PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:15 am

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
Fly fast, live slow
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 2:23 am

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.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:09 am

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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 4:26 am

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.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:46 am

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
Fly fast, live slow
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 6:34 am

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.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:43 am

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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
AFHokie
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 3:29 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:52 am

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?
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:57 am

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.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:26 am


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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8746
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:05 am

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3638
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: Boeing Loses Out On Tanker Deal

Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:17 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests