JMV
Topic Author
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 4:22 am

Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:51 am

EADS announced today that former US Air Force Gen. Silas R. Johnson, Jr. will head up EADS Tanker marketing.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050111/115733_1.html
Google begins where my brain ends! ©
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:49 am

Not good news.










filler
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:58 am

Flight international this week has an editorial saying that there will prolly be a 80-20 ( 80 for KC767 and 20 for KC330) split in the taker program...

GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
wingman
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:03 am

Not sure why it should be 99 to 1 even. What do France and Germany buy from the US? We run multibillion dolllar deficits with each so to add to that seems utterly ludicrous. Unless France and Germany intend to purchase major military hardware from the US? I didn't think so. We should politely tell them to piss off and have a nice day.
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:11 am

I truly believe it to be politically impossible as well as militarily undesireable to purchase such a large number of mission critical aircraft from a foreign supplier.

The A-330 is larger than what we need, and costs more.

As I have said before it makes more sense to have three aircraft instead of two. It affords us more flexiility and staying power on station when we need flying gas stations.

If we wanted more KC-10s we have other options, but the airplane we are replacing are 707 sized birds and the KC-767 will do the job right, and employ more voting Americans.

Can anyone here think of a legitimate reason for the USAF to buy Airbus?
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:54 pm

Can anyone here think of a legitimate reason for the USAF to buy Airbus?
We all know that should the government had been running a business it would fail the next day, but this is just ridiculous, i've never heard of a dumber idea, it's makes everything more complicated. Now you need 2 sets of spares, 2 sets of pilots, 2 sets of MX crew. Talk about a waste of Taxpayer's money. if they really want to give it to Airbus, give'em the whole thing... same for Boeing. In any case, should this dumb option be somehow approved, Pres. Bush will no doubt step in to reverse this embarassing decision.
Now you're really flying
 
ehvk
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 11:15 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:55 pm

maybe you should take a look at the cost side of the story. i don't know if it is true what i am saying but it might be an idea. maybe is the KC-330 cheaper to buy and are it's operating cost lower than the operating kost of the KC-767. as i sad i am not sure if this is so but it could be an reason. well find out i guess
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:20 pm

KC-330 cheaper to buy
If Airbus would like to make a profit, then NO, the A330 is much more expensive to purchase.
Now you're really flying
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:31 pm

Can anyone here think of a legitimate reason for the USAF to buy Airbus?

Superior performance, lower costs.

And worse, everybody knows it by now..



"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:37 pm

Well, he seems qualified on tankers & operational requirements..

http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5966


"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:49 pm

I don't trust biographies, there are many officers that seem descent according to their biography, but are complete idiots in real life. The only thing that I could accept, are the opinions of the men who served under him.

And as we have discussed to death in other threads, the USAF is also looking at the size of the aircraft too. But that topic has been so beaten to death, I really don't feel like getting into it.

One thing I find intresting, is that Airbus needs a retired bomber general to "market" their aircraft.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:58 am

I think it would behoove the Bush administration to shut Airbus out of any talks for producing this aircraft....remember, Washington, Boeing's HQ, is a highly democratic area, at least in the Seattle metro area....if he were to go out of his way to protect the KC767, you'd see a little bit more support from those constituants, I do believe.

I for one don't believe the Air Farce is going to buy two entirely different tankers...that's just a waste of time and resources, and is probably aimed to just keep the Eurotrash happy....why not tell them to flip off, go sell some more planes to NW..end of story. Whenever the topic has come up, every tanker or airline guy I've met is firmly against flying European made aircraft for our armed forces....even if over 50% of it is made here, it's still sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S.

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:19 am

I think it would behoove the Bush administration to shut Airbus out of any talks for producing this aircraft....
They did & it became very embarrasing! Roche and others are spending more time with their families now.

it's still sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S
personally I'm for buying the best value for money of my tax euro's. Comments like this make me sometimes feel like "pls keep those JSF's, Apaches etc. for yourself.." though I know it's the wrong approach..

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:26 am

DeltaGuy -- Boeing HQ is in Chicago not Seattle.....


Hiring a recently retired General when you're trying to sell a major weapon system to DoD is SOP. Why does everyone make it sound ominous?
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:12 am

True, but production is still in Washington for many of it's airframes.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:20 am

..and production of many of it's airframes is still in St. Louis, Long Beach, and Philadelphia, amongst others....

What does that have do with the fact that HQ is Chicago?
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 4:09 am

I think the poster was referring to political capitol that the GOP might get if they gave it to Boeing. Particularly in a state that they just narrowly lost.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:55 am

I shouldn't have used HQ to describe that...should have been, major assembly operation lol..HQ seemed easier to type.

But yes, I think it would raise more red out of that state if Bush went out of his way to ensure that Boeing is the winner of this contract. OF course the eurotrash will scream about it, but when was the last time we cared? Big grin

DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:19 pm


Two points, firstly many European Air Forces, including France and Germany operate at least some US aircraft.

Secondly, is the point of the exersize to give the USAF what is needs or just to give a leg up to Boeing.

Finally, the size of the KC135 is irrelevant unless you think that the requirement is the same as 50 years ago.
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Thu Jan 13, 2005 11:52 pm

The USAF thinks the size is relavent, because they are able to fit more aircraft per a tarmac, that and the KC-330 is bigger than all but one aircraft in it's inventory.

You also forget that one of the major partners in EADs goes out of it's way to purchase home built aircraft when there is a viable domestic alternative. Why should the US be any different, it's a crucial system that the USAF can't live without, and we have a domestic built aircraft that will meet the objectives.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
keesje
Posts: 8747
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:10 am

I think the USAF requirements have now been rewritten after it was proved they were basicly adjusted by Boeing to exclude Airbus.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/137451_tankers01.html


Despite assurances that the 767 aerial-refueling tanker was a major improvement over the existing fleet, senior Boeing Co. officials openly worried in November 2001 that the plane could not perform better on one important criterion than the 40-year-old aircraft they were designed to replace.

So Boeing came up with a solution. In an e-mail to John Sams, Boeing's program manager for the 767- tanker project, another Boeing official, Dick Haff, urged the Air Force to alter its official requirements for the aircraft.

"My recommendations are that (the Air Force) delete anything which refers to the 767's requirement to equal or outperform the KC-135R," Haff wrote to Sams in a Nov. 9, 2001, e-mail. "Recommendation is that the (operational requirements document or ORD) request only a comparison of the fuel offload capability to that of the KC-135R."


I think at this moment Boeing is handicapped because they cannot do a fierce anti Airbus sales campaign. Their credibility is heavily damaged.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:08 pm

"for one don't believe the Air Farce is going to buy two entirely different tankers...that's just a waste of time and resources, and is probably aimed to just keep the Eurotrash happy....why not tell them to flip off, go sell some more planes to NW..end of story. Whenever the topic has come up, every tanker or airline guy I've met is firmly against flying European made aircraft for our armed forces....even if over 50% of it is made here, it's still sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S.

DeltaGuy"

Dear DeltaGuy,

I agree with you that buying two different airframes is just a waste of tax payers money, but you could have put that into better words. I don´t like being referred as "Euro Trash" like you certainly don´t like the terms "Hillbilly" or "Redneck". A lot of countries in the world are flying planes and helicopters made in the US. Germany and the U.S. are developing a new missile defense system (MEADS) and Germany is also very likely to buy the "Global Hawk" (Euro Hawk) and maybe the "Predator" in a few years, of course with some German and European upgrades in it. But that is how it works.
America and Europe were strong partners over the past 50 years, it is a disgrace what happened to the German/American Friendship in the last 4 years (I am not only blaming Bush but Schroeder and the American and German Media aswell).
I have relatives and a lot of friends in the States, I really love your country but comments like yours make me sick !!

Regarding the fact that it is "sackreligious to put US Air Force and an American flag on a foreign built P.O.S" as you referred is the dumbest and most ignorant remark I ever read here on a.net.
First of all the A330 is no "p.o.s" but the best selling aircraft in its class, even chosen by the R.A.F. and R.A.A.F over the KC 767, it is much newer than your beloved 767. Like we all now the KC 767 is the only hope of Boeing to keep the assembly line going. A lot of other countries in the world don´t have a problem to put their flag and national markings on a F-16, F-35, Apache, C-130, C-17 and so one, why not the U.S.......you want to sell your stuff but neglect to buy from others. Great Idea !!! That is how you make friends and partners.

Secondly the air force already had -although in a small number foreign aircraft in service -AV-8A (direct buy from the UK), AV-8B (joint MDD/BAe project), T-45 (license built modified BAe Hawk), B-57 (license built Canberra) and T-6 Texan which are based on the Pilatus PC 9.
I don´t think the U.S. should buy the A330, I think they should buy what is best for them and the best solution regardless if it is an Airbus or Boeing. But that is (luckily) whether your decision not mine or others here at the forum claiming to know what is best. All I want is a fair competition between both manufacturers.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:49 am

Columbia,

In almost all those cases the aircraft you sighted are not crucial systems like a tanker is, and with exception of the AV-8A, the local manufacturer provides almost full support for the aircraft, while under the proposed deal, the KC-330 would only be assembled here, without full plan and semantics for all parts released to the local US company.

Also many nations, including one of the main partners in EADs, are very protective of their industry, and will buy a domestic product first unless it doesn't meet the specs in any way shape or form. The US is barely keeping it's shipping companies alive, we can't let another crucial field like aviation flounder either.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:02 am

First of all the A330 is no "p.o.s" but the best selling aircraft in its class, even chosen by the R.A.F. and R.A.A.F over the KC 767, it is much newer than your beloved 767. Like we all now the KC 767 is the only hope of Boeing to keep the assembly line going.

Of course this is a mighty unpopular stand here on a.net, but the bottom line is neither of these offerings will make suitable military aircraft without very expensive modifications to reduce their battle damage vulnerability...And just to counter the specious argument that we've done fine for the last 50 years with the C-135 never taking hostile fire; its the changing operational employment of this group of aircraft and the changing operational doctrine and threats of potential enemies of the next fifty years that need to be considered...Indeed, significant threats against this whole class of heretofore largely unmolested "support" aircraft are already being fielded.
Besides, by the looks of things, there will be no money forthcoming on any C-135 replacements anytime soon anyway.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/01105wna.xml

While new budget plans are silent on the KC-767 replacement for the aging KC-135s, the need for tactical tankers to support the Navy and Marine Corps is expected to produce pressure for the Air Force to start fielding KC-130Js as a third leg of a more diversified tanker fleet, say Air Force officials. "No mention of the tanker program is bad news, and it means there won't be a new replacement program for at least a couple of years," says one senior Air Force official...
Another battle being played out in the new budget plan is Space-Based Radar versus the E-10 long-range radar ground surveillance aircraft. Proposed SBR funding has been increased by $592 million, while the E-10A program would take a $600-million reduction (half each in Fiscal 2006 and 2007)....



the truth: first it is ridiculed second it is violently opposed finally it is accepted as self-evident
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:16 am

I always wonder why those Americans, who hate Europe so badly that they have to turn any discussion into a bashfest, post on an European forum? (Yes, check your maps, sweden is in europe, and even worse, it's ruled by the social democrats...)

Back to the topic:

Germany, for 40 years the frontline of the cold war, has relied ever since the FRG was founded heavily on American heavy metal to protect itself. Even today, the backbone of the Air-to-Air defense is the Phantom, if I'm not mistaken an American aircraft. We trusted you for all the time, and even when we disagreed about the Iraq war and were heavily insulted by your secretary of defense, we helped your military by having German soldiers protecting US bases here, so that the US Army and Air Force can send more men to Iraq. The Landstuhl military hospital has surely saved many lifes of soldiers wounded during combat.

So, why exactly, can't you trust us, and have to insult a whole continent everytime the word Airbus appears?

Best regards from an Eurotrash P.O.S.

racko
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:50 am

"So, why exactly, can't you trust us, and have to insult a whole continent everytime the word Airbus appears? "

Maybe because Airbus dethroned Boeing from being Nr.1. Injured pride ?
But sadly some Europeans feel to bash Americans for some unnessecary reasons, too. Get over it, even Bush and Schroeder try to keep a better relationsship.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:25 pm

Oh please, European politicians have been insulting Americans for a long time, certainly well before Rumsfeld made his old Europe remark.

That's nice that Germany uses old American aircraft to defend itself. Of course Germany is supposed to be buying the Eurofighter, which is partially a product of German industry. You might have a case if any of the major Airbus countries other than the UK were making purchases of large numbers of current or future American military aircraft when comparable aircraft were available from their own industry. The UK's purchases of the JSF are heavily or completely offset since the UK was involved from the beginning.

And let's not forget that the US has at least a trillion of current dollars since WWII on the defense of Europe. The money that Europe saved as a result of American expenditures no doubt allowed for the funding of all sorts of socialist experiments like Airbus. So don't go citing ancient aircraft purchases as justification for the US purchasing European military aircraft.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13361
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:47 pm

I truly believe it to be politically impossible as well as militarily undesireable to purchase such a large number of mission critical aircraft from a foreign supplier.

But it'd be OK for the UK, France, Germany and Spain to buy same military equipment from the US? Riiiiiight!

Not good news.

For whom?

