A Pentagon spokesman says there will be a final decision by the end of this month on whether to buy aerial refueling tankers from Boeing or an EADS/Northrop Gruman joint venture.

Fortunately for him, this is a leap year, and they've got an extra day to work with. And besides, any announcement made this month will be just another step along the way in resolving this long-running tanker flap.

Hearst Newspapers reports that members of Congress already are quietly pushing for both bidders to respect whatever decision the Pentagon makes and not file protests if they lose.

Federal law, Hearst notes, "allows losing bidders to appeal to the Government Accountability Office if they believe a federal agency violated procurement rules when it awards a contract.

"A protest would delay the program while the GAO investigated the Air Force process that led to selecting the winning bidder. . . . Any decision by the GAO upholding the protest could require the Air Force to start all over again with new contract bids.

"Such a delay would make the Air Force extremely unhappy because the service contends that it urgently needs to start work on the KC-X, given that the existing tanker fleet of KC-135s is 46 years old, on average."

I'm hearing (second-hand, but from people who should have inside knowledge) that Boeing executives absolutely plan to appeal if the Pentagon picks EADS/Northrop Gruman. Everyone expects the EADS/Northrop team to do likewise.

In the end, Congress will have to decide who gets the contract, go-to analyst Richard Aboulafia said this week. And since Boeing's bid is supported by Blue State Democrats, who are the majority in both Houses, while EADS has only the support of Gulf State Republicans, "I'm thinking the Democrats look pretty good" he said.

Richard gives Boeing as much as a 75 percent chance of winning the deal. He figures the odds against EADS/Northrop are about 10-to-1, and there's about a one-in-six chance that the Pentagon will split the buy between the two vendors.

The biggest stumbling block for the EADS bid is the plan to assemble the new KC-30 tankers in a brand-new factory in Alabama. "That's almost impossible to imagine," he said. "The idea of assembling an A330 from kits seems bizarre to me."

You can't just create an aerospace industry from scratch, he said. "Look at the 787, that's the best example," Aboulafia said. "It's all about long-term figuring out how it's done."

Meanwhile, in post-Valentine's Day merger news, the Wall Street Journal reports that Continental Airlines flirted with American Airlines parent AMR before deciding to ask UAL executives to go steady.

That would seem to indicate that Continental's got marriage on its mind, and is very likely ready to settle down with a good merger partner (and maybe start a family of regional feeder airlines of their own, who knows).

And if that happens, some Wall Streeters think that AMR will pursue its own merger deal with a smaller regional carrier - like maybe Alaska Airlines.

I bounced that idea off The Master - Leeham's Scott Hamilton - and he suggested that it's the kind of deal that would work over cocktails, but not in the sky.

The action for airlines is in long-haul international routes, and Alaska doesn't have any, Hamilton notes.

Instead, Alaska's strength is its north-south network of Pacific Coast routes, Hamilton continued. American already has access to that network through a code-share agreement with Alaska, "so why would (American) want to bring on (Alaska) and create more merger hassles?"

American also is looking to get out of the regional feeder airline business, Hamilton said. Adding Alaska, which includes Horizon Air, is a step in the wrong direction.

Instead of pursuing a merger, American would be better off snapping up assets, Hamilton says. If the Delta-Northwest and Continental-United deals happen, they'll likely have to spin off hubs, gates or landing slots, some of them in attractive markets.

"American could do this withouth the headaches that accompany a merger," Hamilton says.