Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
The KC-767 met every requirement in the RFP. If the AF wanted a larger plane, they should have asked for one, and Boeing would have came back with a 777 version. The average refueling mission offloads 70,000 lbs of jet fuel. These AC don't take off full and come back empty, why pack that extra fuel around?
|
With respect the answer lies straight in the Question. Because it's an Average. The USAF has huge distances to cover. Trans Atlantic/Mediterranian, Pacific and Indian type flights with Planes that need a lot of fuel. From C-17's to B52's... Boeing tried to offer them the KC767 when it knew its line was closing. Boeing spent a lot of money in the proposal as is... and from that time on, through all it's marketing Boeing has been telling the USAF what it needs. The competition was open and fair, both companies have said they were very happy with the process and thats on the record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
The 767 may be an older design, but it is 24% more fuel efficient than the Airbus. Commercial carriers know something that the AF doesn't seem to have learned- that a more efficient plane is cheaper to own over the life cycle. Boeing could have offered a mix of '67's and '77's as well, keeping a common flight deck, and still maintaining a capability for a larger loadout if needed (which is unlikely).
|
That would explain why the A330 has consitently outsold the 767 and helped Airbus overtake Boeing this Mellenium for total number of aircraft sold per year before 787 introduction when the A330 was competing directly against the 767? The aircraft might be 24% more efficient, but look at the Size comparison! the Airbus is over 24% larger isn't it Pushing 25% more air... Stands to Reason. That somewhere that even though it's 24/5% More expensive in fuel, that profits are a lot more tan 25% more because of what it can carry!
Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
The 767 can use existing infrastructure of the -135- runways, hangars, etc. New ones will have to be built for the larger plane, and runways upgraded. It is not known how the larger plane will affect refueling operations- more wake turbulence, etc.
|
Not necessarily... It will be dealt with in the same way the Airforce Deals with C-17's, L011's C-5's... besides deployment, ut oh 'being outside' in the middle east.... sounds like your average real world situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
This plane will not be built in Alabama- just final assembly. The airframe will be built in France, the wings in the UK, the nose in Germany, the tail in Spain, etc....And the USAF will be dependent on the goodwill of all these European countries for spares for the next 50-80 years.
|
Well - technically speaking that is built. Sections of the A330 are built in the U.S Just like major sections of the 767 are made in Italy & Japan. The Hose systems will be American, the knowledge imparted will be to Americans, The engines will be American... Many components (especially the high maintenance ones will be manufactured in the states anyway including the boom) Not only are they available from the producer, they are available from customers.
Not to often you have to replace a wing, nose, or airframe etc - when you loose one of those you generally loose an aircraft. But thats why contracts exist with sunset clauses. Take into account that EADS is a business and business is business. ALL of these countries would have massive losses incurred in any protracted falling out to even think about stuffing the U.S around. Politics is politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
Boeing has been building tankers for 5 decades and know what they are doing. The airbus is a paper airplane.
|
Do a google Image seach for RAAF A330. You will see an A330 complete with boom. It has been selected by the RAF, UAE and Saudi, all steadfast U.S Allies - All who have chosen against the 767, some who have never chosen airbus before. The boom has already done a wet hookup like Bpeiings has, and has been through EXTENSIVE testing. Building Tankers for 5 Decades idoesn't mean that they know engineering principles and the laws of physics any better than EADS, asserting as such would be akin to saying 'American Engineers are better than Europeans'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
44,000 US aerospace jobs will be exported to Europe and $40 billion dollars taken out of the US economy.
|
Do you honestly think that 44,000 jobs is what it takes to make the KC 767, or that these jobs depend on the KC 767? Merely the aircraft has reached the end of it's design life, because it is no longer required. 12-18 planes will be made per year... Moreover EADS can gaurantee over 40 tankers in service by 2014... Boeing 19... Whether eads can or not is another thing... but thats appalling.
Being careful with words is that getting the 767 supports 44,000 jobs because thats how many are employed by Boeing, related to Boeing manufacturing in that generic area in the Country... Pulls at the patriotic strings, but is fundamentally dishonest by Boeing. A company that makes over 60 billion a year whose executives like big dollars, because it is a business.. not a poor little woe is me company.
$40 BIllion Taken out of the Economy? Gee I didn't know that no one in Alabama or NG was being paid a cent. Too bad for all those people in the U.S Manufacturing the Hose and Drogue systems and boom systems and other compoenents... that Evil Euro company won't be paying them a single cent...
You know, the only other competitior to the Boeing will now also be based in the USA to an extent, which will benefit jobs and employment across the states. incredibly. It makes no difference to commercial customers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
Way to go Air Force.....  |
An Airforce which was under an aquisition program backed and supported by congress until a decision was made why... the only reason given -Because it's not Boeing. The USAF has many fine people that have served their country loyally and dilligently... These men and women made a decision that they thought best for their country, that so happened to affirm the decisions made by RAAF RAF UAE, SA - countries that when it comes to force deployment suffer a tyranny of distance... like the USAF does. The Same cannot be said for Italy or Japan.