Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To End C-17 Production  
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10891 times:

Boeing is taking the first step to end production of its C-17 military cargo plane in 2009 due to lack of interest from the U.S. government and no new orders from overseas, the company said on Friday.

Despite heavy lobbying from Boeing, the US Defense Department did not request new funding for the plane in its budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and without US Defense Department or international customer commitments, the closure of the line is the only option.

Boeing said it was assessing the potential financial impact of ending C-17 production and may incur costs beyond those that would be recoverable from the government while more than 7,000 jobs are at stake in California, Missouri, Georgia and Arizona.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...S&WTmodLoc=BizArt-L1-CompanyNews-2

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10893 times:

Sorry, I accidentally posted this in the wrong forum: it belongs in Mil Aviation.



User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1893 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10764 times:

Well, if the US government is not interested in keeping the line open, Boeing should have the option to offer a civilian version. And, what will the military be lookking for in their next generation lifter?


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10725 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Slz396 (Thread starter):
Despite heavy lobbying from Boeing, the US Defense Department did not request new funding for the plane in its budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and without US Defense Department or international customer commitments, the closure of the line is the only option.

This is budgetary gamesmanship. USAF doesn't request additional C-17s because they know that the program is popular with Congress. USAF asks for things it needs but which aren't so popular (like F-22s). Boeing threatens to shutdown the line. Congress adds additional frames to the budget request on it's own. USAF gets the C-17s it wants without lifting a finger or expending any political capital.

At least that's how it worked last year....  Smile



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10718 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 3):
Congress adds additional frames to the budget request on it's own. USAF gets the C-17s it wants without lifting a finger or expending any political capital.

Couldn't agree more with you. There is now way that the production line will shut down. There is too much demand for the airframe. At the rate that they are flying, the USAF will need new one here in 10 years anyway. That's a streach I know but it does emphasize the point that the USAF still needs them very much.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10647 times:

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 2):
Well, if the US government is not interested in keeping the line open, Boeing should have the option to offer a civilian version. And, what will the military be lookking for in their next generation lifter?

What would be the difference between a military and a civilian C-17?

Who do you have in mind that would order such aircraft?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10593 times:

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 2):
Well, if the US government is not interested in keeping the line open, Boeing should have the option to offer a civilian version. And, what will the military be lookking for in their next generation lifter?

Boeing already has. It's called the BC-17X. No customers. Typically freighter versions of passenger aircraft are better for civilian freight operations.

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/md17/md17.htm

It was offered by McDonnell Douglas as the MD-17 originally.





 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineKevinSmith From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10586 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
Who do you have in mind that would order such aircraft?

FedEx and UPS are in the market for a new cargo a/c. A joke of course.

Volga Dnepr comes to mind.
I'm sure there is a market for it where I'm not 100% sure.


User currently offlineFridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With the heavy use of the C-17, I just don't see the line shutting down. The Air Force is putting a lot of hours on those airframes, more than anticipated. They're wearing them out! They'll order more eventually.

Can any one of you tell me anything about a "C-17B" variant? I've read about it somewhere, just can't remember where.

And I would love to see the BC-17X out there working!!!

Thanks,

Marc



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10538 times:

C-17 makes a terrible freighter for civilian use. Too much money to buy and use. Its positive attributes are nearly useless since the civilian market usually doesn't have any desire what so ever to risk $$$ equipment into short unimproved runways, something that the C-17 was designed for in its military role.

I'm sure it would have sold a few frames however... IF the Russians never sold the AN-124. Since they did, they provide all the specialty heavy lift you could want.


User currently offlineLegs From Australia, joined Jun 2006, 240 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10521 times:

Does the C-17/BC-17X have any advantage in payload over other freighters in service?

User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10507 times:

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 6):
Boeing already has. It's called the BC-17X. No customers.

There likely won't be any

Quoting Legs (Reply 10):
Does the C-17/BC-17X have any advantage in payload over other freighters in service?

Maybe, but that is cancelled out by the shorter than an airliner range. Unless FedEx and UPS are planning on adding tankers to their fleet.


User currently offlineLimaNiner From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10492 times:

Boeing should market these as the perfect companion to its 748BBJs...

"Bring along your car armored car collection."


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7063 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 10472 times:

Quoting KevinSmith (Reply 7):
Volga Dnepr comes to mind.

An 124s are much cheaper than the cival version of the C 17 would be. Sad to see the last MDD design go !!!



