Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New Group Opposes Boeing Tanker Lease  
User currently offlineQb001 From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 4
Posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Watchdog Urges Congress to Oppose Corporate Bailout of Boeing.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/data/communiques/data/2003Jun16507/index.htm


Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

The KC-135s need replacement. That is pretty clear but the airplanes should be purchased outright and not leased. I agree that the lease arrangment is corporate welfare and a ripoff of the taxpayer.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2618 times:

The planes will be bought at the end of the lease, they are leasing because they do not have the funding to buy them outright at this time.

They need to replace all 550 ! of the KC-135s, to start buying them outright today would be a huge burden on the Defense budget. Better to lease and spread the payments out, that's how most folks can afford to drive BMWs etc.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

$3.2b to upgrade KC-135s? I wonder how they got to those numbers. Pricelist from boneyards, perhaps. There we have some real idiots...

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2558 times:

The KC-135s NEED to be retired. You can't update or refurbish them anymore. The 767 tanker deal is needed and is not a rip off to the American taxpayer. If we had been smarter, we would have bought the replacement aircraft several years ago and henceforth gotten more spending power out of our dollars.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineTan flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1906 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

The KC-135 replacement program should have been accelerated years ago, But the Clinton Administration killed it.(First proposed during Bush 41)
I remember reading ,in the late 90's, that some of the KC-135's were scheduled to remain until 2040..this was on aircraft delivered in the early 60's..hence an almost 80 y/o air tanker.
Thank God someone came up with at least a starting point solution to this problem. (The Airforce admitted years ago that they should have ordered FAR MORE KC-10 Extenders).

I am sorta surprised that they are using the 762 platform..but hey I'm not an engineer. I have read unsubstantiated assertations that they are going to use some 762's at Mohave and Victorville...Most of the press I read indicated these would all be new units from Everret.

In any case we have a long way to go to replace 500+ KC-135's..and even at this rate, many will be 50+ yrs old by the time they are retired. I guess it gives great testimony to the initial quality of the aircraft, and the ability to maintain it for so many years by guys born long after they were built.
As some might recall, the AF bought a lot of the retired AA and TW 707's in the late 70's/early 80's to use for parts for the 135's. I think the American taxpayer has gotten his/her moneys worth from the KC 135 fleet.

SO if the lease deal gets us started, so be it.


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Fact: The United States Military is being used as a rapid-response police force for the UN to enforce UN mandates and to "maintain peace" in various parts of the world.

Fact: In addition to this, the military must be ready to respond to attacks, both conventional and unconventional, on the United States. The most rapid reaction force we have is the Air Force and Naval Aviation. In order for those two arms of the US Military to be effective, they must have fuel. That fuel will be delivered in great measures by tankers like the KC-10 and KC-135.

Fact: Both the KC-10 and KC-135 fleets are rapidly aging and expensive to maintain and operate.

Fact: The US military's role in the future of the world seems like it will only expand.

With those facts in mind, it makes sense to add more aircraft to the tanker fleet, especially if they are newer and less-costly to operate and maintain. And if they are leased, then we have the option of purchasing them (if they work out) or buying something better later (if they don't).



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

The KC-10 are kind of new actually. The KC-135 have about had it. I think the B-52s actually will be in service until 2040.

User currently offlineIslandHopper From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 327 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

I doubt the US gov't will buy old 767s. They're smart for ordering new frame 767-200s. The frames will last for another 40 years like the KC-135, and they'll have a TON of spare parts from old 767s.

User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2449 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2441 times:

Boeing sells fully furnished civil 767s at like $100 million a copy.
$21 Billion for 10 year lease on 100 tankers, thats $210 million per airframe for 10 year lease. I can understand that Boeing really like this deal. It will also bridge the period from 767 to 7E7, since I don't see many airlines ordering the 767 now its successor has all been but announced.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offline0A340 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2408 times:

Questions:

- Who came up with the $21 Billion for 10 year lease on 100 tankers figure?
- What are the other (realistic) alternatives? Would the C-17 do the job?
- How about the 757/777 etc?
- Was there ever an open RFP from competing aiframes (namely, the A332?)

just asking...


User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

I am not sure if all of $21 billion goes to Boeing. A lot of investment is going into reconstruction of AFBs that are going to gradually receive 767 tankers.

User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2391 times:

OA340,

Airbus did indeed express interest in bidding for the tanker contract (using the A330-200 and more U.S. based assembly), but I don't think it was ever evaluated, since there was no bidding. The contract was always intended for Boeing.


User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

This press release might be helpful

http://www.af.mil/stories/story.asp?storyID=123005100


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

All the new KC-767s will be "new builds".

"Boeing sells fully furnished civil 767s at like $100 million a copy.
$21 Billion for 10 year lease on 100 tankers, thats $210 million per airframe for 10 year lease."

The price also reflects not just the aircraft but the retrofitting, boom, enternal tanks, upgraded cockpits, upgrade/secure communications etc.

It's a little more complicated than an average 767-200.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16859 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2365 times:

ps..

The new KC-767 may also be wired to withstand a EMP from a Nuclear blast, that alone would cost a few bucks.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2449 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

STT757
Sorry if my post came over too negative. I fully understand that it is a little more complicated than your average 767. Converting aircraft can be quite expensive. Boeing still hasn't launched their 744 cargo conversion since at $20 million it is still too expensive, and that's just a cargo conversion. However it does seem to me that conversion/new build on production line is more convenaint [and cheaper] than "in-field" conversions. Retrofitting of boom/externals tanks shouldn't be too much of a problem since this can be accounted for from day one of new-production, rather than reversed engineered into a finished airframe.
I would expect the majority of the extra expenditure to be used for engineering and production development. However spread out over at least 100 airframes, this should not be a huge amount.

I was wondering if that $21 billion also includes costs like spares, running cost, cost of modifying/adapting of maitenance bases, training [cockpit crew, maintenance, engineering etc], or does that money only cover for the dry lease?

Good points though on the EMP, secure comms/IFF, not to mention defensive aids.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2315 times:

TransSwede
"Airbus did indeed express interest in bidding for the tanker contract (using the A330-200 and more U.S. based assembly), but I don't think it was ever evaluated, since there was no bidding. The contract was always intended for Boeing."

There was a DOD/USAF statement saying that the A330 was rejected in the initial evaluation for the first contract because of its' significantly larger footprint (too large an airplane), perhaps due to airfield space considerations but that it would be considered for a future tanker contract. Who knows if this was the truth but the A330 IS substantially larger than the KC-135s due to be replaced, the 767-200 much less so. I've no problem if Boeing is given preferred status due to nationalistic considerations but EADS should be allowed to bid against Boeing in all such proposals, if only to secure a better deal from the U.S. manufacturer. And Eurofans, before you squawk, would you think that any E.U. member nation would now buy a tanker from Boeing with EADS offering the A330-based model? I didn't think so.  Big grin


User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

"...or upgrading the 127 existing KC-135E tankers"

Haha! Good one. Maybe while they're at it they can refurbish some Revolutionary War muskets to give to the police forces in Iraq.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1863 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

People need to have a better understanding of deal before judging.

I will summarize from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/134806300_tankers24.html

Per plane cost: $131 million
Leasing cost per plane for 6 years: $138 million
buy-out option at the end of the lease: $40 million per plane

The $20 billion figure is not an upfront cost, but it is spread over the entire contract period. When you get a straight average and compare with the current cost of a 767, then of course it looks outrageous. If you have taken out a car loan or a mortagage, you should know your total payment would be a lot more than your purchase price.

I took out my financial calculator, and punched some numbers. The deal is roughly equivalent to a loan with 9% APR. The interest rate sounds a little bit high, but not outrageous.

In the article, it also says Boeing has promised not to make more than 15% profit from the airframe and from the military modification. It also has a "most-favored-customer" clause that will force Boeing to refund Pentagon the difference if they sell the plane to another customer at a lower price. I didn't know Boeing has become Circuit City.  Big grin


User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 3853 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

would you think that any E.U. member nation would now buy a tanker from Boeing with EADS offering the A330-based model?


Boeing, Italian MoD and Alenia Reach Agreement on 767 Tanker Transport Cooperation

FARNBOROUGH, United Kingdom, July 26, 2002 – The Italian Ministry of Defense, Boeing [NYSE:BA] and Alenia Aeronautica, together with its subsidiary Aeronavali, announced today that the parties have reached agreement in principle to develop, produce and support four 767 Tanker Transport aircraft for the Italian Air Force.

more...
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q3/nr_020726n.html



Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4681 posts, RR: 47
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2277 times:

STT757, where do you get your information on the airframe as 'new builds'? I just so happen to work on the GTTS project and sources here at my office state that the airframes will be refurbished.