And let's not forget that the US has at least a trillion of current dollars since WWII on the defense of Europe.

Oh yes, the "you'd all be speaking German" argument. Try a new record, this one's getting worn out.

socialist experiments like Airbus

Don't like the way we do it? Tough!




Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13361
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:17 pm

but when was the last time we cared?

About the last time you whined about Airbus loans  Insane

to purchase home built aircraft when there is a viable domestic alternative.

Isn't "home built" and "domestic" the same thing?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1497
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:25 pm

The money that Europe saved as a result of American expenditures no doubt allowed for the funding of all sorts of socialist experiments like Airbus

Right! So Europe received money from mr Marshall, put it on the bank and didn't used it to rebuild Europe. Instead, we took interest on it and took it off the bank about 20 years later to start Airbus...

Right...
Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:02 pm

"The money that Europe saved as a result of American expenditures no doubt allowed for the funding of all sorts of socialist experiments like Airbus. So don't go citing ancient aircraft purchases as justification for the US purchasing European military aircraft."

That is why I mentioned MEADS, Global Hawk (very likely to be ordered as "Euro Hawk") and Predator, (the highest rank German Air Force General is pushing it as a future project, it is maybe less likely then the Euro Hawk but non unlikely at all), as future deals with the USA, because I knew that deals made 20-30 years ago about Bell UH 1D, CH-53, F-104 and F-4E/F, RF-4E would have been a weak arguement. But with MEADS (missle defence) and Euro Hawk we will still rely in the future on American technology.

[Edited 2005-01-15 15:15:21]
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
wingman
Posts: 2795
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:50 am

Let's make a deal. The EU scraps the A400M project and buys 100 C-17s. We shut down the 767 line and buy 100 330s. Will Europe agree to fair and balanced trade with US for the first time in modern history? I don't think so and thus rest my case.

And why buy the 330 for all its supposed advantages over the 767 when the 777 outperforms them both?
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:21 am

Oh yes, the "you'd all be speaking German" argument. Try a new record, this one's getting worn out.

Right! So Europe received money from mr Marshall, put it on the bank and didn't used it to rebuild Europe. Instead, we took interest on it and took it off the bank about 20 years later to start Airbus...

You both don't get it. I'm talking about the expenditures that the US made as part of NATO on behalf of European defense against USSR/Warsaw Pact. The US has spent approximately 1% of GDP annually on average on NATO and European defense since the end of WWII. If the US had provided that aid as a service for a fee, that service prodivided for 50 years would be worth $5 trillion dollars. I'll give you a generous 80% discount for the fact that it contributed to our defense as well.

Remember what the first NATO Sec General Lord Ismay said about NATO. It's purpose is to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down." By doing the second, the first and the last were accomplished, and at a far smaller cost to Europe than would otherwise be possible. Europe would have to spend far more to defend against the Communist block without American defense expenditures. Moreover, given the history of conflict between Germany and other European nations, the rebuilding of Germany and its industrial base and its eventual rearmament would have been cause for grave concern amongst western European without American security guarantees. European nations would either have to spend more on defense against potential threats from Germany as well as the USSR and its Eastern European allies or maintain a large military presence in Germany to provide for its defense or pursue a policy of preventing reindustrialization of Germany to keep it down. The first two of these policies would divert financial and human resources from economic development and social services, and the last policy would create an economic void in the heart of Europe that by the way would make Airbus impossible given German participation.

The US presence ensured that all of those three strategies for dealing with Germany and the Communist block could be avoided. Essentially the US provided a high value babysitting service essentially for free that allowed Europe to go out and earn a living and allowed Germany to grow up to become a nonthreatening productive European country. The money saved by not having to pay more for defense was invested in economic development, including on subsidies for Airbus, as well as on social welfare programs. The former is the reason I find European complaints about American defense expenditures being a subsidy for Boeing particularly galling, because those expenditures allowed Europe to spend far less money directly subsidizing Airbus commerical airplane programs.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
Contact_tower
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:05 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:36 am

And I suppose the US never had any intererst of it's own in keeping the Warsaw pact on their side of the curtain?

It sound like the US did what it did (and most europeans are glad that they did, let's not forget that) just because they wanted their friends to be safe from communism. Right..... the fact that europe was, and still is, but less so now then in the 40s, a very important trade partner is surely a big bit of the equation.

