Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:10 pm

Quoting Alien (Reply 199):
Our resident Airbus salesman has been pushing the 6% number, no one else.

And the Boeing salesmen push a different number. So what?
Knowing what 6% is based upon, I'll trust that.

Quoting Alien (Reply 199):
Second, they picked GE, why should I then have to pay more for a future upgrade to make the tanker as fuel efficient as it's competitor would have been day one

Misses the point, really.
The point of the comment was that, in the A330's case, YOU won't have to.
Commercial customers will pick up the tab for engine improvements. GE are working hard to improve the CF6-80E1. They have to, or else RR will run away with the still-considerable (growing, in fact) commercial A330 market.
(If they haven't already..   )

Quoting Alien (Reply 199):
Third, don;t you think engine upgrades could be applied to the KC-767 as well to further increase it's fuel efficiency?

They could. But why should YOU pay for them?   
There's certainly no commercial market left now that is going to drive any development work to the 767's prime movers.......   

Rgds

[Edited 2008-04-15 07:20:09]
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:31 pm

I would sooner see PW strengthened. PW needs help

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 200):
Knowing what 6% is based upon, I'll trust that.

Airbus did a fine job with the A330 but apply some common sense here. An aircraft whose airframe is about 40 percent heavier and is using similar engines is going to burn much more than just 6 percent more fuel. The 6 percent figure is clearly disinformation much like the airbus salesman's claim that the 767 could not take off at MTOW from an 8000 foot runway.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 200):
The point of the comment was that, in the A330's case, YOU won't have to.
Commercial customers will pick up the tab for engine improvements.

I am not sure about the development work since there are laws that keep the commercial and military side of the business separate. I am sure however about who would have to pay the acquisition and implementation costs of those improvements to Air Force owned assets. That would be the taxpayer. GE is not going/will not be able (legally) to give those upgrades away.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:52 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 201):
Airbus did a fine job with the A330 but apply some common sense here. An aircraft whose airframe is about 40 percent heavier and is using similar engines is going to burn much more than just 6 percent more fuel.

That's the same sort of nonsensical argument we heard on here regarding the A380 vs the 748i - focussing excluively on weight whilst completely ignoring other aspects of the airframe that are quite capable of counteracting a large proportion of the weight impacts. .

As I said. Knowing what the 6% is based on, I'll trust it.

Regards
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Wed Apr 16, 2008 1:32 pm



Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 175):
Quoting Alien (Reply 173):
The KC-30 is subsidized by foreigners and the 767 is not subsidized by foreigners and it has a larger domestic content. Really that simple. It's not rocket science.

Why not just state your position as 'if its not made here, I don't want it' rather than all this subsidy BS. If the A330 was not subsidised you would still not want it as it is foreign.

I did not read all 200 odd posts, but of course the subsidy non-issue was bound to come up. Just about 7 or 8 years too late lads as that appears to be when RLI on the A330 was paid off. In the haste to call RLI a subsidy which it is not, you are missing the Royalty. Unless there is some get out clause for tankers - seems unlikely - a Royalty per copy will go to the three Governments. The tea party tax to be collected at last, I like it.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Wed Apr 16, 2008 2:07 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 199):
I don't know where you are getting your numbers from the delta between a A330-200 and a B767-200ER, the two airframes most closely related to the respective tanker versions is much more than 6 percent. Our resident Airbus salesman has been pushing the 6% number, no one else.

Boeing is not offering the 767-200ER as a tanker, it is based upon the 767-200LRF, just about the only similarity between the KC-767AT and the 767-200ER is the fuselage length.

The KC-767AT is between 5% and 22% heavier than the 767-200ER, it shares the same weight as the heaviest 767-300ER or 767-300F variants.

Quoting Alien (Reply 199):

In reality there is only two viable engine makers for the USAF on the A330, GE and PW. Rolls cannot be in the mix because domestic content would be well below 50% then. That would disqualify the tanker.

I don't recall a minimum US content percentage under the RFP, how would it disqualify ?

Quoting Alien (Reply 199):
Third, don;t you think engine upgrades could be applied to the KC-767 as well to further increase it's fuel efficiency?

It could, however engine manufacturers are only going to make investments where they get return, about 400 engines (179 fleet plus spares) is not enough. The KC-30/A330/A332F is an engine market that is over 1000 engines.

Quoting Alien (Reply 201):
An aircraft whose airframe is about 40 percent heavier and is using similar engines is going to burn much more than just 6 percent more fuel.

That is nonsense. The A380 is 50% heavier than the 747 classic, but burns LESS fuel. The A330 is 10 more years advanced in aerodynamic and system design, technology drives down fuel bum more than anything else.

I have given the TSFC values for various 767 engines in https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/202752/, you will notice that on the same airframe you have close to 4% variation in fuel burn just depending on the engine used.

