moderators
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:33 am

Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:11 am

Dear Airliners.net community, as Boeing has won the KC-X bid, please use this thread to discuss the outcome of this bid in all its details and its influence on the market and future projects of Boeing and EADS.

Enjoy, the A.net Moderators
Please use moderators@airliners.net to contact us.
 
titanmiller
Posts: 86
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:57 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:14 am

Why not put the GEnx engine on the KC-46? Seems like a reasonable way to cut fuel burn and help future-proof the design. The GEnx-2B67 being used on the 747-8 is sized properly for the job (fan diameter may be an issue, it is 13 inches bigger than the PW4000).

Then again, I don't know that isn't in their proposal already.

[Edited 2011-02-24 16:16:54]

[Edited 2011-02-24 16:17:40]

[Edited 2011-02-24 16:19:46]
 
GDB
Posts: 12701
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:23 am

(From KC-135's disappeared thread)


Quoting cosmofly (Reply 25):
EADS has in the end helped the US tax payers as the USAF gets a much better deal now. We have to give EADS credit.

Absolutely, as others noted, this is a story going back a decade, even one Senator John McCain found that original Boeing contract back in 2002/3 was a piss take of corporate welfare.
Boeing have had to, via the torturous process since, provide a better solution.
Without the very serious competition from EADS, that would not have happened.

Will this USAF win change the fortunes of KC-767's in the international market? Busy with the USAF Boeing might not be too concerned, (they so have to deliver for the USAF now, they'll have to go all out on that), since a serious A330 based competitor entered the market Boeing have not had success there, since the pre A330 platform Japanese and Italian orders.

For smaller AF's, that is most except the USAF, the larger capacity A330 makes more sense in giving the most capability over a small fleet of aircraft, not really a concern for the USAF however.

I agree that EADS should not bother in appealing, altruism to the US taxpayer might not come into it, though surely someone has to break the cycle of all these appeals that seem to do little except keep lawyers and consultants like pigs in shit (on the US tax $ too). Worse, effectively denying the end user the kit they are waiting for (think of the CSAR helicopter saga here - surely a priority item - as a particularly bad example).

Will the experience of EADS here, (regardless of fault which seems evenly spread for everyone involved), deter non US bidders for contracts in future? Regardless of how many production lines/jobs they might provide in the US, aside from the quality of the product?
Or is it just that this contract was that much more politically visible?

A majority of defence contracts for the US will go to US owned companies, that's a given especially when ultra sensitive equipment is concerned, I think most understand this in the business.
'NIH' has gone wrong in the past however, for instance in the early 60's political pressure ensured a US design for a medium machine gun, gave the troops the M-60.
It took 20 years, combat experience, but eventually the FN design ended up with the troops, US produced under licence and generally seem as what should have been procured from the start.
They also picked a FN design for a squad MG, at time I understand, in the early 80's, there was just no viable US alternative, so that was by default almost.

That should be a consideration when non US owned companies are bidding, does my product offer something no one else's can, in a reasonable cost and time-frame?
History seems to support this, the US adopted a British aircraft - the first since WW1 - when Martin got the licence to produce the Canberra as the B-57, when this was very rare, more so for a front line combat type.
The sky did not fall in, simply the USAF had a near term need that local industry seemed not to provide, including, ironically, Martin's own XB-51, not a satisfactory design, or at least one needing a lot of work, the Canberra was in production and service at the time.

It happened again in the late 60's, the USMC, with their unique needs, saw that if they wanted a viable VSTOL aircraft and soon, there was only one place to go. (And the first generation AV-8A's were built in the UK).
Ten years later, the USN needed a new advanced trainer, IIRC the only US offering was an updated T-2 Buckeye, the type to be replaced, so it was between the Hawk and Alpha Jet.

Not that any of these applies to the tankers, as seen, there was not much between them, technically neither was superior to the other, it was really about the particular needs of the customer.

The next biggie in aerospace is the USAF trainer.................duck and cover!

(And congrats to Boeing of course).
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23713
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:44 am

I was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.




