Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal  
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3870 times:

Found this blurb in Sunday's Washington Post. Interesting reading and certainly opens up the KC-135 replacement aircraft to Airbus.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21044-2004Oct9.html

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3819 times:

Umm we already have 5 threads on this subject. And we have pretty much discussed this to death.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3766 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.


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3757 times:

The bill may have passed last night but was already talked about in the current other KC-767 vs KC-330 thread:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/23623/

I am just sick of these threads going in circles. It's the same arguments over and over again because the threads are disposed of when ever a new poster comes into the forum.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

PPGMD,

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.  Big grin


User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3682 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.



At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3639 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.


User currently offlineAFHokie From United States of America, joined May 2004, 224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3538 times:

And the point of this thread is.......

only the original post deals with this thread, perhaps you two could hash out your differences privately in email?


User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3461 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.


User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7446 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 3028 times:


Given that Boeing are the only US Planemakers, and selection of a Non US Plane is not acceptable, the whole process of competition is a fiasco.

Why don't the Senate just give Boeing the spec and a blank CHQ and let them build something.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2997 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.


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5890 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (9 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2828 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 767 Tanker isn't dead...just the lease agreement. The defense authorization bill still allows for traditional procurement of 767 Tankers. And that part of the deal is currently in the works.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing Gets Usaf 767 Tanker Deal posted Fri May 23 2003 20:35:19 by United777
Eads Confident On Share Of US Air Tanker Deal posted Mon Sep 18 2006 12:12:54 by Columba
767 Tanker Deal: Bailout For Boeing posted Fri Jun 10 2005 07:52:13 by Scotron11
Latest News On RAF Tanker Deal posted Tue Mar 1 2005 01:07:48 by Ant72LBA
Pentagon To Compromise On Tanker Lease Deal posted Fri Nov 7 2003 01:21:53 by AvObserver
Boeing Plans To Double US Air Force Tanker Deal posted Fri Oct 3 2003 14:31:52 by Kl911
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp
Boeing Rolls Out ABL posted Sat Oct 28 2006 18:23:46 by MCIGuy
Boeing Has Lock On $8b In Military Contracts posted Wed Aug 16 2006 23:26:11 by RAPCON
Airbus Fantasy - the US Tanker deal posted Wed Jan 12 2005 20:44:24 by Dayflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format