Quoting Alien (Reply 201):
The 6 percent figure is clearly disinformation much like the airbus salesman's claim that the 767 could not take off at MTOW from an 8000 foot runway.

It is actually Boeing who claims the "ability to take off at near maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway", i.e. needs more than 8000 ft to takeoff at MTOW.

from http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
trex8
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:41 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 204):
I don't recall a minimum US content percentage under the RFP, how would it disqualify ?

the USAF personnel who testified at the House hearings specifically pointed out legislation the DoD interprets as saying they are legally forbidden to even consider the national origin of the companies as all the major players in the NG bid are from nations which are on some list which is supposed to put them on par with "US" companies. Some of the congressmen weren't too sure if that was a proper interpretation of the Buy America Act and they felt it may have been an executive branch decision as to who is on that list and not a legislative one.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:25 am



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 205):
Some of the congressmen weren't too sure if that was a proper interpretation of the Buy America Act and they felt it may have been an executive branch decision as to who is on that list and not a legislative one.

Since the CSAR folks had to issue amendment 6 last week with language that incorporates changes in law on the use of foreign specialty metals how night this effect the KC-X issue?
 
trex8
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:04 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 206):
Since the CSAR folks had to issue amendment 6 last week with language that incorporates changes in law on the use of foreign specialty metals how night this effect the KC-X issue?

I think thats a separate issue. Foreign metals used in production from whatever national origin the supplier company is from is one thing. The OEM being "American" as opposed to being "foreign" company but in the eyes of the DoD procurement needing to be viewed without distinction was the issue at the hearing. The list they rattled off was weird. I could understand the major NATO allies being on the list and even Israel, Japan, Australia etc. but Egypt??? I guess thats because their defense industry is for all practical purposes already bankrolled by the US taxpayer!  Smile
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:38 am

A nice hit on the USAF level of integrity on procurement today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...8041702248.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Personally I believe that the GAO should take their time and that the USAF should hold off signing the order until the new Administration is sworn in next January.

If it's "President McCain" then Boeing won't have a chance, regardless of the situation. If it's someone else then they should have the opportunity to have their input on capital Defense spending. It may be that a large tanker order will displace something more important.

This deal seems to have some dust that needs settling before we go forward.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:34 pm

Boeing is really going bananas over loosing out against NG so it seems!

A Boeing sponsored add in the Washington Post:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/BOEG_IDS_TNK_1355N_B.pdf

Makes good reading btw... as satire!

It all doesn't add up so they say! Well, some of the arguments they use don't add up for sure! They actually contradict themselves. But hey, when you're as furious as Boeing is about this, you risk loosing your temper... and it shows.

Depending the many own weakness of the KC767, Boeing has no option but to compare it as they please with 40 year old KC-135s, the generic KPP, mission profiles from the Vietnam war or invent so called important new strengths like size of the plane (as in 'the smaller the plane, the less likely it is to be he shot at ROTFL'). When they do risk comparing directly to the KC-30, they claim its bigger size is a disadvantage, yet that is their own interpretation, nowhere is it shown to be the case indeed.

In short: the add basically says: the KC-767 is a damn good tanker and we think the KC-30 is too big, but actually we can't bring a compelling case forward to show you it is indeed. The USAF did a detailed study and found out quite the opposite. Maybe Boeing should have put some more effort in the tender before it was awarded to NG, rather than in kicking around wildly now that they have lost it!?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:59 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 207):
I think thats a separate issue. Foreign metals used in production from whatever national origin the supplier company is from is one thing

I understand this is a separate issue from nation of the OEM, but if DoD must now apply this measure to CSAR-X, than can applying this measure to KC-X be far behind?
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:04 pm



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 209):
Makes good reading btw... as satire!

At least the Boeing ad spoke to issues (from their perspective)...unlike the meaningless "Letter to Sec Gates" that found it's way into papers as paid advertisements, but lacked the courage to make clear these retired USAF members who signed the letter were ALL NG/EADS employees and failed to mention that NG was paying for the ad.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:23 pm



Quoting Slz396 (Reply 209):
Boeing is really going bananas over loosing out against NG so it seems!

A Boeing sponsored add in the Washington Post:

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/BOEG_IDS_TNK_1355N_B.pdf

Makes good reading btw... as satire!

Yes it does. And if they were really that sure of themselves, why didn't they win the competition against the NG-EADS-GE bid? Why keep on repeating that something is not adding up?

We here on A-net do not have to discuss over and over again the pros and cons of the two Aircraft type. That has been done over and over and over again. And except for some blindfolded B-fans a vast majority here and elsewhere in the aviation world acknowledges the superiority of the KC-45 tanker which is based on the much newer A330-MRTT compared to the unproven experimental composition we know as the B76 Frankentanker.