Quoting titanmiller (Reply 1):
Why not put the GEnx engine on the KC-46?

Well GE would have to develop a version that would work on the 767 airframe, so that raises the costs. Also, there is a huge supply of spares for the CF6-80 series of engines and that helps keep maintenance costs down for the USAF.
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:47 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.

I hear you. I was absolutely stunned. A very exciting day for us on the program.
 
wolbo
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:09 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:47 am

(From KC-135's disappeared thread)

Any other outcome would have been politically unacceptable so this decision was not a surprise.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2632
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:52 am

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
Absolutely, as others noted, this is a story going back a decade, even one Senator John McCain found that original Boeing contract back in 2002/3 was a piss take of corporate welfare.

But it does make me wonder - if McCain didn't jump all over the original tanker lease deal, where would we be today? Not to excuse any illegal activities involved, and yes, maybe the USAF would have paid more than they should have for them, but they would be flying today, and how many millions would have been saved by the government, Boeing, and EADS, among others, by not having to go through several rounds of the procurement process?
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:53 am

Quoting wolbo (Reply 5):
Any other outcome would have been politically unacceptable so this decision was not a surprise.

It could also be that the 767 met all the requirements at a lower price, couldn't it?
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 4108
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:54 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.



Our exact sentiments. I'm on the Tanker program part-time (along with 787 and other work) and was shocked, but happy, when listening to the Pentagon news conference. All my colleagues whom I contacted afterwards felt the same. Teaches everyone not to listen to the rumors and media speculation.

Now the USAF will get a Tanker built where the best airplanes in the world are built, and designed by the best aerospace engineers in the world - Everett, Washington.
 
Flighty
Posts: 8078
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:58 am

I'm glad this contract got all the scrutiny that it has. It's still a speculative program for an imagined need in my opinion. But, it is here. It would be great if other things (such as health care) got as much skepticism as this bidding process has. The whole ordeal has been educational about the relations between corporations, politics, taxation and public opinion.

The airplanes are the easy part. We know both teams can make a top quality product, and Boeing will. There is a balance between scrutiny and paralysis. These programs need oversight. But, now it is time to get it done without making this another lawyer fest.
 
BD338
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:00 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:08 am

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 4):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I was shocked when I heard the report that Boeing won. Pleased, but shocked.

I hear you. I was absolutely stunned. A very exciting day for us on the program.

I can't say I'm even the remotest bit surprised. State of US economy and politics almost dictated the final result, throw in the re-bids and hey presto the result the politicos wanted from day one. At least the 767 could be around for another 30-50 years.
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:13 am

Quoting BD338 (Reply 10):
State of US economy and politics almost dictated the final result, throw in the re-bids and hey presto the result the politicos wanted from day one.

How did politics make the 767 meet all requirements at a lower price than the A330?
 
N62NA
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:23 am

Is the tanker based on the 767-200, 300 or 400?
How come I can't upload an avatar photo to my profile?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23713
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:53 am

Quoting moose135 (Reply 6):
But it does make me wonder - if McCain didn't jump all over the original tanker lease deal, where would we be today?

We'd be on our way to having 100 KC-767s in service for a lower total cost than what we've spent keeping the oldest KC-135s in operation, not to mention all the costs spent on the multiple RFPs and challenges.

Quoting GDB (Reply 2):
Will the experience of EADS here, (regardless of fault which seems evenly spread for everyone involved), deter non US bidders for contracts in future?

BAE certainly doesn't seem to feel this way, considering how hard they are working to win contracts and become a major US defense company.

[Edited 2011-02-25 11:00:42 by srbmod]
 
Flighty
Posts: 8078
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:05 am

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 11):
How did politics make the 767 meet all requirements at a lower price than the A330?

Politics made the requirements and budget fit the 767.
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:16 am

I thought Boeing was putting up the 777 for this deal. BTW, where will it be assembled?
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:34 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 16):
Politics made the requirements and budget fit the 767.

