Originally Posted by
fasteddie800
I have no doubt that Boeing is paying the overages, but I'm skeptical about who's getting the shaft in all of this.
It was unusual for Boeing to sign a fixed firm price contact for the KC-46, and everyone touted it as "great for the taxpayer" and all of that. I have to imagine Boeing has done some work on the back end to make sure they get their pound of flesh, though.
I'd suspect their is contractual language somewhere that guarantees Boeing the repair and overhaul work on the KC-46. This would be inline with Boeing's strategy to diversify into services offerings, vs strictly aircraft production.
IIRC it was assumed in the industry that Boeing low-balled the bid, basically taking a risk that they'd be able to make it up on the flip side. I'm pretty sure there are no such contractual guarantees since the bid was for the tanker, not the follow on and bidders cannot unilaterally change the terms of the RFP in a competitive contest. Boeing would have a presumed competitive advantage with future support bids, since they built the plane and systems. Even if the gov controls some of the product IP, the processes still belong to Boeing.