Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
leelaw
Topic Author
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:13 pm

WSJ 02/10/05:

"Boeing Co. could be forced to decide whether to halt production of its 767 aircraft before the Air Force drafts a plan to potentially buy the model for use as aerial refueling planes.

Pentagon officials say they won't be able to prepare their plan for replacing the Air Force's aging tanker fleet until after the Boeing's self-imposed summer deadline for determining whether to close the 767 line in the Seattle area.

...the prospect of ending or suspending 767 production is likely to make it more expensive and complicated for Boeing to compete for the Air Force business against Airbus parent European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co., or EADS, which is pushing hard to crack the U.S. military market."

"...Boeing President and Chief Executive Harry Stonecipher said last week that the order backlog for the twin-engine jetliner has dwindled to the point that the company must decide whether to halt production by May or June. Boeing could take a more conservative approach and "mothball," or suspend, the assembly line until the government decides its tanker plan, say people familiar with the situation."
 
AussieItaliano
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:22 pm

You would almost have to wonder why they wouldn't want to buy 787's instead of 767's. Even if Boeing were to close down the 767 line, why couldn't they modify the 787 to meet the US Air Force's needs? They've modified aircraft for the Australian Defence Forces.
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 5476
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:35 pm

I read somewhere last year that the 787 is not suitable for the role. I don't pretend to remember (or understand!) why but it was Boeing themselves saying so.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20209
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:22 pm

You would almost have to wonder why they wouldn't want to buy 787's instead of 767's.

Boeing have said that the 787 cannot be modified to support tanker operations - it's too optimised as a civilian plane.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:15 pm

Once the B767 line is closed, Boeing might find a way to offer the B787. Where there's a will, there's a way.
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:24 pm

I really doubt the Pentagon will change his mind and buy the A330 instead of the B767... even if it's been proved that the A330 would better suit their need.
 
A350
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 7:45 pm

I really doubt the Pentagon will change his mind and buy the A330 instead of the B767... even if it's been proved that the A330 would better suit their need.

So do I, and I think it's ridiculous on both sides of the atlantic. We need not to do anything twicel. America should buy the the KC330, and Europe could buy, e.g., the 737 Wedgetail and american missles instead of the METEOR.

A350
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 8:58 pm

Zvezda:

Sounds like a line to me. I'm sure they will have all they can handle with the first few years civil production and don't want to risk clogging up the system for a big USAF order.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:17 pm

They'll simply keep the freighter line open. No one is going to order the pax version over the 787, the 787 is cheaper right now due to discounting. Doesn't really hurt them to keep the line open for a year. Even if they were ordered tomorrow the line would be open well into 787 roll out, so there's really no harm in it.
 
pilotaydin
Posts: 2100
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:30 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Thu Feb 10, 2005 11:20 pm

or they can use the A380 as a giant flying fuel tank...imagine that  Smile
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27046
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:11 am

My recollection of the history of this was before 9/11 one estimate said the KC135 would not exceed its anticipated flight hours before 2040. Then 9/11 happened, and everyone was in the mood to support Boeing, and all of a sudden the age of the tankers was an issue. Then the whole idea of leasing the planes instead of paying for them at delivery came up. This allowed the USAF to keep its cherished fighter programs intact as well as get the KC767s, so of course they were for it. But now since McCain et al have rejected the financing angle, the USAF is backing away, to try to minimize impact to the fighter programs, which are being cut anyways in favor of funding Army and Marine initiatives, for the obvious reason. And it will take a wholesale change in thinking of the USAF (i.e. a whole lot of brass will need to be fired) before they favor tankers over fighters, so there will not be a big effort to replace the KC135 any time soon.

Boeing would be wise to just close the 767 line when the commerciall run is over, and clear out the space for room to make 787s. They've already taken a write off for the KC767 development. Chances are not good for a new tanker deal any time soon.
 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:21 am

Revelation:

I think you are getting the KC-135Rs mixed up with the KC-135Es. The E models are in real bad shape and need replacing. There are about 130 of them. The R models are in good shape and will fly until 2040 or longer.

The real problem is that the DoD doesn't have enough money to buy more than 5 or 6 KC-767s a year. This means it will take 19 years to buy 100 KC-767s. If they had approved the lease, they could have had them much sooner. It was the case of paying more money to get something quicker.

Something else to consider is that Italy and Japan are taking delivery of KC-767s right now. It isn't like Boeing is loosing tons of money. Japan just ordered another KC-767. I wonder if they are going to get the KC-767 that Boeing produced ahead of the USAF lease for the USAF order?