But then again, since this is an election year in the US, anything can still happen to this deal. To me it is almost pathetic to see such behavior of the upper management of a company which makes such good and beautiful airplanes. Clearly they are pursuing a policy to swing public opinion or to at least "smear" the USAF (as a customer, how wise is that!!!) and of course the competitor NG-EADS-GE.

To me, such behavior stinks! They do not have the balls to say "OK, we lost out to a respected competitor who based their bid on a much newer and better airplane which put the 767 out of business and which is the main reason that we are developing the B787 right now, but we are happy that the troops will get the better more capable product".

Now I do admit it to be unlikely to hear such a statement from Boeing management but the airlines around the world have spoken, the A330 is way and way better than the B767. It is also so much newer that this comes as no surprise to anyone.

I also know Boeing have to do this campaign mainly for their shareholders (not for the employees because Boeing has more work than they can handle at the moment) because they arrogantly already forecasted the tanker revenues in their long-term business outlook even before a decision was made by the USAF.

IMHO the behavior of the Boeing management on this subject does not do any credit to the workforce of Boeing who are building some of the finest airliners on the planet. Nor does it give any credits to the US troops who will get a better tanker if the NG-EADS-GE bid stands, contrary to what the add campaign by Boeing suggests! Finally it does not give any credit to the US citizens of whom many might believe that always when the government is involved in something big, it must be wrong, incorrect or corrupt, etc, etc. Shame on Boeing for this behavior! But I still do hope they get the B787 in the air and out the door as soon as possible!

Kind Regards!
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:23 pm

Tick ... tick ... tick ... The KC-135's are getting older, not newer. Who is going to tak

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 212):
IMHO the behavior of the Boeing management on this subject does not do any credit to the workforce of Boeing who are building some of the finest airliners on the planet. Nor does it give any credits to the US troops who will get a better tanker if the NG-EADS-GE bid stands, contrary to what the add campaign by Boeing suggests! Finally it does not give any credit to the US citizens of whom many might believe that always when the government is involved in something big, it must be wrong, incorrect or corrupt, etc, etc. Shame on Boeing for this behavior! But I still do hope they get the B787 in the air and out the door as soon as possible!

 checkmark 
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 8:54 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 208):
Personally I believe that the GAO should take their time

They can't do that. The GAO has to announce its ruling within 100 days of the protest being lodged.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Virgin747LGW
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:02 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:02 pm

From http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/BOEG_IDS_TNK_1355N_B.pdf

"Aircraft size is also a factor; the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the target, the more vulnerable it is."

Well if Boeing is that concerned why were they prepared to offer the 777?
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:16 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 212):
That has been done over and over and over again. And except for some blindfolded B-fans a vast majority here and elsewhere in the aviation world acknowledges the superiority of the KC-45 tanker which is based on the much newer A330-MRTT compared to the unproven experimental composition we know as the B76 Frankentanker.

What a load of manure. We don't really don't know which one is superior since neither has flown and none of us (anyone who is talking anyway) have access to the actual results of the "evaluation". Frankly, if they really want to do this right they would have a fly off using actual prototypes of the two tankers. This was common practice in the past and I really don;t see why it should not happen here as well they truly want to find out which tanker is better for the USAF.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 212):
But then again, since this is an election year in the US, anything can still happen to this deal.

Sorry, but you have a problem with our lawmakers listening to their constituents? Too bad it really is none of your business if you do not pay taxes or vote here.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 212):
IMHO the behavior of the Boeing management on this subject

Thats nice, but again, none of your business unless you are a Boeing share holder. Boeing management, unlike some European companies is responsible to the BOD and the shareholders, not the government. They will do what they feel is best for the shareholders, which in this instance is also right for American workers and America.

As for the rest of your rant....

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 213):
Tick ... tick ... tick ... The KC-135's are getting older, not newer. Who is going to tak

Ever hear of something called a B-52? Ever hear of the Rand Report on Tanker Capitalization? We have time.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 202):
That's the same sort of nonsensical argument we heard on here regarding the A380 vs the 748i - focussing excluively on weight whilst completely ignoring other aspects of the airframe that are quite capable of counteracting a large proportion of the weight impacts. .

The laws of physics is still in effect. I would suggest you go over to Civ av. There is a thread all about airlines flying with less gas. It makes the take off weigh lower and therefore burns less fuel. The extra cost of carrying around all that extra weight on the KC-30 is only going to cost even more as the price of fuel goes up.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:16 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 216):
The laws of physics is still in effect

Indeed. Hence my comment.

Quoting Alien (Reply 216):
I would suggest you go over to Civ av

Spend most of my time there. We get the same ridiculous comments there too........

Rgds
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:24 am

Quoting Alien (Reply 216):
What a load of manure. We don't really don't know which one is superior since neither has flown and none of us (anyone who is talking anyway) have access to the actual results of the "evaluation".