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineBHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 10299 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
C-17 makes a terrible freighter for civilian use. Too much money to buy and use. Its positive attributes are nearly useless since the civilian market usually doesn't have any desire what so ever to risk $$$ equipment into short unimproved runways, something that the C-17 was designed for in its military role.

I agree but oddly enough, it might actually happen:

Heavylift C-17? (by Crownvic Mar 4 2007 in Civil Aviation)



Where are all of my respected members going?
User currently offlineArt From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10233 times:

Wouldn't it be cheaper and better for the US to order just enough to keep the line open at a reduced level for a few more years? What happens if US forces need more in 5/6/7 years? With no C-17, the only suitable lift available would be... er, Russian, wouldn't it? Would be interesting to see Antonovs flying the stars and stripes but I don't think I would put any money on it happening.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10118 times:

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 8):
Can any one of you tell me anything about a "C-17B" variant? I've read about it somewhere, just can't remember where.

The C-17B is a streched version, it carries more fuel and slightly more weight. Like the old C-141A, the C-17A usually "cubes out" well before they reach the max cargo weight, unless it is carrying a M-1 MBT. It could happen if the USAF cancels all of the 48 planned C-5A upgrades to the C-5M configueration. They will continue to upgrade the C-5Bs to C-5Ms.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
What would be the difference between a military and a civilian C-17?

The BC-17 is some $50M less than a military C-17A-ER. It does not have the short/unimproved field capability, military avionics, or air refueling capability, nor does the BC-17 carry a Loadmaster. It does retain the auster field capability so no ground support capability is needed beyond refueling and deicing. The BC-17 can also be ordered with the same B-757 RR RB-211 engines, as well as the PW-2040s or PW-2038s.


User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9992 times:

Quoting Art (Reply 15):
Wouldn't it be cheaper and better for the US to order just enough to keep the line open at a reduced level for a few more years? What happens if US forces need more in 5/6/7 years? With no C-17, the only suitable lift available would be... er, Russian, wouldn't it? Would be interesting to see Antonovs flying the stars and stripes but I don't think I would put any money on it happening.

Just to put this in perspective : an EBIT drop of 3BN dollars a year and a reduction of labour force of about 7,000 puts the premature closure of the C-17 line on an even bigger scale than the current A380 problems Airbus is facing.

It'll be interesting to see whether the USAF will order 15 C-17s this year -just as they did last year- like Boeing would want them to do just to safe their a** again.

It would be like the French and German Governments buying 10 A380s each (for several years in a row) to help out EADS...


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9910 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 17):
It'll be interesting to see whether the USAF will order 15 C-17s this year -just as they did last year- like Boeing would want them to do just to safe their a** again.

It would be like the French and German Governments buying 10 A380s each (for several years in a row) to help out EADS...

No, it wouldn't. The C-17 is a military aircraft that was designed specifically for the US military and the US military is the principle customer. In contrast the A380 is a civilian aircraft. What use would the French and German governments have for 100+ A380s?

The US military can't expect Boeing to keep that line open running at a loss just so that the US gov can order it whenever they feel like. If they want that capability they should operate the line themselves, or pay for the costs of an idle line.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9909 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 17):
It'll be interesting to see whether the USAF will order 15 C-17s this year -just as they did last year- like Boeing would want them to do just to safe their a** again.

No, the USAF did not originally ask for the additional aircraft last year, Congress did. It was a good move. The C-17 is a very important stratigic aircraft for US national defense. But, it is caught up in numerous stratigic programs that also need money. All Boeing is asking for here is for the USAF to tell them additional orders will be made, them Boeing can keep the line open. Otherwise, Boeing does not want to spend money on a production line that isn't being used.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 17):
It would be like the French and German Governments buying 10 A380s each (for several years in a row) to help out EADS...

No, you are wrong again. The difference is the C-17 is an aircraft needed by the USAF. If the USAF cancels the C-5A conversion to C-5M, then we will need more C-17s to replace the lost airlift capability. Neither Germany nor France need the A-380, much less 40-50 of them, each. So, why order an unneeded and unusable aircraft? The C-17 is desprately needed.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 17):
Just to put this in perspective : an EBIT drop of 3BN dollars a year and a reduction of labour force of about 7,000 puts the premature closure of the C-17 line on an even bigger scale than the current A380 problems Airbus is facing.

