Greece and Air Tractor: who prepared the €155 million deal

The Air Tractor story no longer looks like a simple technical error: after the €155 million contract was blocked, the question is becoming louder and louder: who prepared this purchase and why?

The story of the purchase of 25 Air Tractor firefighting aircraft for Greece received a continuation. After Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο (Court of Auditors of Greece) blocked the signing of the contract for almost 155 million eurosthe question is now not only about a specific contractor, but also about the very logic of this purchase.

As previously written “Athens News”we were talking about delivery 25 single-engine turboprop Air Tractor aircraft total cost 154,858,600 euros. Greek Accounts Chamber blocked the deal after checking the draft contract, pointing out serious legal problems related to information about the contractor.

According to Greek media reports, the temporary contractor did not disclose the legal history of the management of the Spanish company related to the supply of aircraft. The publications talk about a case involving accusations of cartel agreement, bribery, unfair competition, embezzlement and forgery of documents. It was this block of questions that became the formal basis for stopping the deal.

But the problem is bigger than just one contractor.

Edition pronews.gr now poses the question more harshly: if the contract had to be stopped already at the final stage, then who prepared the terms of purchase and how? And why did aircraft, around which there had long been debate about their real effectiveness, once again find themselves at the center of a government program worth tens of millions of euros?

Critics of Air Tractor point out that these machines in Greek conditions are not a complete replacement for heavy specialized firefighting aircraft. Formally, the advertising descriptions mention the possibility of transporting about 3 tons of waterhowever, when installing floats, according to opponents of the purchase, the payload is reduced and operational limitations become much more noticeable.

The main controversial point is not only the volume of the tank, but the actual operation of the aircraft during a fire. If the machine is forced to return to the airfield more often or operate only under limited water intake conditions, then a beautiful figure in a technical presentation turns into a paper decoration. And fires, unfortunately, are not put out by presentations. Although sometimes it seems that in Greek government procurement it is presentations that are the main type of aviation.

Proponents of the Air Tractor, on the other hand, call the aircraft a faster and cheaper first responder. In 2025, the Greek press wrote that the program included the purchase 19 singles And 6 doubles amphibians AT-802 Fire Bosswhich have already been used in Greece when extinguishing fires. But even if an airplane can be useful as an auxiliary tool, this does not eliminate questions about price, procedure and choice of contractor.

Why is a prosecutor’s audit necessary?

Now the main question is very simple: was this story the result of ordinary bureaucratic negligence or is it about a system where technical requirements could be drawn up in such a way as to tailor the competition to a specific solution?

If the government is going to spend almost 155 million euros for firefighting aviation, it is obliged to prove three things to the public: that the equipment is really suitable for Greek conditions, that the competition was fair, and the verification of the contractor is not a decorative formality. In the meantime, the picture looks alarming: the contract reached the signing stage, and then was stopped by a decision of the control body.

And here it is not enough to say: “an error was detected, the contract was not signed”. It’s good that Accounts Chamber pressed the brake. But brakes aren’t just needed in front of a wall. We need an answer as to who overclocked this car, who checked the documents, who agreed on the technical requirements, and why doubts were not cleared earlier.

With Greece facing major wildfires every summer, purchasing firefighting aircraft is no ordinary budget line item. This is a matter of people’s safety, protection of homes, forests, infrastructure and trust in the state. If, instead of effectively strengthening firefighting aviation, the country receives a dubious tender, then this is no longer a technical failure, but a political and managerial responsibility.

Prosecutor’s check in this story would not seem like an excessive measure, but minimal sanitary procedure. Because if in firefighting aviation it was possible to bring a contract with such questions to the final stage, then society has the right to ask: what happens in other procurements, where there is no such attention from the press and control authorities?

Greece really needs modern firefighting aircraft. But what the country needs is not fancy brochures or dubious schemes, but technology that works in real conditions, and procurement that can withstand not only advertising presentation, but also legal, technical and public scrutiny.

Source link