Without writing all the + 1000 posts in several threads on this issue again (as I already stated in my earlier post) there is one simple fact:

The EADS built A330-MRTT won 5 out of the last 5 competitions worldwide against the B767-T. With strategic partners as NG or not. The last competition held by the USAF was the most fierce one since Boeing improved its bid (due to the earlier recorded losses in the other countries) with the B767-Frankentanker, the unproven concept which still has to be designed fully compared to an already flying A330-MRTT which has very identical characteristics with the to be KC-45.

But even on their home soil the Boeing 767-AT was considered to be inferior by the leading air force in the world, the USAF. Maybe not by a long shot, nobody is suggesting that. But they were beaten clear enough by the NG-EADS bid, period! The question about which platform is better to be the next generation tanker has been answered by so many airliners around the world and, more important, has been answered by several countries where the local defense departments, contrary to us here on A-net, do have full access to all the data both manufacturers can come up with to emphasise the strong points of their proposal and the possible weaknesses the competitor might have!

Kind Regards!

[Edited 2008-04-19 03:25:34]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 12:27 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 216):
Thats nice, but again, none of your business unless you are a Boeing share holder.

So he can't express an opinion or show an interest unless he's a Boeing shareholder?  Wow!

Are you an EADS shareholder, or just showing an interest?  scratchchin 
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/88235/
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
checksixx
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:32 pm



Quoting Trex8 (Reply 205):
Some of the congressmen weren't too sure if that was a proper interpretation of the Buy America Act and they felt it may have been an executive branch decision as to who is on that list and not a legislative one.

Was the Buy America Act even part of the bid? Many times it isn't.
 
slz396
Posts: 1883
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 7:01 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:01 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 219):
Are you an EADS shareholder, or just showing an interest?

ROTFL
Didn't you know yet?
Some people think they have the god-given right to give their personal opinion on anything which they deem unjust, stake holder or not and enforce it as if it was biblical truth, whereas others may never even ask questions about what they see happening, regardless the depth of their personal involvement.

Quoting Alien (Reply 216):
Boeing management, unlike some European companies is responsible to the BOD and the shareholders, not the government. They will do what they feel is best for the shareholders, which in this instance is also right for American workers and America.

What is best for your country should be decided by your government not by a bidder to a government contract and in the case of the USAF tanker replacement program it should and rightfully has been decided by the USAF.
The USAF has done just that, looked at their best interest: they have selected the best platform for the next 30 or 40 years; the KC-30. Get alive and crawl out off your hole: the best interests of Boeing are NOT the best interests of your country: I think the first 'tanker deal' already showed that beyond any doubt.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 2:04 pm



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 220):
Was the Buy America Act even part of the bid? Many times it isn't.

I think so, there is a long list of "contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:"

which included

"252.225-7001 AND Bunbury (BUY / YBUN), Australia - Western Australia">BUY AMERICAN ACT AND BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PROGRAM (JUN 2005)"

Not that I have seen the actual Act.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Ken777
Posts: 10034
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:26 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 218):
But even on their home soil the Boeing 767-AT was considered to be inferior by the leading air force in the world, the USAF. Maybe not by a long shot, nobody is suggesting that. But they were beaten clear enough by the NG-EADS bid, period!

The questions should be related to where there was a difference and how much? Plus what were the advantages of the Boeing offer? Then we get into other issues, like the relationships of some of McCain's people with the winning side, the influence of McCain himself, and problems surfacing in other USAF procurement programs, like the one I noted above. Throw in future jobs at NG for those that helped them win and this whole deal doesn't seem to be as clean to me as it appears on the surface.

While I'n not in the "it must be a Boeing" camp I do believe that this deal needs to be looked at carefully by the GAO and by Congress. I also believe that we need laws preventing those government workers, including military personnel, from working with defense contractors they had dealings with during their duties in government.
 
trex8
Posts: 5538
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:11 pm



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 220):
Was the Buy America Act even part of the bid? Many times it isn't.

Payton was using the BAA as cover when the politicians were panning her and her AF minions on Capitol Hill during the hearings for selecting a "foreign" product. Whether its actually in the bid itself I don't know.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:26 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 211):
At least the Boeing ad spoke to issues (from their perspective)...unlike the meaningless "Letter to Sec Gates" that found it's way into papers as paid advertisements, but lacked the courage to make clear these retired USAF members who signed the letter were ALL NG/EADS employees and failed to mention that NG was paying for the ad.

Funny thing about that ad, and all its pious outrage about how "our" Air Force would never do anything wrong is that the Air Force is under pressure from Congress to explain irregularities relating to another contract. Among the allegations is one that a general and two colonels ensured that a contract was awarded to a company led by - surprise - a retired AF general.