What????? I would love for you to explain your reasoning for arriving at that conclusion.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9873 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 17):
Just to put this in perspective : an EBIT drop of 3BN dollars a year and a reduction of labour force of about 7,000 puts the premature closure of the C-17 line on an even bigger scale than the current A380 problems Airbus is facing.

What????? I would love for you to explain your reasoning for arriving at that conclusion.

being bad at math or on heavy drugs is about the only way to explain how ending a military program because the militaries around the world are not ordering more, is comparible to a program that has so far failed to even get a single frame into service.


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9835 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
No, the USAF did not originally ask for the additional aircraft last year, Congress did. It was a good move. The C-17 is a very important stratigic aircraft for US national defense. But, it is caught up in numerous stratigic programs that also need money. All Boeing is asking for here is for the USAF to tell them additional orders will be made, them Boeing can keep the line open. Otherwise, Boeing does not want to spend money on a production line that isn't being used.

KC135...I thought the four additional aircraft off the line last year were the aircraft 'options' that had already been planned for from the USAF. And correct me if I'm wrong...they sold two of those airframes to Australia....Check


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 9651 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
The BC-17 is some $50M less than a military C-17A-ER. It does not have the short/unimproved field capability, military avionics, or air refueling capability, nor does the BC-17 carry a Loadmaster. It does retain the auster field capability so no ground support capability is needed beyond refueling and deicing. The BC-17 can also be ordered with the same B-757 RR RB-211 engines, as well as the PW-2040s or PW-2038s.

Cool, thanks for the info.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9571 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
Being bad at math or on heavy drugs is about the only way to explain how ending a military program because the militaries around the world are not ordering more, is comparable to a program that has so far failed to even get a single frame into service.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I would love for you to explain your reasoning for arriving at that conclusion.

Because my friends, whether the planned customer is a commercial airlines or the military, the financial consequences of the premature ending of the C-17 line are identical to the delivery delays on the A380: when no planes are delivered to customers as originally budgeted, no money is received, hence the EBIT of the manufacturer drops significantly... In case of the C-17 Boeing reported their EBIT will drop with $3BN as compared to the original base line expectations Boeing had for this program.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
The difference is the C-17 is an aircraft needed by the USAF. Neither Germany nor France need the A-380, much less 40-50 of them, each. So, why order an unneeded and unusable aircraft? The C-17 is desperately needed.

If it is so desperately needed, then why is Boeing forced to close the line due to lack of orders?

Reality is that at present NOBODY wants the plane and Boeing is pushing their only hope, the US military to order some anyway to stock up their reserve just to keep the line going and the cash flowing in....

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 18):
The C-17 is a military aircraft that was designed specifically for the US military and the US military is the principle customer. In contrast the A380 is a civilian aircraft. What use would the French and German governments have for 100+ A380s?

NONE, hence they aren't ordering any.
Which raises the question why it is considered normal practice for the US government to order unwanted planes, only to dump them with the military who doesn't really need them, but will fly them anyhow for the sake of 'national interest'.
It would be as crazy as France buying a huge A380 fleet to set up a dedicated public transport service linking Paris with their oversees territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean for the sake of 'national interest'...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9559 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 21):
KC135...I thought the four additional aircraft off the line last year were the aircraft 'options' that had already been planned for from the USAF. And correct me if I'm wrong...they sold two of those airframes to Australia....Check

No, all four RAAF C-17s were taken from exsisting USAF production slots, the same for the four CF C-17s. The options exercised by the USAF were to replace the four production RAAF airplanes. USAF is planning to exercise four more options for the Canalian airplanes. Since these are already planned aircraft and paid for, there will be no change. I believe the Australians already have their first C-17 delivered. IIRC, the USAF did the same thing to speed the delivery of the first four (then leased) RAF C-17s.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 23):
Because my friends, whether the planned customer is a commercial airlines or the military, the financial consequences of the premature ending of the C-17 line are identical to the delivery delays on the A380: when no planes are delivered to customers as originally budgeted, no money is received, hence the EBIT of the manufacturer drops significantly... In case of the C-17 Boeing reported their EBIT will drop with $3BN as compared to the original base line expectations Boeing had for this program.

The original C-17 production line was planned to shut down in 2008, anyway. These small extensions are delaying this process until 2010 now, when the CURRENTLY planned last aircraft is delivered. All Boeing is trying to do here is determine when they can shut down the line. The costs of the line shut down are already programmed into it. Most of these costs are covered by the US Government.

