Most KC-135 tankers rarely off load all their fuel to receiver aircraft. A larger airframe would, 1) hold more fuel and yet return to base with yet more fuel, 2) larger tankers require fewer in the air, but offer larger enemy targets. 1 & 2 are both operated with higher tanker fuel burn

RJLee, London, UK

The original bidding process was not fair to Boeing.
The Air Force was not truthful in telling Boeing what they wanted in a tanker. The fact still remains that the tanker should be built by Boeing and Americans and tax dollars should stay in America.
How dare the Air Force take our jobs away .

Donna, St. Peters, Missouri, USA

Boeing claims a 767 saves 24 % at MTOW compared to an A330!
Well, an A330 carries about 30 % more.
A KC-767 can hold 19 standard US Air Force pallets against 32 an A330 MRTT can load.
The difference is 130 C-17. Value $28 billion.
Fuel saved for not operating 130 C-17 $130 billion.

MHalblaub, Ottobrunn, D

If Boeing is going to contest the decision automatically, when they lose, and use arguments such as number of jobs and the WTO dispute, then why even have the bidding process? To make it look like it's a competition? The reality is, they have an aging 767, which got its economic life shortened...

James, USA,

...because of the introduction of the A330 years ago, and they are trying to milk whatever is left out of it. That's why they chose it for the tanker renewal contract...

James, USA,

Forget about an objective grading system.
Would a French/ UK/German government look outside its own borders, if they had a very viable national supplier.
Of course they would not.

C W

C Weisser, Aurora, Canada

The UK (British) didn't purchase any Airbus 330 tankers, they leased them because they couldn't afford to purchase them outright. This is the main reason they went with the Airus. Also of note, the British government has no use for a tanker as large as the Airbus.

J. Rodd, Cortez, USA

As you will need three 767's for every two Airbus', please explain how you will save fuel. If the 767 is so advanced, why isn't it fly by wire?

Hugh Jampton, Bexley, U.K.

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not UPS cancel a large A380 freighter order late last year (leading to a canceled A380Fprogram ) and order about twenty or more the 767 freighter--which is a new derivative of this capable plane!

Wm., Los Angeles, USA

The A-330 is to big for most of the US Air Force airfields to operate in. If the USAF would of wanted such a bigger aircraft, Boeing would of chosen the B-777 for the competition. KC-767 will save the US tax payers over $40 Billion in fuel cost over the next 10 years compared to the KC-45A.

Mario, Wake Forest, NC, USA

By the way, B-767 had orders in 2007 and its being replace with the B-787 wich is kicking the keester out of Airbus's A-350 WBX aircraft which stands for Will Be Xtinct if they dont get anymore orders. Also, Airbus is having a 2 for 1 sale on that aircraft and others if you buy an A380.

Mario, Wake Forest, NC, USA

Boeing's KC-767 will be assembled with different components and systems from different aircraft for the final product that is yet to be built.

The KC-45A Refueling Tanker has already been built and tested by refueling aircraft with the innovative NG/EADS $100 million, 3-D vision system.

Jason Leverette, Mobile, USA

You want facts? Direct from the Boeing home site: "no one has ordered a 767 in 2008; the last delivery was in March 2008; the backlog is 46 aircraft, most of which are for defunct airlines or those in Chapter 11"

Airbus A330 backlog is 348 excluding those ordered at Farnborough this week.

Hugh Jampton, Bexley, U.K.

I agree that Politicians should not interfere in this process. They do not possess the military knowledge nor experience of the modern day military needs in order to be given any weight to this. Unfortunately, Boeing has had them involved since the first bidding war began last year.

Bonnie, Melbourne Florida, USA

I think we have to put another story in play here. The new SLICC and SLIP modules for the Air Force Brass probably don't fit on the Boeing plane.

MNGEEZER

Gary Anderson, Lake Crystal, U.S.

I have a great deal of respect for you Brits, but on this subject, you are wrong. First, the current 767 is NOT a 25 year old obsolete aircraft. The aircraft is VERY much a 21st century product with advanced avionics, engines, and cockpit.

Michael, Wichita, USA

Finally - It appears FRANCE had to scap plans to anounce the purchase of EADS Tankers, one that was to awarded WITHOUT competion, due to the recent GAO findings. Boeing kicks Airbus' keyster in a fair fight, problem is, EADS and Airbus aren't having to play by the same rules.

Michael, Wichita, USA

I almost forgot! Which company has actually designed, build, flown, tested, AND DELIVERED tanker aircraft based on their respective platorms? EADS? Northrup Grumman? NOT! Only Boeing has done this. Two fully operational Boeing KC767 aircraft are currently IN SERVICE in Japan.

Michael, Wichita, USA

Boeing has 767 tankers delivering fuel right now....today. The A330 has yet to have it's boom certified and at last count I believe there are three or four countries not a dozen with orders. The Japanese 767 tankers have already been certified and delivered!

Paul, Michigan,

You're absolutely right, in fact the A330 has been the best selling widebody in the market for 2 years, out selling even the 787 and the 777 (2 very good aircraft) lately.

Dru, Miami,

If Mr. Brown speaks for the U.K. . Mr. Bush schould speak for AMERICAN jobs . I can't imagine any country on earth giving a contract like this to a foreign company . The U.S. Airforce should be ashamed not angry at Boeing the the process they used on contract .

Paul Hutchins, Torrance Ca., U.S.A.

The Boeing 767 is 25 years old and already obsolete as a passenger aircraft with almost no outstanding orders. It beggars belief that the USAF would want to operate it for another 50 years. The existing requirements spec for a USAF tanker was originally a shoe-in for a corrupt Boeing acquisition.

Keith Jackson, Aylesbury, England

Less than 2% of all US tanker flights involve cargo or passengers. The need is for a tanker that can be based near combat areas and respond rapidly to re-fueling calls. A too large plane can not meet this need. Tha USAF changed the requirement after the procurement began and this is not allowed

Dennis Sinnes, Winchester, VA, USA

It seems the US role for tankers has changed, no longer seen as the worlds policeman & the USAF requires a flexible multi purpose aircraft.

Actually in recent competitions only five airforces have ordered the Airbus tanker & none have selected Boeing's offering, performance & capability perhaps?

Pete Brown, Church Crookham, UK

Hugh - I don't know where you get your data - dozens of 767 have been ordered recently - there are NOT hundreds of A330s in the backlog - only four countries have ordered the Airbus tanker vice two for Boeing. The 767 is much better for a large fleet - the A330 might be for a small fleet like the UK

alan, Derbyshire, USA

I really don't understand what is going on here. No one has ordered a 767 for the last 18 months, while hundreds of A330's are on order. Some dozen or so countries have ordered the Airbus tanker and others are expected to do so.

Politicians should really not interfere in this process.

Hugh Jampton, Bexley, U.K.