Noooo, replacing the KC-135 is what made the requirements fit the 767 better. Its not exactly ideal, but still better than the KC30 which is larger than a B52 to provide less offload than a KC10. Last time around the KC30 didn't even meet 2 manditory requirements in a black and white manner, with more in a gray area. I'd not call failing to meet requirements a good way to win contracts when the rules and laws governing this things says that you CAN'T win.

Maybe this is finaly over. I doubt it though.
 
mrskyguy
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:13 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:46 am

Politics, budgets and grand-standing aside.. Boeing, you have my congratulations. This will be a much-needed boost to the American economy and morale.

Well done.
"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
 
dbo861
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 2:20 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:46 am

Any idea how soon we'll see a KC-767 operational in the USAF?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:53 am

Quoting kl911 (Reply 17):
Just politics.... A very sad day it is...

I really can't see that. The Pentagon selected a fully-capable aircraft which is already in service, at lower cost than the only alternative, which is not yet in service, is experiencing serious 'teething troubles' in testing, and does not as yet have any sort of firm delivery date.

"The incident happened while the first of five KC-30As bound for the RAAF – and the first A330 MRTT development aircraft – was conducting a refuelling currency mission with Portuguese air force F-16s. Sources say preliminary reports suggest the boom’s probe snapped off near the F-16’s receptacle, causing the boom to spring up and strike the underside of the KC-30, possibly snapping off one of its two guiding fins and causing it to oscillate wildly until it snapped off at the pivot point.

"The boom departed the aircraft and fell to the ocean below. Fortunately, both the tanker and the F-16 recovered safely to their respective bases with no injuries to the crews of either aircraft.

------------------------------

"RAAF deliveries are currently running more than two years behind schedule due to development delays with the boom, and issues in writing the aircraft’s comprehensive technical publications."


http://australianaviation.com.au/201...oom-or-bust-raaf-kc-30-loses-boom/

Seems to me that if they HAD selected the Airbus offering, with all those strikes against it, that really WOULD have reeked of politics?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
Ken777
Posts: 9135
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:54 am

Quoting moose135 (Reply 6):
But it does make me wonder - if McCain didn't jump all over the original tanker lease deal, where would we be today?

We would be having new tankers flying today.

It was more expensive, especially since it was based on a lease and not a purchase. Cars are more expensive in the long run if you go the lease/purchase route.

But then there would have been fewer layoffs at Boeing after 9/11. As I recall that was the prime reason after 9/11 - to keep employment in the plane building sector up.

Didn't happen so we lost tax revenues from the workers who should have been working, and we started paying out unemployment benefits as well as other benefits. That is a double whammy and, if we really knew that number, we could tell if McCain saved us money, or cost us money.

BTW, lease payments are not included in a private company Balance Sheet. The payments are an expense on the P&L, but there is no asset. It's cash flow only.

Quoting moose135 (Reply 6):
maybe the USAF would have paid more than they should have for them

And now we will have a cost impacted by 10 years of inflation, plus the double whammy noted above. My bet is that we are no better off, nor is the USAF.


Quoting kl911 (Reply 17):
Taxpayers are hit again.. as usual.

Nope. The statement was that there was a clear winner when the 1% difference was considered. EADS was more expensive if Boeing was less than 1% less expensive. My bet is that EADS was confident in being less and was wrong.

[Edited 2011-02-25 11:01:47 by srbmod]
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:05 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
It was more expensive, especially since it was based on a lease and not a purchase. Cars are more expensive in the long run if you go the lease/purchase route.

Thats the funny thing, the lease with buyout would have been cheaper than either of the KC-X bids. Not as good of an aircraft as the KC46, but definitely cheaper.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:10 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):

I was agnostic in this whole thing, but I do find it hillarious to see Airbus Aficiandoes acting as silly as they accused Boeing Boosters of doing when EADS won the last RFP.