Quote:
Two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee called yesterday on Pentagon officials to further explain the awarding of a $50 million Air Force contract to a company owned by people close to senior Air Force officials, demanding accountability at the highest levels of the service. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), in a letter to the secretary of the Air Force, asked why senior leaders escaped punishment for the award. McCaskill has been outspoken on contracting improprieties and wrote to Michael Wynne that there had been "insufficient punishment and a lack of corrective actions" after a 2005 contract was steered to a company owned by a recently retired four-star general and a millionaire civilian pilot who had grown close to Air Force officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2008/04/18/AR2008041801921.html
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:00 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 217):
Spend most of my time there. We get the same ridiculous comments there too........

So tell me why are all of these airlines are looking for ways to shed weight again?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:05 am

Quoting Alien (Reply 226):
So tell me why are all of these airlines are looking for ways to shed weight again?

Because its worth doing, especially to increase payload capability.

The issue is that fuel burn is a direct function of DRAG, not WEIGHT.

Weight IS a factor that influences drag, because the need to lift the plane causes drag.
But this component of drag is massively affected by wingspan.
Have you compared the wingspans of the two competitor aircraft? Silly me, we've spent a whole month doing that, haven't we?  

The 767 has a 47.6m wingspan and the A330 has a 60m wingspan.
That's a HUGE advantage for the A330 in terms of lift drag. In fact, I suspect that as far as the drag component directly affected by weight is concerned, i.e. lift drag, that the A330 actually has LESS drag than the 767.

However, it is true to say that the higher MTOW necessitates a bigger wing area to generate said lift, so the A330's wetted area drag is likely to be a fair bit higher than the 767's.

A 6% difference in OVERALL drag is probably fairly easy to illustrate.
I'm not saying weight isn't important - it is.
But it's how that weight affects drag that dictates the fuel burn, and the relationship isn't even remotely direct.
It's dependent upon the physical dimensional characteristics of the aircraft.

So as I said - physics does indeed matter. But you need to be considering the right bit of physics. Hence my comment.  

Regards

[Edited 2008-04-19 23:23:18]
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:38 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 227):
Because its worth doing, especially to increase payload capability

No they are not doing it to increase payload, they are doing it to spend less on fuel. The less you lift the less you burn. It really is that simple.

“It is obvious to me that in order to save the high fuel price ... we were dispatched with a minimum fuel load,” the captain of an Airbus A319 wrote after an incident last year. “Dispatchers often cut it so close to save a couple hundred dollars"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24034468/page/2/

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 227):
The issue is that fuel burn is a direct function of DRAG, not WEIGHT.

False. Let me ask you a question. Is it easier to walk up a flight of stairs with a bag of goceries or is it easier walking up unencumbered? While driving a car, do you use the gas pedal more when going up a hill or down a hill? This is simple physics.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 227):
But this component of drag is massively affected by wingspan.

So the larger the wing obviously the greater the drag. Of course the A330 wing can lift more than a 767, it's 50 feet more span. But that also includes 50 feet more of drag and structural weight. Further, I agree drag is the main component while flying level. That is not the case when climbing. While the wings still provide lift, the engines have to work harder to maintain speed/lift. Again more weight equals more energy needed to maintain lift. A larger more efficient wing only helps so much.

I never said that since MTOW is 40-50 percent greater it would have a 40-50 greater fuel burn, but 6 percent is not realistic and is not backed up by any credible published source.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14890
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:47 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 228):
No they are not doing it to increase payload, they are doing it to spend less on fuel. The less you lift the less you burn. It really is that simple.

The USAF do this as well, not every tanker sortie takes off at MTOW.

You must have missed my previous post, I gave you a clear example of a larger heavier aircraft burning less gas than a smaller lighter aircraft, i.e. the A380 burns less gas than a 747 classic, about 6000 lb/hr less than some classics.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 204):
That is nonsense. The A380 is 50% heavier than the 747 classic, but burns LESS fuel. The A330 is 10 more years advanced in aerodynamic and system design, technology drives down fuel bum more than anything else.

I have given the TSFC values for various 767 engines in https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/202752/, you will notice that on the same airframe you have close to 4% variation in fuel burn just depending on the engine used.

Please note ALL the comparisons Boeing have been using to "demonstrate" how bad the A330-200 was compared to the 767-200ER (which is not even the aircraft they used for their bid) was done at MTOW, the MTOW of the 767-200ER they used was 17,000 lb lighter than the aircraft in their bid, the 767-200LRF.

The comparison they did was a useless publicity stunt, anyone with an ounce of technical background in aerospace can see how it was rigged to provide the results that Boeing who paid for the report were looking for.

Boeing NEVER made public a comparison between the 767-200LRF and A330-200.

Boeing NEVER made public a comparison when the same payload is used.

Boeing NEVER made public a comparison when the aircraft were blocked out at the same speeds.

