Flightglobal:The Department of Defense has adjusted the pricing strategy on the controversial US Air Force KC-X tanker contract to shift more risk to the government.Author: Stephen TrimbleDate: 25 February 2010Read the full article
Author: Stephen Trimble
Date: 25 February 2010
Read the full article
Pretty interesting comments by Senator Pat Roberts. Really shows how the Americans have a pretty narrow view on international collaboration. Still never mind at least they know they are getting a second rate product
I just wonder how Senators Roberts and Murray would react if the EU instituted a "Buy EU" policy and had every airline cancel their Boeing order books. Or if every airline in the EU just went and did what I'm suggesting.
They'd probably scream "protectionism" and anti-competitve of the EU, whine and run to the WTO again (has an American Corporation ever LOST in the WTO?)..
Well it would free up a few spots thats for sure...But not so much to hurt Boeing....they would be able to backfill most of those vacancies with new customers wanting those newer delivery slots...
Here is the scoop....
From Jan 2000 to Jan 2010 Boeing TOTAL worlwide orders were 5,997 of which the countries that make up Major ownership of Airbus (France, Germany, United Kingdom) really Do not order near the amount of Boeing Aircraft you may thinkThe following are ACTUAL Boeing orders from those countriesGermany 141France 47United Kingdom 86total of 274Total orders in that same time period for ALL of Europe minus those three 1105So You see, the EU is already playing favorites when it comes from buying from the HOME team.Now on the other hand If the US instituted a buy US ONLY policy. Guess who gets hurt worse. So your statement is not very sound
And as for your question... has an American Corporation ever LOST in the WTO?Ever heard of Microsoft??? The Airforce needs a MEDIUM Tanker...NOT a beheamoth....They also want one thats Demonstratably great...Boeings is already in flight in two countries and transfering fuel...Also unlike the Airbus platform...Boeings Tanker can transfer to ALL Aircraft. BTW my Stats are accurate... I did my research and you can verify them very easily
Just wanted to add AIR FRANCE alone operates 160 Airbus airplanes. Talk about Buying Homegrown...Id like to add more but I think you get the Idea
You know, I sit here an read what people write and all the articles that are written about each possible aircraft, and I must ask the questions:
If the 767 is such a great asset to bring into the military, then who is doing the research on the last boeing product of tanker. I have worked this great bird 717 (modified 707) for 18 years. I do not want the next generation of air refuelers to have to fix issues that we are looking at day to day with our fuel systems. This is to include the KC-10 Extender that was brought to us. Both of these air refuelers have fuel bladders in the body of the aircraft. That alone is a maintenance nightmare. Has any of the upper levels even looked at what it costs to maintain bladder systems on both of the current aircraft? Lets say we have an opportunity to change maintenance for the better for the future by having all the fuel in the wings like the AB-330. Why can't Boeing give the maintainer the option like that. Who wants to load thousands of pounds of extra fuel onto pallets that go inside the cargo area?
As a maintainer and love for what the air refueler does, why does it seem that the people that work on it day to day, 24/7, 365 days a year to protect our freedom, not have a voice in the issue. It is always a panel of people that are higher on the food chain that make these decisions for us. How about both companies come to ground level and ask the guys working on the oldest flying active aircraft for the Air Force, what they need to get the job of protecting freedom done. Not the ones sitting in an office trying to make political gain.
Is it going to take an KC-135 Stratotanker to go down before someone gets off their ass and makes a decision. This job is getting harder and harder to keep them flying and it is coming down to the safety of the aircraft being an issue. Let alone the problem of getting parts from Boeing because they have subcontrated to so many sources that literally half the time the part doesn't work.
I had to say my peace and can't wait to work the next generation no matter which wins. Can we just get one on the ground so we can get the ball rolling?
Thanks for listening.JJ
ovurtyme:Also unlike the Airbus platform...Boeings Tanker can transfer to ALL Aircraft.
I'm not as familiar with this contest as you obviously are, which aircraft can't the Airbus tanker can't refuel?
My wings are like a shield of steel.
I think that All aspects are being considered in the new Boeing Tanker...MANY of those working on the Tanker...upper management are prior Air Force Tanker vets as well as Air Nat'l Guard Tanker flyers (receivers too), and have bought to light problems theyve encountered during their tours. The specifics of the tankers innards are under wraps for good reason...Boeing created a BRAND NEW airplane in the 787 and its competitor basically copied many of the new ideas into their version...the A350WB. it was comical to see their description and how it mirrors much of the 787...for that reason the many of the improvements are kept pretty quiet. It is obvious that the Boeing bid includes a platform that can go where our forces are, due to the ability to operate from short strips, useing essentially the same aprons and maint facilities. whereas the Airbus being much larger and heavier cannot.
Being Military as well, I can appreciate your concern on Maintenance, but If anyone thought the exhisting Boeing tanker would be still flying at her age when she was first built, they would have been thought of as being mad. In fact KC-135's will still be flying 20+ years from now...she is that hardy of an airframe, although the aircrews are gonna love the NEW Boeing Tanker.
The V22 osprey because the KC-330 fly’s to fast …