The USAF cannot simply place orders to exersize option when ever they want, even if they have the money. Congress must approve it. This is much like the process for military equipment ordering in most countries of the world.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 23):
If it is so desperately needed, then why is Boeing forced to close the line due to lack of orders?

Boeing wants to be able to long term plan their business, just as Airbus wants to. This is a smart business on Boeing's part. They are essentially telling everyone considering an order for C/BC-17s to "shit, or get off the pot".

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 23):
Reality is that at present NOBODY wants the plane and Boeing is pushing their only hope, the US military to order some anyway to stock up their reserve just to keep the line going and the cash flowing in....

Hmmm, Boeing already has the US, Canada, the UK, and Austrailia as customers for the C-17. There is a POTENTIAL order of up to 18 C-17s from NATO, as well as 15 new build BC-17s from HeavyLift Global. HeavyLift Global is also looking at aquiring up to 30 older C-17s from the USAF. If that happens, they will not order the BC-17s, but the USAF will order 30 new build C-17s to replace the 30 sold aircraft.

So, with 4 customers already for the C-17, and potentially 2 more, I would not say that "nobody wants the plane". With the current orders of 190 to the USAF , 6 to the RAF, 4 to the RAAF, and 4 to the CF, that equils 204 aircraft. There is a possibility of up to 48 more C-17s to be ordered. IIRC, that is more orders than for either the C-130J or the A-400M.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 23):
Which raises the question why it is considered normal practice for the US government to order unwanted planes, only to dump them with the military who doesn't really need them, but will fly them anyhow for the sake of 'national interest'.
It would be as crazy as France buying a huge A380 fleet to set up a dedicated public transport service linking Paris with their oversees territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean for the sake of 'national interest'...

What on Earth makes you even think the C-17 is an "unwanted plane"? You need to stop smoking that stuff, my friend. It is rotting your brain.


25 Atmx2000 : Where is EBIT figure of $3 billion coming from? Annual revenue from C-17 deliveries might be $3 billion, but EBIT is nowhere near $3 billion. Anyway
26 KC135TopBoom : Atmx2000, you said it a lot better than I did, my friend.
27 BigJKU : Just to chime in since this is the field I specialized in for a long time. It is very common practice for the military to not request items that it kn
28 Commander_Rabb : I would think that Boeing could expect one more order push from the U.S. Government prior to the production line being closed. There also may be a rep
29 KC135TopBoom : My gut feeling is Boeing will lobby Congress to add USAF C-17s into the FY-2008 budget. Congress will add between 15 and 22 more aircraft, insuring a
30 Baron95 : The issue is not really long term planning - it is really a short term business decision that MUST be made now. Most here are talking as if stoping t
31 Tancrede : Before shouting it, we shall wait if that order will ever happen. In your post, there is a lot of numbers and very few hard facts. I would say, inste
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing To End C-17 Production
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...
Did The Ussr Every Design An Answer To The C-17? posted Sat Dec 30 2006 05:48:24 by 747400sp
Boeing To Begin Ground Testing X48B posted Mon Oct 30 2006 10:11:16 by DEVILFISH
Swedish Air Force To Get 2 C-17 Globemaster posted Wed Oct 4 2006 23:33:12 by Solnabo
Nato Moves To Acquire C-17 posted Wed Sep 13 2006 21:47:10 by Columba
Australia Possibly To Purchase C-17 posted Thu Dec 15 2005 23:04:26 by Glennstewart
C-17 Production Numbers posted Sat Jun 5 2004 07:07:38 by SickBird
E-10A (767-400) To Be Delivered At End Of '07 posted Fri Feb 2 2007 14:27:17 by NYC777
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Boeing Looks To Acquisitions To Boost UK Profile posted Tue Oct 3 2006 00:40:22 by Osiris30
OFFICIAL---RAF To Purchase 5th C-17 posted Fri Aug 4 2006 17:00:19 by RAPCON
Boeing To Shut Down C-17 Line.... posted Fri Aug 18 2006 18:09:49 by AirRyan
Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17 posted Mon Jun 21 2010 15:21:52 by keesje
Boeing To License AW101 For Presidential Helo Bid posted Mon Jun 7 2010 06:29:32 by vcjc
Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎ posted Thu Mar 4 2010 10:33:40 by yazoo
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version posted Mon Jun 15 2009 08:11:11 by Lumberton
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 3 2008 18:04:39 by EBJ1248650
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Airbus Countries Object To Nato C-17 Buy posted Thu Jun 14 2007 21:12:56 by Lumberton

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format