My question is: what do they use for an E-10A airframe if the 767-400 is no longer being produced?
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:47 am

Personally it seems dishonest to buy these Tankers over 20 years, essentially this government gets the benefit of the planes now, by giving commitments on behalf of the next 5 governments. Besides credit is usually dearer in the long run.

I think that if these planes are a priority, to replace the KC135E's then buy them now. If that means Taxation then so be it.

As for this timing problem, either Boeing are bluffing or they do not expect to win the contract. That said, how long does it take the DOD to prepare the tender docs.
 
leelaw
Topic Author
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:58 am

The article mentions "mothballing" the assembly line. Is this feasible?
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:14 am

I don't really keep up with the military aspect...


...can someone tell me why Lockheed seems to be sitting on its ass and not jumping in with a competitive bid of some sort? Lack of suitable aicraft?
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:27 am

Lockheed has nothing to offer as far as a heavy tanker.
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1669
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:35 am

Lockheed has nothing to offer as far as a heavy tanker.

Yes, they have, the KC-330. Lockheed-Martin is Airbus' partner in the tanker program. Production of the KC-330's will probably take place in the US, by Lockheed-Martin.

Cheers!
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:37 am

Exactly, Lockheed has nothing to offer.  Big grin

In the unlikely scenario that the KC330 is built here, Lockheed would only receive a small comission for building it, the rest would go to Airbus. EADS is trying to sneak in the back door, Lockheed is just covering.

And why is Airbus looking to build a plant here if Lockheed is building it? All one needs is to look at the Caravelle to see how the EU and US produce airplanes together...

[Edited 2005-02-10 20:38:51]
 
leelaw
Topic Author
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:43 am

"Lockheed would only receive a small comission for building it, the rest would go to Airbus."

Haven't the Harrier and Goshawk been very profitable for MDC/Boeing?
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1669
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:50 am

And why is Airbus looking to build a plant here if Lockheed is building it?

Because there is a law that says foreign companies can only own 49% of American companies? Just a guess...

Cheers!
 
JAM747
Posts: 524
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:17 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 5:00 am

This is an interesting topic with many angles. Airbus might have some leverage in getting in to the USAF tanker deal if they build them here. They will provide jobs, which will make them more welcome to Americans. The difference in the exchange rate between the Euro and the US might make them more competitive in a bid, and depending on which frame they use 330 or possibly 350, might be more a competitive design than the 767. On the other hand Boeing might be in a competitive situation because they already have built 767 tankers and the long running production line might enable them to offer the planes at lower prices. However I think they should look seriously into a possible 787 tanker in case the decision by the USAF comes down to the more efficient or best payload a/c whether Boeing or Airbus.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:30 pm

I think that Boeing have already ruled out a B787 tanker.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:35 pm

They'll simply keep the freighter line open.

There is no separate line. When the 767 quits, the 763F quits.

Doesn't really hurt them to keep the line open for a year.

There's huge harm. Keeping employees and tooling running with no plane is a huge, huge liability.

Even if they were ordered tomorrow the line would be open well into 787 roll out, so there's really no harm in it.

What?


...can someone tell me why Lockheed seems to be sitting on its ass and not jumping in with a competitive bid of some sort?


They are, the KC-330.

And why is Airbus looking to build a plant here if Lockheed is building it?

Lockheed has to build it. Its required by law that Lockheed be the prime contractor.

It will probably be built in Europe and outfitted here.

N
 
wingman
Posts: 4197
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:54 pm

"Built in France and outfitted here" vs. "built here". Hmmm, tough proposition. Let's add to that the following salient facts:

1. We run massive trade deficits with the EU and France and Germany in particular

2. Neither France nor Germany has purchased a fundamental and pivotal military program from the US in over 30 years. F4s for Germany and C-130s for France are borderline "critical" at best.

3. What has either country done for the US lately in any area whether it be political, economic or other. Let me spell it out for you...N-O-T-H-I-N-G. France and Germany detest the US. Their citizens hate our citizens and their governments hate our government. Why the eff would anyone thus support the concept of bying a massive military program from these two coutries, one that will have a direct and supremely strategic impact on our ability to both defend ourselves and project power over the next 50 years? Seems retarded at best.

4. All ponts above would be moot if and when France and/or Germany ever seriously considered buying a US-made weapons programs valued at $100B+. Is there any Frenchman or German that can claim this to be possible in the foreseeable future? Of course not. Case rested. You don't want to buy our shit? Then we don't want to buy yours.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:07 pm


Given that when Germany bought the F4, that their only other fighters were licence built F104G, also France has KC135 and E3.