Yep. But what they are all failing to realize is; it's quite possibly a good thing for EADS that they lost this bid. Boeing now has to deal with another distraction (this contract) with margins that have been squeezed due to the 3x bidding process. EADS meaning does not have to:

Deal with constant attention and changes and hand holding US military deals require
Deal with the ongoing political mess
Build brand new facilities and hire brand new workers who are 6 hours (on the clock) and 8 hours by plane away
Ramp a whole new management team to execute
Worry about potential penalties for not delivering
Not have to worry about the fact that there is strong doubt the whole award will end up going through (i.e. I doubt when all is said and done given budgets the order will amount to much more than 100 planes).

In fact I would wager EADS is maybe even mildly relieved to have not "won" this deal given the above. They've now effectively tied up more Boeing resources (at a time when Boeing is already arguable overwhelmed) and at the end of the day the loss of profit is probably minimal for them.

There is no winner in this deal other than the people that will get to fly around in aircraft that are less than 50 years old as a result of the deal finally being awarded one way or the other.

[Edited 2011-02-25 11:02:26 by srbmod]
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 8294
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:12 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
I guess we should ask Pratt how they feel about being denied a shot at the A400M propulsion contract so a European option could be selected - and then flounder for years... *shrug*

Well, I don't see the problem. They were denied a shot, they were not offered one only to make it appear as an open and fair competition.

About the fact that McCain saved taxpayers money or not, what about the corruption involved in the first contract, don't you Americans care ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:19 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):
Well, I don't see the problem. They were denied a shot, they were not offered one only to make it appear as an open and fair competition.

Can you *prove* in any way shape or form that the EADS bid was solely for the 'appearance' of open and fair competition? If you can't prove it your argument above holds no merit whatsoever.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):

About the fact that McCain saved taxpayers money or not, what about the corruption involved in the first contract, don't you Americans care ?

Apparently they care about as much as "you Europeans" care about over paying for a military cargo aircraft that has been funded solely because it is 'of our national interest to keep this program going, and it must be saved at all costs'. Before you start throwing attack at "Americans" and what they do and don't care about, you should first turn the magnifying glass on yourself and your country.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1615
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:22 am

Congratulations to Boeing on winning this contract.
However, I do hope EADS protests - just to make it as difficult for Boeing to finalize the contract, as Boeing made it difficult for EADS to prove that EADS in reality has a better plane for the job.

USAF will be flying obsolete tanker aircraft for the next 40 years, unfortunately.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP OF JAROSŁAW KACZYŃSKI AND HIS PUPPET GOVERNMENT. DEMOCRACY SHALL PREVAIL.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:58 am

Quoting dbo861 (Reply 22):
Any idea how soon we'll see a KC-767 operational in the USAF?

I read somewhere that the first of the KC-46 will be operational 2017. Seems like a long time . . . but probably not really given the way scheduling is.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 27):
In fact I would wager EADS is maybe even mildly relieved to have not "won" this deal given the above. They've now effectively tied up more Boeing resources (at a time when Boeing is already arguable overwhelmed) and at the end of the day the loss of profit is probably minimal for them.

I agree, now EADS can concentrate on the A350 and 737Neo. Boeing will need to juggle manpower to do the Tanker and 737 Next at the same time. Although they will probably get relief as the 787, 747-8, and P-8A engineering needs ramps down.

Perhaps, now with the US Air Force Tanker won, perhaps now Boeing will be able to offer India a good price for their Tanker RFP. Economy of scale and all . . .

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):

About the fact that McCain saved taxpayers money or not, what about the corruption involved in the first contract, don't you Americans care ?

LOL, well I think Bernie Maydoff, the housing mortgage crisis, and all the Wall Street bandits made the Boeing shenanigan seems like small time crooks  

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 8294
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:10 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 29):
Apparently they care about as much as "you Europeans" care about over paying for a military cargo aircraft that has been funded solely because it is 'of our national interest to keep this program going, and it must be saved at all costs'. Before you start throwing attack at "Americans" and what they do and don't care about, you should first turn the magnifying glass on yourself and your country.