Boeing NEVER made public a comparison when both aircraft were allowed to climb/cruise at their optimum speeds/altitudes.

It is entirely possible for a 767-200LRF to burn more gas than the A330-200 when the 767-200LFR is loaded up to MTOW, and the SAME payload is lifted onto the A330-200, i.e. the A330-200 loaded at about 10% below MTOW which is gives the same PAYLOAD as the 767-200LRF, and the 767-200LRF speed is increased off its optimum 0.80 to the optimum cruise speed for the A330-200, i.e. 0.825/0.83, the 767-200LRF is flown at the A330-200 optimum altitude.

Boeing did not publish an apples for apples comparison, but they did provide the customer (USAF) the data for them to be able to do that.

The customer made its decision.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
astuteman
Posts: 7123
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:58 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 228):
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 227):
The issue is that fuel burn is a direct function of DRAG, not WEIGHT.

False.

If you don't think that fuel burn is a function of drag, then there is no rational conversation that can be had.

Quoting Alien (Reply 228):
So the larger the wing obviously the greater the drag.

If you want to pick on the area drag, but deliberately ignore the dramatic reduction in lift drag that added span confers, there is no rational conversation that we can have...

 wave 
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:12 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 229):
The customer made its decision.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 230):
there is no rational conversation that we can have...

Great posts, as always. Thanks for the Info. There is always something to learn on A-net every day!

Kind regards!
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:11 pm

There's a brief but interesting article in the Wichita Eagle this morning (Sunday, April 20). It talks about the GAO attorney overseeing the Boeing appeal. What caught my eye was this comment:

Quote:
Pietrovito has worked at the GAO since 1987. Prior to that, he was in private practice in the Washington, D.C., area.

http://www.kansas.com/107/story/378268.html

With over 20 years at GAO, at least Mr. Pietrovito doesn't appear to be politically encumbered.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:25 pm

Air Force Expects Boeing to lose appeal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Quote:
WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force has concluded that congressional auditors are unlikely to uphold any of the 200 issues raised by Boeing Co ...

...a large group of Air Force acquisition experts came to that conclusion after a marathon session at the Pentagon two weeks ago.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:36 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 233):
WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force has concluded that congressional auditors are unlikely to uphold any of the 200 issues raised by Boeing Co ...

...a large group of Air Force acquisition experts came to that conclusion after a marathon session at the Pentagon two weeks ago.

And in other breaking news, the sun rose in the east this morning.

Did you really expect to hear USAF employees to say anything else?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18949
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue Apr 29, 2008 10:54 pm



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 234):
Did you really expect to hear USAF employees to say anything else?

Maybe not, but it's certainly newsworthy that they spent "a marathon session" reviewing Boeing's appeal and concluded that the GAO is unlikely to uphold any of their 200 issues!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:11 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 233):
Air Force Expects Boeing to lose appeal.

We don't know what the USAF "Thinks"...the story only tells us what Loren Thompson "thinks" the USAF has concluded...and the point is moot, all that matters is what GAO "Thinks" at this time.

I'm sure the all knowing Dr Thompson would have told us the USAF "Thought" the first KC-X action was a done deal too.

The USAF also "Thought" they had no troubles with the recent CSAR-X source selection as well.

More recently, there were those that "thought" there was nothing wrong with the $50 million contract given to Strategic Message Solutions to support the USAF's "Thunderbirds" airshows, but now we find five Air Force members including a General Officer have been punished for "improper influence" in this contract effort.

The point is Loren Thompson (the COO of Lexington Institute) reporting on what he "thinks" the USAF "thinks" may not be worth it's weight in ink since we now have 3 USAF acquisition programs in a row with problems.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:05 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 235):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 234):
Did you really expect to hear USAF employees to say anything else?

Maybe not, but it's certainly newsworthy that they spent "a marathon session" reviewing Boeing's appeal and concluded that the GAO is unlikely to uphold any of their 200 issues!

 rotfl  USAF employees could spend a month analyzing Boeing's protest, and the end result would be the same. They are going to ratify what their organization did.

If you think they would really conduct an unbiased evaluation - and release the results to the public - which showed that the USAF made a mistake in awarding the contract to NG, I have a bridge to sell you.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:31 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 236):
Loren Thompson

or, is it what he is paid to say he thinks?

I find it funny he made rather bold statements about the bid slamming Boeing for everything short of kidnapping of the bush twins, and praising NG,EDAS, USAF, etc basicly the second the announcement was made...

and been said peoples go to guy for an "outside" quote anytime they feel they need one.

Wonder if someone can track the money on this.
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat May 03, 2008 4:50 pm

Nancy Pelosi was in BHM last night and refused to answer questions about the KC-45. Kind of awkward position for her trying to drum up money/votes here after being pretty vocal against the KC-45 decision.

