Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3516 times:
PPGMD, very interesting, since the defense appropriations bill was only passed last night. There may be many threads on this subject, however, as your role of thread monitor, I suggest you re-read the article.
The bill specifically prohibits the Air Force from entering into any lease arrangement with anyone, it also adds other criteria.. So, although the A vs. B thread may have discussed here and the merits of each as a tanker, the Washington Post article has not been discussed.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3462 times:
I have to laugh at your response. I guess as self appointed moderator you have the right to pass judgement on everyone's post.
First of all, I am not a new poster, despite what you write. Secondly, I an not engaging in a KC767 v. KC330, A v. B thread. The only purpose of my post was to point people to the Washington Post link. They are welcome to make their own judgements.
I guess when I have all the experience and RR you do, I'll be able to pass judgement on other people's posts.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3432 times:
With just a quick count on the first page we have 7 threads on the subject, sure this particular bill may not have been mentioned but the topic has been beaten to death.
It's like "Why doesn't the B777 have Winglets?" in Tech/Ops, or "NW DC-9's," in Civil Aviation (or so I hear, since I don't browse that group). It's a topic that most of the regulars are sick of.
First of all, I am not a new poster, despite what you write. Secondly, I an not engaging in a KC767 v. KC330, A v. B thread. The only purpose of my post was to point people to the Washington Post link. They are welcome to make their own judgments.
Which you could have done in one of the 7 other threads that are on just the first page on this subject. There are at least 5 threads (most no longer on the first page) that I can count that have gone rather in depth on the program.
Most everyone that has been watching this program knew that it was going back to competition after the scandal involving a top USAF procurement officials. The bill only made it official, also anyone familiar with American politics also knows that though EADS can bid, and has to at least get the appearance that they are being taken seriously, that it's highly unlikely that Airbus will win the contract.
I guess when I have all the experience and RR you do, I'll be able to pass judgment on other people's posts.
What a glorious personal insult. Particularly aimed at someone that normally posts once a week anymore, I am no longer on the radar for RR. Now I do admit that you appear have more experience than I flying, but I highly doubt that you have more experience with defense appropriations.
Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3389 times:
I guess we will continue to disagree. Your comments about defense appropriations are somewhat misguided. Having spend 10 years in the military, I am familar with them. More so than you.
Personal insult, no. Questioning your attitude and the right you have to insult someone for posting a new link to an article, yes. You have no right as a member to question my or anyone else's motives or postings.
My advice would be to use the "delete post" function. That's what it's there for. I personally could care less if you posted once a day/hour/minute. The fact remains, your attitude is what I was commenting on, nothing else.
Captoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3211 times:
As I have stated before. Airbus can whine and cry all they want but what it comes down to is a group of 100 elected Senators have to make the decision of what to replace 40 year old tankers with, before they start falling out of the sky.
These 100 Senators come up for re-election every 6 years. Do you want to be the Senators from Washington, Missouri, Texas, and about any other state where 767 components are made if the contract goes to Airbus? Politically this is almost a slam-dunk for Boeing.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2747 times:
As someone said on another thread the RAF "want to be able to carry troops/freight without changing the cabin and still do refuelling, they want enough fuel capacity to do refuelling without installing tanks in the fuselage, they want a lot of range and capacity, hence the A330"
The US has apparently other requirements. I think it will still order the KC767 to fullfill those requirements.