Strange that France is prepared to rely on US built tankers.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9314
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:13 pm

...can someone tell me why Lockheed seems to be sitting on its ass and not jumping in with a competitive bid of some sort? Lack of suitable aicraft?

At one time, Lockheed had a clean-sheet design for a general purpose freighter/tanker... but I believe it was cost prohibitive and didn't make the KC-767 and A330T short list.

I would imagine they would be more than happy to see A330T work come their way, especially with the bright* future of the F-22 line...



----
*- yes, this is sarcasm
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:12 pm

Strange that France is prepared to rely on US built tankers.

France has a tiny old fleet of of 14 KC-135s. It doesn't make much sense to design your own, when you are not going to buy many. Anyway aren't they going to buy A330s?

France has purchased relatively few US aircraft over the last few decades, mostly niche aircraft ordered in small numbers, and often highly specialized aircraft which would have high development costs spread over a very small base.

bright* future of the F-22 line

Yeah, but they have the F-35. I kind of wish they would start over on the F-22 and develop a joint F-14/F-15 replacement, paying attention to cost this time around.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:06 pm


Sure it is only 14 tankers, but they do not have as many aircraft to re-fuel as the USAF.

This reference to buying KC330 is news to me.
 
Snoopy
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 9:14 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:17 pm

Wingman

You're the epitome of diplomacy! What you wrote might even have been interesting, if it hadn't have been such garbage! The Germans and the French do not hate the US. They just have different opinions and don't like being told what they HAVE to think.

If I were you I would go and have a cold shower...I think you need it.
 
wingman
Posts: 4197
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:24 am

brother, you haven't been to Europe lately. Whether it's overt or covert, European hatred of the US and Americans is barely contained. Simply put, if Airbus wants to sell us 330 tankers we should demand the immediate cancellation of the A400 program in return and the substitution of C17s and C130Js. You want to sell us $100B worth of military hardware? Then France and Germany have to buy the exact same dollar value in return. This type of trade is directly controlled by the government so to willingly add to the already grotesque trade imbalance with the EU would be an act completelely devoid of all human intelligence.
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decisio

Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:48 am

3. What has either country done for the US lately in any area whether it be political, economic or other.

Germany has been supporting the (real) War on Terror very intensively. Our troops are in Afghanistan and Africa for example, and with our reduced military that's a quite tough task I can tell.
We just didn't take part in the Iraq adventure, so what? It was clearly shown that the reason for the war was bull.


Let me spell it out for you...N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

You make me laugh...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


France and Germany detest the US.

What a dumb, stupid generalization.  Insane


Their citizens hate our citizens and their governments hate our government.

Are you feeling sick or what? Do you want to insult me and millions of my countrymen?
Be careful with the world "hate" - "hate" is what some terrorists feel for the U.S., but definitely no intelligent person in France or Germany.


Is there any Frenchman or German that can claim this to be possible in the foreseeable future? Of course not. Case rested. You don't want to buy our shit? Then we don't want to buy yours.

We simply have no money to spend so much money on new military projects. One reason is that we don't go to offensive wars very often any more...  Wink/being sarcastic


brother, you haven't been to Europe lately. Whether it's overt or covert, European hatred of the US and Americans is barely contained.

Where exactly did you go? To some extremists groups? Please stop spreading such a shit here.


You want to sell us $100B worth of military hardware? Then France and Germany have to buy the exact same dollar value in return. This type of trade is directly controlled by the government so to willingly add to the already grotesque trade imbalance with the EU would be an act completelely devoid of all human intelligence.

That almost sounds socialistic...  Laugh out loud



Regards
Udo
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:00 am

I guess you're missing out on the real point...

The government is going to buy the program that works/exists. Everything else is secondary.

If Boeing is no longer building the 767, there's no much choice is there?

N
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:07 am

Neil:

There are alternatives; some perhaps more cost-effective than buying new.
This of course entails re-furbishing the KC-135 fleet. Another could be conversions of 2nd hand frames.

Given the degree to which justification of leasing has proven to be erroneous
or, at the least, of dubious value, one has to consider both options.

regards,

F4N
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:14 am

Don't disagree there at all. If Boeing is willing to sponsor the conversion of aftermarket 767s, I think that represents a big value to the American taxpayer.

N
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:30 am

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the idea of a 787 tanker. Necessity is the mother of invention and Boeing may just be trying to pressure the pentagon by saying it won't work. I like that retrofit idea too.

Given Washingtons view that France and to lessor degree Germany are considered obstructionists, there is no way in hell the military (and Congress) will give business to Airbus. Thats just the political reality. Italian helicopters are another matter.

Exactly why does Beoing say there can be no 787 tanker? "too optimized for civilian use"? That does not compute.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:09 am

Mham001:

I do not think that Boeing had any intention of configuring the 787 to any military application. Indeed, I think that they were relying on the military 767 to keep them in revenue until their newer programs actually came to reality
and started to contribute to the revenue stream. Funny how things happen...

Neil:

Although conversions of 2nd hand frames is an option, it is open to question whether there are sufficient 762 frames out there to meet the requirement
(I could be wrong) unless the program was scaled back to whatever degree.
I think the refurbishing option is more probable. As an aside, I have some acquaintences who are in the AFRes and they are attached to the tanker wing at Niagara Falls. They thought the 135 corrosion problem interesting.

regards,

F4N
 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:15 am

I read somewhere last year that the 787 is not suitable for the role. I don't pretend to remember (or understand!) why but it was Boeing themselves saying so.

(AW&ST Feb23 2004):
"Boeing doesn't have any other aircraft to use for that purpose once
the 767 line shuts down. To achieve the efficiency goals the company
is touting for the 7E7, engineers are making structural trade-offs
that mean the airliner can't be converted into a tanker, according to
several Boeing officials

 
sidishus
Posts: 488
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:45 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:20 am

I don't really keep up with the military aspect...
...can someone tell me why Lockheed seems to be sitting on its ass and not jumping in with a competitive bid of some sort? Lack of suitable aicraft?



http://www.forbes.com/reuters/newswire/2004/05/21/rtr1380632.html

Lockheed Martin Corp. quietly proposed an all-new aerial refueling tanker in 2002 before the U.S. Air Force instead pursued a now-stalled $23.5 billion deal with Boeing Co. based on the 767 airliner, Lockheed acknowledged on Friday.
Lockheed's proposal, outlined in a presentation dated Feb. 7, 2002, was to develop a tanker from scratch with two automated "booms" that would gas up warplanes quicker.
"Dedicated tanker provides B-767 tanker capability for 20 percent - 40 percent less cost," the presentation said.
Development costs would total about $4.2 billion and might take four years with a unit acquisition cost of $73 million for a fleet of 550 aircraft, Lockheed said at the time.
Christopher Bolkcom, a military aviation analyst at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, said Air Force leaders had tried to paint the tanker debate "as a dogfight between Boeing and Airbus," though other options existed. The upfront costs to develop a new tanker could be money well spent for greater capabilities, he said.

 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:29 am

About the 787 Tanker issue that keeps popping up.

The reason that the 787 is not ideal for the "Tanker" role is because military aircraft do not stay in their standard configuration for very long. Changes to fuselage on a composite aircraft are not an easy task, unlike their metal cousins.

Aircraft like AWACS, Rivet Joint, J-STAR, TACAMO, ect......


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Benjamin Freer



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Oswald (via Martin Stephen)



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jet City Aviation Photography



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andreas Heilmann



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Baldock



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Normando Carvalho Jr.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Baldock



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Starnes



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Willem Vos



These things can not be easily or cheaply done on the 787 airframe.


 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:40 am

Wingman

I am glad that you have told me how much we Europeans hate you.

I do not know how I failed to realise.

Out of interest, how many Europeans do you know.
 
leelaw
Topic Author
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decisio

Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:12 am

What was the historical experience with the C-5B. There was at least an eight to ten year hiatus between the end of production of the C-5A and the resumption of production of the C-5B. Was the C-5 tooling preserved and "mothballed," or did Lockheed start from scratch when production resumed?" There doesn't seem to be an immediate need for the 767 floor space at Everett for alternative programs, as Boeing was planning to assemble the KC-767 there simultaneously with the other commercial lines to begin with. Hasn't the bulk of the design and engineering work already been done. Why can't the tooling be preserved in the short term until a final decision is made?
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:17 am

Don't disagree there at all. If Boeing is willing to sponsor the conversion of aftermarket 767s, I think that represents a big value to the American taxpayer.

I hear Delta, American and United have a few 767s.

As for Wingman, I must apologize to our European friends for his overgeneralizations. While some animosity may exist between our governments, I certainly found the people of Germany very hospitable in my two trips over the pond last summer Big grin
 
Thucydides
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:18 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:26 am

Lifelinerone:
"And why is Airbus looking to build a plant here if Lockheed is building it?

Because there is a law that says foreign companies can only own 49% of American companies? Just a guess..."

While certain highly regulated industries such as telecom, airlines, or broadcast networks may have foreign ownership restrictions, as far as I know, Airbus is free to set up wholly owned subsidiaries to manufacture in the U.S. if they so chose. And as has been noted in other threads, they could then avail themselves of the same tax incentive programs that localities offer to Boeing and practically every other large employer.

Gigneil:

"Lockheed has to build it. Its required by law that Lockheed be the prime contractor."

Not sure what law you are referring to, but there are numerous foreign owned subsidiaries serving as prime contractors in the U.S. Like anywhere, foreign based companies will often team with a domestically owned company to take advantage of that company's political presence to win a contract. While politically a straight out Airbus win would be highly unlikely, legally it would be possible.


 
aeroweanie
Posts: 1576
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:33 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:13 pm

Leelaw:

Lockheed was paid by the DoD to mothball the C-5A tooling. I saw it in storage in 1980 - it was stored next to the C-130 line and C-141A to -141B mod line. As it was a government owned plant, Lockheed didn't care. No one has offered to pay Boeing to mothball the 767 tooling. They would just as soon cut it up for scrap and clear the floor space in the Boeing owned plant in Everett.

Lead time on ordering parts for reopening the 767 line will be 1-2 years. I think the DoD is about to make a huge blunder.

I don't think second had airframes are the answer. As the RAF found out when they bought second hand L-1011s, you have to deal with all kinds of airline specific issues. Plus, the USAF will be starting out with 20+ year old airframes.

And, I still say: what other airframe can they use for the E-10A? If there are no 767-400s available, they will have to buy A330s or wait for the 787 for this requirement, which is hotter than the KC-767. If someone wants to do something, call McCain's office and ask them this question...
 
bennett123
Posts: 10886
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:15 pm


I think that allowing the B767 tooling to be scrapped would be a big mistake for Boeing and the DOD.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:13 pm

It's possible to mothball production lines, but it's a lot harder to mothball a workforce....

add in keeping a trained group on payroll until the project starts moving and the KC-767 project will become even more expensive.

If the US DOD was smart, they would work with the wider Government and get their project moving faster to connect with the realities at Everett. Unfortunately head-up-the-arse politics will prevail and the Pentagon will grind on slowly, instead of working with Boeing to bring in the deal which suits both sides for the right aircraft for the job.

Of course industry and state working together is something us filthy Europeans do and it's evil, isn't it.....?  Insane
 
leelaw
Topic Author
Posts: 4517
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 4:13 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:36 pm

IMO, either Boeing or the DOD, or both (perhaps even a Congressional source), must be seriously considering the production suspension/mothballing option, as it was clearly being "floated" in last week's WSJ article.

Additionally, I don't believe Airbus seriously competes with the A330 unless final assembly takes place in the US. What prevents the Belugas from hauling the components to one of the existing DOD or "partner" owned, plants in the US for final assembly and outfitting, instead of Toulouse? The Japanese have been successfully employing this type of strategy with automobiles assembled/sold in the US market for decades.
 
bill142
Posts: 7867
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 1:50 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:35 pm

I don't believe Airbus seriously competes with the A330 unless final assembly takes place in the US.

Airbus may not offer the best price, but they certainly are in the best position to pick up the peices should Boeing decied to end the 767 production. As a net result the US government is only hurting its own people and industries as a result of not getting their priorities straight and inline with whats happening over at Boeing.
 
trex8
Posts: 5721
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:16 pm

Airbus needs Lockheed for 2 reasons,one is clearly political and the 2nd is practical.Military plants must be certified for security reasons and here Lockheed will be one up on any de novo Airbus plant.Same reason Boeing was going to send newly built 767s from WA to KS for conversions, the plant in KS is certified,the plants in WA are not and Boeing didn't want the additional costs involved in getting the WA plants and workforce certified.
 
jtdieffen
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 2:46 pm

RE: Pentagon Delay Challenges Boeing's 767 Decision

Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:45 am

The A330 option is not permitted by the US government/military. All official aircraft must be American built by an American owned company. This has been mentioned numerous times in the documents released by the Pentagon, and has been standard practice since WWII. Since Airbus is a European owned entity, they are unable to bid in this situation, despite their attempts to levy an order. This is likely more an attempt by European governments and firms to openly demonstrate the insular nature of the American Military. You may also have learned this from the recent order for Marine One replacements. The was hullaballoo surrounding the manufacturing of one part of the chopper in Great Britain. The idea behind this is to keep the jobs in the American market - a practice that happens all around the world, all-the-time.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bahmed22 and 17 guests

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