If there is corruption involved in the A400M mess, I'm not aware. As far as military programs overrunning costs, they all do, I think you should know.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 29):
Can you *prove* in any way shape or form that the EADS bid was solely for the 'appearance' of open and fair competition? If you can't prove it your argument above holds no merit whatsoever.

It doesn't really matter, as long as it looks that way, and it certainly does, seen from this side of the pond.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
sasd209
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:32 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:11 am

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 30):
However, I do hope EADS protests - just to make it as difficult for Boeing to finalize the contract,

And in turn make it more difficult for the pilots who fly tanker missions to *finally* get a new A/C?  
And as far as obsolete - A new-build A/C that has as its mission to transfer gas to another A/C? I fear some have taken too much liberties with their descriptors.

Congrats to the USAF who will finally be getting shiny brand-new build A/C to conduct their missions with!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14878
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:18 am

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 11):
How did politics make the 767 meet all requirements at a lower price than the A330?

I think it's naive to assume that politics did not enter into the requirements writing process.

The major characterstics of both the A330MRT and KC767 were quite well known.

So, the ones writing the requirements could clearly make them align with one or the other airframe, based on political influence.

To be honest, most of us all along said if it's a KC-135 replacement they are after, then the A330 is way too much airplane for the job.

But the last time around, NG lobbyists leaned on McCain to get the "extra credit" provisions added to the criteria, and it all went down in flames.

Everyone suffered, except for those NG lobbyists, who ended up miraculously getting jobs on McCain's staff.

This time around, the requirement were written for the KC-135 replacement and EADS didn't have a chance, and NG bailed out as soon as that was obvious.

As others have hinted, maybe EADS stuck with it just to make sure Boeing had to put in a atrong offer, and so they could try to appeal to add more cost and stress to Boeing.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 17):
Just politics.... A very sad day it is... The A330 is and will stay cheaper and more modern then the 767 which is as old as a design can get. And for us aviation lovers the 767 is just sooooo ugly, and the A330 so pretty.

And the A330 will still remain more airplane than the USAF needs for the KC-135 replacement.

Maybe they'll have better luck on the other KC-* bids that will be upcoming.

I'd love to see EADS building airplanes in the US!
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6765
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:23 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):
About the fact that McCain saved taxpayers money or not, what about the corruption involved in the first contract, don't you Americans care ?

As already mentioned, McCain did more harm to Boeing, the US Aerospace industry and the US tax payors by his decision, since he coudl not control the ball rolling downhill, he started something that he could not control.

1. The tankers will now cost the US more than the 100 lease deal
2. Labour cost have gone up
3. Material cost have gone up
4. The US Air Force lost a lot more in intergrity, the entire country will suffer more than those few individuals who went to jail on the initial deal.
5. Ditto the Pentagon and the DOD, same boat as 4.
6. The cost of the delays are borne by the US
7. The cost of continuing to operate those KC-135's that should have been replaced must be added
8. Boeing is now involved in getting the 787, 748-F, 748-i, new 737?, 777NG?, and 767 tanker
9. The US will quite likely loose massive market share in the commercial division to EADS over the next 10 years due to Boeing not having the resources (staff) and lauch aid since the Southern States will ensure no votes.

So the question remains, do Americans really care about the money watsed or do they just not realise that they have been had?

Hmmmm, which one is it.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:46 am

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 11):
How did politics make the 767 meet all requirements at a lower price than the A330?

Price is a little bit misleading. IIRC according to the RFP, it wasn't the price difference that decides the award, rather it was overall cost accounting for price of the plane, adjusted with IFARA and the fuel (milcon?) costs. I think the 1% difference is from the final cost.

so in the end hypothetically 767 could've been much more expensive, but sips fuel, and just as (or more) effective as the A330 and win the competition.
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23713
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:46 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):
Well, I don't see the problem. They were denied a shot, they were not offered one only to make it appear as an open and fair competition.

The original lease deal, which members flying European flags have been lambasting for going on eight years now, was in fact written so as to deny EADS a shot at bidding. So if it's okay for EADS to deny Pratt a shot to bid on the A400M propulsion project, it's mighty hypocritical to than call the USAF and Boeing to task for the original lease deal denying EADS a shot to bid.