Helping europe from a aggressor was not important enough to warrent military aid as long as the aggresor was someone that was a possible (and current!)trade partner, but as soon as the aggresor was someone that was clearly a poor trade partner, and a oposition to american way of life........then the help came like a flash. (Hint: The later was Ivan)

As to the A400/C17 vs KC330s bit, I'm all for it, but I'm from a country that cannot afford the C-17, and the A400 is barely viable. So.....if the A400 is canceled it's C130 all the way again. It's not like european countries don't buy US transports, C-130Js for Denmark, UK and Italy, KC767 for Italy. C-130J is still in the game for several customers, but many want the A400 for it's increased performance, and low price. C-17 is the preferred choice, but it's too expensive for most. KC767 is still a viable contender in the future bid for a pool of tanker aircraft for several european nations within NATO. The 330 is not a default winner, because it might be too expensive, and off the shelf price is often more important when buying a small number of airframes. (Ex: Norway is looking at max 2 tankers at the moment as part of a pool, perhaps the total number in the pool might reach 15. Offset that too the deal of 100, and unit price becomes more important for the former.)

Ahh, but why bother to discuss this anyway, it dos not matter one bit what a bunch og armchair generals (me included) feel, it's the US is buying Boeing anyway, it's only sad that they make EADS spend money on a bid they will never win..........  Sad
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:47 am

And I suppose the US never had any intererst of it's own in keeping the Warsaw pact on their side of the curtain?

That's why I gave you an 80% discount on military expenditures related to NATO and the defense of Europe.

It sound like the US did what it did (and most europeans are glad that they did, let's not forget that) just because they wanted their friends to be safe from communism. Right..... the fact that europe was, and still is, but less so now then in the 40s, a very important trade partner is surely a big bit of the equation

Um, for much of the forties, Europe wasn't exactly in much of a position to pay for imports. I'd imagine Europe is a more important trade partner today than before. Economies were far more closed off back then, and transportation costs were high anyway.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:12 am

I think it would behoove the Bush administration to shut Airbus out of any talks for producing this aircraft....remember, Washington, Boeing's HQ, is a highly democratic area, at least in the Seattle metro area..

Why... does he need to worry about running for re-election again?  Big grin

I think at this moment Boeing is handicapped because they cannot do a fierce anti Airbus sales campaign.

Supposidly Boeing has (within the last few months) begun heavy internal reogranization to slim down company-wide in an effort to give sales teams (both BCA and IDS) more level footing with Airbus. From what I read, this effort might have been the last nail in the 717... anyone else heard this?

And why buy the 330 for all its supposed advantages over the 767 when the 777 outperforms them both?

Contention being the 777 is a mamoth of an aircraft... wider than almost all USAF aircraft and as heavy as the C-17. The USAF is looking for a KC-135 replacement, and the aircraft that most closely replaced the commercial 707 was the 767. Whether the KC-767 is the best aircraft I don't know, though I would suspect it, I think far too many USA-er's are discounting the A330T on the basis of politics alone.

The USAF doesn't owe Boeing anything, and if we are going to fight for political justice, economic freedom, and social equality world-wide... we owe it to ourselves to persue a wholly unbiased analysis of both aircraft. Let the best suited aircraft win... probably the 767 IMO, but don't move to Canda in protest when the A330 wins...

[Edited 2005-01-16 03:13:29]
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:56 pm

From what I read, this effort might have been the last nail in the 717... anyone else heard this?
I've heard Stonecipher was very frustrated at the AirAsia A320 order and ordered a massive shakedown. There's no doubt their cutting their less-valuable sales team members, and realized they couldn't carry the 717 forever. I'd guess BCA did a forecast of 717 sales, and unless NW would buy the 717s, which is very unlikely, there would be no sucessful future for the 717.

And why buy the 330 for all its supposed advantages over the 767 when the 777 outperforms them both?

If you'd check out the specs of the 3 aircraft, you'll know why the 777 is NOT A KC-135 REPLACEMENT.  Smile
It is, however a suitable KC-10 replacement. In which, Airbus has no nor will have a competing product.
Now you're really flying
 
bennett123
Posts: 7442
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:21 pm


Why does the DOD work out it's requirement, (without input from Boeing).

Then put it out to tender.

The point is that this is supposed to be a Military contract, not simply a way of giving money to Boeing. Or am I missing something here.
 
columba
Posts: 5045
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Ret. US Air Force Gen To Head Eads Tanker Mktg

Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:32 pm

German weekly news magazine "Der Spiegel" announced today German Foreign Minister Fischer is demanding the Boeing C-17 for the German Air Force, as Germany had difficulties to manage transport to the areas hit by the Tsunami.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests