
8:03 Airbus/NG has the best airplane.
Boeing has the best lobbyists.
Ah, good ol' politics. That's how Boeing wins big contracts.
But I wonder if that opened the door for a future where a Canadian company that makes a wonderful aircraft could ally with a European aircraft maker and establish a production facility in the US, specifically in Mobile, Alabama.
Huh, karma?
Boring doesn't deserve the contract.
This was a total shitshow which helped nobody: Neither Boeing nor the US.
Boeings single integrated company worked out so well. 😂
Boeing was desperate to keep Airbus out of the United States. They thought that they had succeeded by basically stealing this contract. Unbeknownst to them at the time, Airbus already had thoughts of assembling their A320 family jets in the US. In 2015 Airbus opened their new A320 FAL at the original site of the tanker assembly line in Mobile Alabama. Airbus may be quietly thankful that they didn't win the contract seeing all the trouble that Boeing has had with it. 😂
Oh no, US government giving priority to their most valuable exporter instead of the competence because it's not american XD
Protectionism
Boeing threw a hissy fit over nothing
This whole debacle stems from corporations desire to reduce competition when they acquired and absorbed other aerospace companies to grow. The lack of competition bidding is starting to show in the lack of innovation and poor quality in building these products. The commerce department needs to look at the results of these mergers to see if the antitrust statues are appropriate to implement. Boeing being the only commercial US aircraft builder has really lost its way on quality over profits. Innovation during the early days of the airline development from multiple companies accelerated innovation. Now its one company putting out a product... take it or leave it.
I am quite sad that Boeing countered the tanker contract and won instead because it would have been quite fun to spot A330’s in my hometown of Mobile, Alabama. Moreover, it would have added more jobs at the Alabama FAL and in my opinion, the 767 tanker has PLENTY of problems and the A330 tanker would have done better for the Air Force. Thank you @Long Haul By Simple Flying for covering this. Boring clearly stole jobs out of my hometown of Mobile, Alabama that would have been to build those A330 tankers and they would have been flown to Georgia for conversion to tankers. 😢😢😢😢😢😢😢
Corruption
Boeing is such a dirty company. But it really doesn’t matter for airbus. They have too many orders for aircraft anyways because they are better.
I don’t see a foreign-made airplane being utilized in the Air Force for fueling capabilities at all. Do I think it was a good decision? Not really, but I don’t see this changing anytime in the future
Foreign-made or foreign-designed....given that the KC-45 was going to be built in Alabama.
a plane is a plane. boeing built a worse version of tanker
It's obvious that the USAF would pick an American manufacturer
Until they picked the Airbus offering... And then Congress and Senators got their marching orders to lobby the USAF buy a more expensive and less capable aircraft.
But they didn't, they chose the airbus. It even states this in the video
Let me add that the only current problem is it can not refuel a dinosaur plane called the A-10 that is going to be gone in 10 years eventually
The KC-45 can carry more fuel at longer distances, that's the only real problem with the KC-46 choice
Boeing and low risk ! It's a joke.
Politics nothing but politics….
I think a reason why they had to rethink this contract was the fact that the KC-45 _would not have fit in the same hangar and parking space on the ground as the KC-46_ , which mean a lot of very expensive rebuilds at airfields that would have hosted the plane. The KC-46's ground footprint was not much different than the KC-135R, and as such could fit inside hangars and plane parking areas used by the older tanker.
meanwhile having been stationed at McConnell AFB they tore down and built new hangars. its a moot point. Fact is the Airmen have a less capable tanker that is still not fully capable 14 years after contract.
The conversation is much more nuanced than "Boeing bad, Airbus good."
The A330MRT alone is the better aircraft, but the US Govt has a need for multiple different types of Aircraft and dealing with just Boeing instead of multivendor is always going to be the cheaper option in the long run fleetwide. The AWACS, Poseidons, E-4s, VC-25Bs, C32As, and the C-40s are all Boeing. And that excludes many of the modern fighters that are made by Boeing or a consortium including Boeing. The maintenance procedures and able to deal with just a single entity will always save vast amounts of money in the long term.
So don't bother with procurement competitions? Just pick a company and buy as many things as possible from them? That doesn't sound cheaper -- that sounds like handing a checkbook to a for-profit company full of executives with bonus incentives and letting them just fill in the blanks.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 as I explained, its not all about the cheapest possible single plane. Its a longterm goal, eads did not provide that.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Airlines do the same thing... It is cheaper to have a whole bunch of the same plane, and fleet commonality is even more important for the military so they don't need to bring as many parts with them to fight a war. That is the reason everything in the military can run on jet fuel.
@@CineZoneYT Depends on the airline. Most of the larger ones have mixed fleets, because cheaper isn't the same as more profitable. In any event, whether an airline goes one way or the other is a separate subject from whether the airline is going to pay more or less if there is no competition. Having a Boeing competing against a McDonnell Douglas (or an Airbus) is the primary factor in whether an airline gets the best price -- not whether they stick to one model or not.
Boeing bought up alot of company's for legacy aircraft aswell so they own rights to i think both the b1 and b52
The fact of the matter is that the contract should only ever have gone to a company, or consortium, that is wholely based in the US. Other factors are secondary.
then you're probably forced to buy only Boeing aircraft, with all the problems they've had in the past decades. That means you'll never have a good offer because they'd have no competition. That would run you up in the price as well, making a $40B USD program probably $60B for a lower quality product (not even considering future fixes to potential problems and the real operating costs). That's how you want your taxes to be spent?
@sam.ramphall No. Of course not. I stated the above with a sense of irony. It's the same reason the government gives as to why the POTUS has to fly a US made plane. I'm with you. The taxpayer should get the best deal possible but that is almost never the case with those in government preferring to give cockamamie like the one above for the good of the people or for National security.
Lots of anti 767 comments
They are both equal.better at different things
The KC-46 is better for U.S.A ops, where the runways are dirty and you need to get up quickly
The MRTT is better for euro ops, where you need to carry a heavy payload to distant countries, and your runways are a marvel of engineering.
The MRTT does beat the KC-46 slightly, but there are places where the MRTT is less useful than a chocolate boiler
as a USAF pilot that has flown the KC-135 and seen the KC-46 struggle... the 46 is NOT better. It has cargo floor loading problems, the refueling cameras have problems, the refueling monitors are black and white, it can't refuel all the receivers without limits, it still can't replaced the 135 1-for-1 mission wise. It's late. It's not capable.
@@soccerguy2433but it is capable of refueling. Like the ferrari ceo said, just because the tech is there it is not obligatory
Why arent you standing with corrupt ukraine in ukraine? Fukraine. Not our war.
I don’t blame Boeing for wanting to supply the tanker, the US military operating an aircraft that isn’t US made looks bad imho.
as a former USAF pilot... what looks bad is not having the capabilities promised by boeing 14 years after they won the contract. CAPABILITY is what matters.
@ True, and the A330MRTT is capable. That’s why I don’t think the “American made” thought matters, the best aircraft suitable for the military’s needs is what matters. And just because the US is capable to build a military aircraft from scratch, doesn’t mean it needs to imo.
FIRST