And let us not forget EADS won the last RFP only because it was neither open nor fair (all the "extra credit" applied to their bid), which is why the GAO invalidated it and forced the USAF to draft an RFP that was fair and open.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):
About the fact that McCain saved taxpayers money or not, what about the corruption involved in the first contract, don't you Americans care?

Like the rest of the world, we're indemnic to it. It's a part of government at every level in every country

[Edited 2011-02-24 20:50:42]
 
aerobalance
Posts: 4309
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:35 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:51 am

Quoting par13del (Reply 35):
the entire country will suffer more than those few individuals who went to jail on the initial deal.

Explain that please.

Quoting par13del (Reply 35):
do Americans really care about the money watsed or do they just not realise that they have been had?

Why should you worry what I care about?
"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:51 am

Quoting Flighty (Reply 16):
Politics made the requirements and budget fit the 767.

Is that why they chose to require a boom with an offload rate higher than what the previous 767 could do, but which matched what the A330 could do? The plane Boeing offered in this competition is substantially different than previous competitions, because we had to make substantial changes to the plane to meet the NEW requirements that you claim were written around the 767. Oh well, you're entitled to believe what you wish.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 18):
BTW, where will it be assembled?

In Everett. Then it'll go to Wichita for military equipment installation.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 17):
The A330 is and will stay cheaper and more modern then the 767 which is as old as a design can get.

Since the A330 lost because of it's higher price, how again is it cheaper? Or do you just chose to ignore the fact that the 767 was less expensive?

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 30):
However, I do hope EADS protests - just to make it as difficult for Boeing to finalize the contract, as Boeing made it difficult for EADS to prove that EADS in reality has a better plane for the job.

EADS is welcome to protest. If things weren't done fairly, I would support a do-over, again. In fact, I hope they do, so I don't have to spend the next few years reading posts on here about how the 767 is in service only because Airbus didn't protest the "false win of the 767".

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 30):
USAF will be flying obsolete tanker aircraft for the next 40 years, unfortunately.

9 years is the difference between "modern" and "obsolete" aircraft in your opinion? The A330 is no spring chicken. Okay, whatever...

Quoting kl911 (Reply 17):
And for us aviation lovers the 767 is just sooooo ugly, and the A330 so pretty.

First, please don't speak for all of us "aviation lovers". That's your opinion. And I guess, lucky for us who are employed and make our livelihood dealing with this ugly duckling, being "pretty" wasn't a design requirement.

Seriously, what an infuriating thread. People are making crap up that doesn't even matter, claiming things are cheaper when they aren't, etc. And I thought this was an aviation enthusiast web site. Rather, today, for people who can't stand the loss of their beloved EADS product, they must claim unfairness rather than dealing with the fact that another company has a competetive product.

I am a huge Boeing supporter. If EADS had won, I wouldn't be on here making up lies about the EADS plane and the corrupt process to select it. I'd say congratulations, and move on. Get over yourselves.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:57 am

35B$ is a LOT of money, I can understand that one want that to be spent on ones own industry.

Congratulations to Boeing and all who gets to work with this contract!

Boeing have had some though days lately (787, 748), they need some good news. Lets hope this makes them less wishy washy on the SA side as well .

EADS did not need this win, Boeing did, good for them.

[Edited 2011-02-24 21:00:28]
Non French in France
 
fraspotter
Posts: 1995
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:19 am

Will the new tanker be based on the 762, 763, or 764? CNN Money had a mock up photo showing a KC-46 refueling 2 fighter jets and the length looked to maybe be that of a 762 but I couldn't tell. Knowing the media's knowledge of aviation in the past, just consider it lucky they didn't post a picture of an A380...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/24/news...n_tanker_contract/index.htm?hpt=T2
"Taking off is optional. It’s landing that’s mandatory."
 
astuteman
Posts: 6436
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:26 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 27):
Give me a break. BAE does just fine thank you very much. You've got a better chance of winning a US Military contract as an outsider than a European one.

