Adux

From what I heard, 777 would have been just too big. Somehow the Airbus just fell in the sweet spot Airforce was looking for, Simply put boeing had no craft in that category.

And, If globalization and Free trade is a lip-service US gives the world, one should also be ready to be in the reciving end sometimes

Chunder

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.

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!


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.

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.

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'.

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...

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.

Chunder

Sorry to take you to task here - just wantto point out some things for consideration.


The thing is the KC30 Carries more pallets that the C-17 does, which is the USAF primary lifter now. It is SIGNIFICANTLY important in reducing the wear on the C-17's. Not to mention that if the aircraft Pushes more air it needs more fuel. Yeah, the Smart Car uses 80% less fuel than the Dodge Ram, But it can't tow Jack, and can only Carry two people and thats it.

When you look for an employee you take the one that goes the extra mile!

YouTube - A330 MRTT landing

There, Now you saw the elusive tanker... Its in Advanced Stage RAAF takign its first A.C Next year Remember, you saw it here First :p

KC - 30 production a major factor also for its choice was the rate of Production is double that of the 767. 40+ by 2013 or 2014 vs just 19 for the 767. Airfield is immaterial, for military operations in many cases. And you need to clarify what fuel loading your talking about here.

They didn't take it seriously. The RFP was drawn up after the scandal and Boeing submitted the same design!

Well Spain probably has issues because you guys accidently dropped a nuclear bomb on it once remember. For what wars can you recall being denied overflights apart from El Dorado Canyon. Keep in mind that live weaponry is verboten over many populated areas. Lets not forget that theses countries have given much to the USA. If you want to start squabbling over business, then all sides loose significantly. It's VERY unlikely to happen. And your buying foreign because AIrbus was evaluated to have the better product in a compeittion everyone in congress backed, until EADS won!

lol

You know, next time when we buy 100 JSF's or something I'll think just how much the USA benefitted from us. Then cries fowl when it looses something for once.

its a Give / Take relationship.

Tin Man

Stan, this is absolutely NOT true. The UK does not require the permission of the US president to use Trident, but we would tell him before we launch, as a courtesy!!! They can of course refuse to give us more missiles when a Vanguard pulls up in Norfolk.

Here is a cluster-fu%k if ever I saw one. Isn`t the US government taking Airbus to court over it`s subsidies? They then go and buy 180 tankers from them!

Oh, and I thought the Australians have already done the A-330 tanker thing?

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

JA Boomer

Here's the thing thought, the B777 is only 20 feet longer, 2 feet wider, and has less then 2 feet more cabin width. I think Boeing choose the B767 to try and keep the line over, rather than plugging up the B777 production line, which is still selling nicely commercially. Or perhaps they really thought the RFP called for a smaller airframe, dunno. Seems like their mistake though. Too bad they couldn't offer a KC-787...(damn composites)

Adux

So basically Boeing tried to sell off a inferior product to the USAF, trying to push it through with weight and influence; so as to keep a production line?

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

glyn

[quote=JA Boomer;467042]Too bad they couldn't offer a KC-787...(damn composites)


And the B.787 Dreamliner (what a god-awful name!) comprises no less than 70% out-sourcing! With Boeing it seems to be a case of 'Do as I say, not do as I do'. What a collection of sore losers!

JA Boomer

I sure this wasn't the deciding factor on what platform to base their proposal on. But it had to come under consideration. The B767 line is coming to a close, a further 200 airframes would be a huge shot in the arm and keep it open for years. By comparison, the B777 line is still enjoying good commercial sales, probably several years worth of production is no more orders came in, so you'd be really plugging up that line with the tanker contract.

highsea

I've read the summaries, but I don't have the time or inclination to wade through the thousands of pages. If you want to, here you go:

http://www.fbo.gov/servlet/Documents/R/1543915/284332

Whenever Boeing or Lockmart offer an existing frame for consideration, someone always pipes up with the argument that they are just trying to keep the line going. The 767 line is booked through 2012, and the Boeing workers will mostly transition to another line when it closes. But a lot of businesses in the area will suffer, something we know a lot about already.

Boeing offered the frame that best met the req's as specified in the RFP. Simple as that.

Boeing: Here's our offer- it meets every requirement, it's less expensive to buy, less expensive to operate, and we can get them in service faster than the competition.

Air Force: We don't believe you....


Top Chundry wrt the jobs.

Boeing employs a hell of a lot more people than 44,000. There are thousands of subs, supporting businesses, etc in the Pac NW (and Wichita) that go into the 767 production and (would support) the related tanker conversion.

The Airbus conversion plant in Alabama will employ 1200 people by comparison.

Whatever. If the AF wants to fly a French tanker, fine. If they want to export the jobs to Europe, fine. Not my problem. I don't have time to argue with the entire WAB over it. I got parts to make....

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Silent Hunter

Stan, Tin Man is right. There is no way the US could stop a nuclear launch by the UK. ICBMs don't need GPS.

scorefour

For Boeing to have entered the 777 means that they would've had to design a whole new tanker from scratch. The 767 tanker is already designed and built for Japan and Italy. That would've delayed the process and added to the cost significantly. Airbus was already prepared to low-ball the price just to have some hope of winning this thing.

The 787 hasn't even flown yet, so Boeing really couldn't offer that either. Composite or not, all delivery slots for that plane are taken until 2016. Boeing has no capacity to meet that kind of need with this airplane.

The fact of the matter is that Boeing got caught in a bad situation. They didn't have what the customer wanted. This isn't about Boeing just wanting to keep the 767 line open, as Boeing already has a significant backlog of orders, this is what they had to offer the USAF at the time.

__________________
I want what I do not have.

gunnut

Airbus is the commercial jet division of EADS. They aren't exactly the same. So it's possible to take one division of a company to court and then buy stuff for the other division.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

highsea

Most of the preliminary work is already done. At one point, it was Boeing's intention to come with a 777 version.

Ironically, one of the things Boeing supposedly got marked down for was subcontractor delays. Northrup Grumman is one of those subcontractors that has caused Boeing lots of problems (MESA radar for Wedgetail). And penalizing them for delays on the 767 tankers to Japan and Italy seems senseless, since those issues are all ironed out now.

The AF got a bloody nose when that procurement officer and Boeing got busted. So they are both punishing Boeing, and trying to show that they are impartial. Like I'm sure there are no ex-AF officers at Northrup Grumman, lol...

highsea

But that's not what's going on. Airbus will fly A330's from France to Alabama for conversion. Even the engines on these tankers will be French built.