Cheers



"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2470 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2264 times:

OK, Confuscius, I stand corrected. Italy IS an E.U. member. I have to say I'm surprised at this and wondering if the Italian Ministry of Defense is taking political flak for making this decision. I'd think E.U. member nations would at least be strongly encouraged to support the European solution, even though they're free to make their own choices. Nevertheless, it doesn't change my preference for the American military to be equipped with U.S. company built aircraft. But thanks for sharing that.

User currently offlineSv7887 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1025 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Hi All,
It has been established clearly that the KC-135 fleet is in dire needs of replacement. As for corporate welfare...Do you really think it's politically feasible to select a Foreign built A330? Never mind the flak from the labor Unions and the protests of the Corporations. It's pretty much an unwritten rule that all US Military personnel use US Aircraft, and travel on US Airlines.

Corporate Welfare? Not really. The prior postings have shown that the DOD might be paying a slight premium. But the political argument for doing so can be made. Economists would argue against doing this, but if US jobs can be created why not do it? It's not like other countries don't subsidize their Military contractors..Other than the Airbus scenario, even Russian gives low interest loans to their contractors. In paying a premium for the KC-767 the DOD isn't doing something unheard of. As far as critics go, what's next? Replacing the VC-25 with a A340 or using the A330 for the next generation AWACS? Please, this is just knitpicking. I think the press ought to leave it alone.

Cheers,
SV


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

I think the USAF needs the 100 767-200-based tankers NOW because the KC-135 airframes are getting old and are getting quite expensive to maintain even with regular D-check overhauls.

I believe that the 100 tankers will be delivered, and when the Boeing 7E7 project becomes a real airplane the USAF will become a launch customer, buying possibly 300+ airframes from 2008 on; this will allow the USAF to phase out most of its aging KC-135 fleet except the planes built between 1962 to 1965.


25 Post contains links STT757 : "STT757, where do you get your information on the airframe as 'new builds'? I just so happen to work on the GTTS project and sources here at my office
26 STT757 : "I believe that the 100 tankers will be delivered, and when the Boeing 7E7 project becomes a real airplane the USAF will become a launch customer, buy
27 GDB : Although the UK might convert ex-BA 767s, new build A330s are also in the running, I suspect the RAF would prefer new builds if the price is right, pl
28 Post contains links GDB : An illustration of a LM concept that I mentioned above; http://www.lmaeronautics.com/products/ada/adv_mobility/tanker.html
29 RayChuang : I don't think the USAF will want ex-airline 767-200's to be converted to tankers. Between the cost of what amounts to a freighter conversion, zero-tim
30 Post contains images RayChuang : Actually, I should have said "not big enough" in regards to the KC-135 internal fuel storage. Even if the 127 KC-135E's were all converted to KC-135R
31 United777fan : I think its kind of interesting that this "watchdog" opposed to the 764 tanker is based in France. I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist bu
32 GDB : The group in this article sound like a US group to me, (and it is a 762, not 764 lease), still I don't have the apparent levels of paranoia so prevale
33 STT757 : The tankers will be 767-200s, Boeing is developing a replacement for the JStars, TACAMO, AWACS aircraft based on the 767-400. I believe that aircraft
34 Syncmaster : Also about the Airbus A330. I really don't see the U.S. Government purchasing/leasing 100 A330's from a European company, especially considering our '
35 Spacepope : The E-10 is going to be based off of the 764. I believe the first order for an airframe was approved about 2 months ago. I hear it is going to have qu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A New 747 At Boeing Field posted Fri May 11 2007 01:43:51 by Gabypn1992
Air Arabia New Fleet, New Opportunity For Boeing posted Sat Feb 10 2007 12:40:23 by Keesje
New Feature On Boeing's Order Site posted Mon Jan 8 2007 22:53:08 by N1786b
Arkia Group Orders 2 Boeing 787s posted Tue Dec 5 2006 13:05:23 by PanAm_DC10
Air New Zealand Launches Boeing 787-9 posted Fri May 12 2006 00:52:43 by Singapore_Air
Russia's Volga-Dnepr Group Orders 2 Boeing 744erf posted Fri Nov 4 2005 03:47:52 by Squirrel83
New CEO At Boeing posted Thu Jun 30 2005 07:20:57 by 707lvr
How About New Blog By Boeing VP Randy Baseler? posted Wed Jan 19 2005 17:26:24 by DL021
HA & Boeing Reach Lease Agreement...finally posted Fri Sep 17 2004 00:18:55 by HA_DC9
Air New Zealand Approves Boeing Order posted Fri Aug 6 2004 20:06:45 by Klkla