Why should a private publicaly traded company ruin it's commercial business for the sake of ONE customer. Think what you may but the american people do not own Boeing...

I’m sorry Boeing but you offered an inferior/ancient product in the 767 when you should have offered a modified 777 or 787; remember how the 707 came to be from the KC-135 in the late 1950’s/early 1960’s which was revolutionary for this time period. Before we award the contract to Airbus (EADS), we should put in a clause that the aircraft should be built/assembled domestically to help the American worker and help Airbus themselves since the European worker is actually paid more due to currency differences (US Dollar vs. the Euro). I know China is already doing this with Airbus before awarding the last several contracts for A319/A320’s which allows the later part of the deliveries to be built domestically.Just my opinion, Darryl

Just the airframe design is old, doesn't mean it is inferior. The aircraft will be built as new. In fact with the new 787 style avionics planned for it, I venture to say the KC-767 will be more advanced than Airbus offering.There are 2 issues that I have with this whole process. One is as policy I don't think it's a good idea for a country to outsource it's military contracts if they have the capability and resources to do it themselves. In a war time situation, we shouldn't be reliant on other countries for parts and service for our major military assets. What if for whatever reason, that's the Country we're at war with? I realize we supply other countries ourselves, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It would be bad enough to give this contract away for the above reasons in good economic times. To do this though when our unemployment is approaching 10 percent is just foolish. Our Government is suppose to represent the interests of the people of the United States. It's not it's job to boost the economies of China, Japan, Europe or any other country, at the expense of our own. Same as other countries, should be concerned about their own economies. Our politicians (Especially in regards to China) seem to forget about that.The biggest issue I have with this contract is the AF put out a RFP for a tanker which met a list of specification requirement. While the Boeing KC-767 met those requirements, Airbus did not have an aircraft that met them in regards to the size requirement. So instead of Airbus putting forth a new design to meet it, they had (with the help of some of our own Senators and Congressman) the Air force change their own operational requirements to allow Airbus to put up their much larger KC-45. That in my book is not playing within the rules.

Before we award the contract to Airbus (EADS), we should put in a clause that the aircraft should be built/assembled domestically to help the American worker and help Airbus themselves since the European worker is actually paid more due to currency differences (US Dollar vs. the Euro).

That's already the case, Darryl! According to EADS, they will build an assembly plant near Mobile, Alabama:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013630503_tanker09.html

EADS claims that 48,000 jobs in the U.S. will be created or supported by an A330 tanker program, with 1,500 people directly employed in Mobile.

Please note that I'm not supporting the idea, but let's not forget to source our actual facts and not rely on simple emotion when discussing the topic... ;)