Give me a break. BAE Inc isn't an outsider   

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
I think it's naive to assume that politics did not enter into the requirements writing process

Agree

Congratulations to Boeing. I suspect that the story still has legs yet, though.

Rgds
 
Renfro747
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:45 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:37 am

Quoting FRAspotter (Reply 42):
Will the new tanker be based on the 762, 763, or 764?

It will be the fuselage of the -200, and if I recall correctly, the wings of the -300ER and the flight deck based on the -400.


Congratulations to Boeing and the USAF!
Both have needed this plane for more than a while....
 
fraspotter
Posts: 1995
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:12 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:53 am

Quoting Renfro747 (Reply 44):
It will be the fuselage of the -200, and if I recall correctly, the wings of the -300ER and the flight deck based on the -400.

Wow! Are they building an airplane or Frankenstein's monster?
"Taking off is optional. It’s landing that’s mandatory."
 
BMI727
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:17 am

Quoting FRAspotter (Reply 42):
Will the new tanker be based on the 762, 763, or 764?

The 763 and 764 are both too long to have clearance for the boom and decent field performance.

Quoting FRAspotter (Reply 45):
Are they building an airplane or Frankenstein's monster?

Same as the P-8, which is the 737-800 fuselage with -900 wings and raked wingtips. Personally, I think Boeing should parlay it into a kickass new BBJ variant.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
propilot83
Posts: 618
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 2:41 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:29 am

I got a Boeing bumper sticker, yea Baby, go Boeing! Forever Boeing!  
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:44 am

Quoting Renfro747 (Reply 44):
It will be the fuselage of the -200, and if I recall correctly, the wings of the -300ER and the flight deck based on the -400.

I seem to recall 200 fuse, 400 wing, 787 display.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23713
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:19 am

Did Boeing pitch the KC-767 Advanced (the "Frankentanker") for this latest RFP, as well, or did they roll back to something a bit more conservative?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:30 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 46):
Same as the P-8, which is the 737-800 fuselage with -900 wings and raked wingtips. Personally, I think Boeing should parlay it into a kickass new BBJ variant.

Though for the Boeing P-8, the base airframe was already developed as the BBJ2. Here, Boeing will have to develop the base airframe basically from scratch.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:36 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 50):
Here, Boeing will have to develop the base airframe basically from scratch.

No, They are all parts of the same family. There will be very little design work to do outside of the new cockpit. While its not quite legos, the -400 wings can stick right on the -200.
 
ebbuk
Posts: 844
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 6:47 am

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:44 am

I love the way the Americans and the Europeans dictate free market ideals on the developing world, yet continue protectionism in their own backyards. Well done
 
oldeuropean
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 5:19 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:50 am

Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.
Wer nichts weiss muss alles glauben
 
JTR
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:45 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:58 am

I just want this whole saga to be over - I'll be happy when the protest window closes.
 
chuchoteur
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:17 pm

RE: Official Boeing KC-X Tanker Post-Bid Thread.

Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:03 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Quoting moose135 (Reply 6):
But it does make me wonder - if McCain didn't jump all over the original tanker lease deal, where would we be today?

We'd be on our way to having 100 KC-767s in service for a lower total cost than what we've spent keeping the oldest KC-135s in operation, not to mention all the costs spent on the multiple RFPs and challenges.
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 39):
EADS is welcome to protest. If things weren't done fairly, I would support a do-over, again.

The first competition should not be used as a point of reference. Sure had it gone right, the USAF would have a tanker flying today, and probably cheaper! But both the USAF and Boeing grossly mismanaged it... so really it was an all-american mess-up.
When we talk about the Job cuts at Boeing during that period etc, let us not forget that it was Boeing's senior management who put the company in that position, they had it coming. Today's management is a lot smarter and business-aware/ethically compliant, thankfully.

[Edited 2011-02-25 11:03:58 by srbmod]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MrHMSH and 1 guest

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos

GZIP: Off