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnew...se/news/120980250955810.xml&coll=2

It's towards the bottom of the article.
Where are all of my respected members going?
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue May 06, 2008 2:42 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 235):
Maybe not, but it's certainly newsworthy that they spent "a marathon session" reviewing Boeing's appeal and concluded that the GAO is unlikely to uphold any of their 200 issues!

While I think the USAF may be correct in believing that Boeing will lose the overall appeal, I doubt ALL 200 issues will be ruled in favor of the USAF. More than likely, many of them will go Boeing's way. The question becomes one of how many and of those, how many will have a material impact on the validity of the Air Force's February decision. If anyone has said Boeing will lose on ALL 200 issues, then they are doing nothing more than spewing propaganda. Kind of reminds me of the USSR back in the day when they claimed that all of their space launches were perfect, and on schedule.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Tue May 06, 2008 8:32 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 240):
While I think the USAF may be correct in believing that Boeing will lose the overall appeal, I doubt ALL 200 issues will be ruled in favor of the USAF. More than likely, many of them will go Boeing's way. The question becomes one of how many and of those, how many will have a material impact on the validity of the Air Force's February decision. If anyone has said Boeing will lose on ALL 200 issues, then they are doing nothing more than spewing propaganda. Kind of reminds me of the USSR back in the day when they claimed that all of their space launches were perfect, and on schedule.

In defense of the USAF I must add that the spewing of propaganda is all on Boeings part to begin with. They are working all media channels and political channels to try to overturn a decision which was taken as fair as possible based on the information we now know. They are the multi billion Dollar company which is whining about this decision although they have more work then they can handle at the moment.

Nobody, especially not Boeing or its supporters here on A-net or anywhere else has presented hard and indisputable evidence that the decision taken by the USAF was corrupt or otherwise compromised. So until the GAO comes up with anything new in their review, I hold on to that thought.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Wed May 07, 2008 8:32 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 216):
The laws of physics is still in effect. I would suggest you go over to Civ av. There is a thread all about airlines flying with less gas. It makes the take off weigh lower and therefore burns less fuel. The extra cost of carrying around all that extra weight on the KC-30 is only going to cost even more as the price of fuel goes up.



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 227):
So as I said - physics does indeed matter. But you need to be considering the right bit of physics. Hence my comment.

Alien, you do seem to have missed a major thread with some excellent contributions, basically about physics, I suppose. It was in tech/ops and can be found at:
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/184575
There you will find that the laws of physics taken overall, suggest that your boundary conditions were a bit too limited to permit you to obtain valid conclusions.

Yes, for a given aerodynamic configuration lower weight will give you lower fuel consumption. However if extra weight is used to make a more efficient machine, it can well be that the heavier object has a lower fuel consumption - for a given payload that is.

In the particular thread, the difference between the performance of the "heavy" A380 is compared with that of the "light" B747-8 and a number of contributors conclude that the additional weight of the A380 is largely compensated in terms of reduced drag, some from the aerodynamics of the wing but mostly from the extra span. And at least one contributor points out that Airbus might have had an even more efficient wing had is not been restricted to the 80m box/

For example, the posts from that thread include:

OldAeroGuy From United States, joined Dec 2004, 2310 posts, RR: 31
Reply 32, posted Thu Mar 1 2007 (1 year 2 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4111 times:
"Quoting Zeke (Reply 21):

ZEKE: You have basically explained the difference between the 748i and A380, the 380 has a better wing design, allowing it to fly at the same speed with less sweep, thus having less span-wise flow.

OAG: I've only done a partial explanation of the difference in wing designs between the 748I and the A388. The A380 does have a 6.6% advantage in span loading compared to the 748I, but it also has a 19% lower wing loading since its wing is sized to accommodate a stretch to the A389. The higher CD0 caused by this increased wing size reduces the advantage of having a better span loading. Having additional wing area for growth isn't a bad idea, that's what Boeing did on the initial versions of the 747, 767, 777 and 787. Airbus could have reduced the impact of the higher wing area by increasing the span (ie higher aspect ratio) but they were limited by the 80m box. "

and concluding the post from OAG:

"Here is my attempt at a summary:

A388 span loading improves Di/L relative to the 748I.

A388 wing size degrades D0/L relative to the 748I.

The resulting airframe D/L differences, when combined with the TSFC and OEW differences result in virtually the same fuel burn per unit payload, with the 748I being slightly better at missions less than 7000nm and the A388 being slightly better at missions greater than 7000nm. (This point being made by WingedMigrator in Reply 27).

It should explain to SCAT15F in Reply 22 why Boeing didn't want to spend the money for a new 748I wing."
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri May 09, 2008 12:57 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 241):
Nobody, especially not Boeing or its supporters here on A-net or anywhere else has presented hard and indisputable evidence that the decision taken by the USAF was corrupt or otherwise compromised. So until the GAO comes up with anything new in their review, I hold on to that thought.

But a lot of a.netters seem to think the 2002 KC-767 lease was corrupted by Boeing, that is not the case here, or then. It was a USAF Official who went to jail, and some Boeing Exec.s lost their jobs. When you combine the KC-45 deal with the CSAR-X program, it appears the USAF is screwed up in the acquisition process.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 241):
In defense of the USAF I must add that the spewing of propaganda is all on Boeings part to begin with.

Really? What about NG/EADS all of a sudden claiming 45,000 US jobs just after the award? What about the claim by EADS the KC-45 has already flown (the KC-45 is not the KC-30B)? That is hard to do since even the first SDD has not been converted, yet.

I might add, that if the GAO does rule in Boeing's favor, that does not award the contract to Boeing. The USAF does not have to listen to the GAO, but if they don't they must accept the political consequences. The USAF can continue with the NG/EADS KC-45 project, but will have to find funding from somewhere other than Congress. If Boeing wins the GAO protest, the best they can hope for is the KC-X program gets re-opened, and re-bid. Boeing cannot automatically be awarded the tanker contract.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri May 09, 2008 8:42 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 243):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 241):
Nobody, especially not Boeing or its supporters here on A-net or anywhere else has presented hard and indisputable evidence that the decision taken by the USAF was corrupt or otherwise compromised. So until the GAO comes up with anything new in their review, I hold on to that thought.

But a lot of a.netters seem to think the 2002 KC-767 lease was corrupted by Boeing, that is not the case here, or then. It was a USAF Official who went to jail, and some Boeing Exec.s lost their jobs. When you combine the KC-45 deal with the CSAR-X program, it appears the USAF is screwed up in the acquisition process.

Well the deal was corrupt. Otherwise people are not convicted to do time in jail and people do not lose their job if their behaviour was considered as proper. So it must have been improper. And although the convicted person was a USAF official, Boeing on the other side must have known that they were getting a way and way better than average deal with the lease contract. So they must have known that the possible revenues on the deal was suspicious.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 243):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 241):
In defense of the USAF I must add that the spewing of propaganda is all on Boeings part to begin with.

Really? What about NG/EADS all of a sudden claiming 45,000 US jobs just after the award? What about the claim by EADS the KC-45 has already flown (the KC-45 is not the KC-30B)? That is hard to do since even the first SDD has not been converted, yet.

We already discussed the huge similarities between the KC-30 and KC-45. They are incomparably more identical to each other than the B767-T for Italy, the B767-T for Japan and the B767-AT for the USAF. The differences the last three mentioned aircraft have when compared to each other are enormous (within one product family!) So do not even begin to compare those to the highly identical KC-30 and KC-45. It has been discussed over and over again, but I repeat it here so that everyone gets the correct picture of the facts of the situation here.

The point is that Boeing started a huge media campaign when they lost out to the NG-EADS bid. Everybody is making claims about this or that when it comes to this deal, yes also NG. Many of those claims, like the number of direct and indirect jobs, are hardly measurable. But neither NG or the USAF did not started a huge media campaign publicly stating that the wrong decision as taken. It was Boeing that went over the top blaming their possible customer (or present customer for other contracts) that they got it all wrong. In this campaign there are a lot of misleading statements made which will appeal to the general public (to have them put pressure on their local politicians) but have factual been proven wrong, also here on A-net. That is spewing propaganda which gives credit to this term I used. So yes, it was and is Boeing who started the spewing of propaganda, and not the USAF!

Kind regards!
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri May 09, 2008 1:34 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 244):
Well the deal was corrupt. Otherwise people are not convicted to do time in jail and people do not lose their job if their behaviour was considered as proper. So it must have been improper. And although the convicted person was a USAF official, Boeing on the other side must have known that they were getting a way and way better than average deal with the lease contract. So they must have known that the possible revenues on the deal was suspicious.

So the Air Force person gave the lease contract to Boeing and the next Monday showed up at Boeing and said, "Here I am!". I don't think it went quite that way. Boeing was involved as much as the Air Force (who failed to properly monitor their purchasing function.)

Again, Boeing screwed up their bid and now are whining to have their screw-up reversed. Yes the Boeing airplane met the minimum specifications, but unfortunately for Boeing and their workers, NG offered a better airplane whose functional value exceeds the additional costs involved.

Boeing was right is protesting if they truly feel there was inconsistencies in the process. However, Boeing made a titanic PR blunder by trashing the Air Force in public. That in itself indicates to me that they know their protest will fail on the technical merits of the protest. Also, as a Boeing shareholder, they need to be paying attention to fixing the colossal mess they have created with the 787 line.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri May 09, 2008 2:30 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 245):
So the Air Force person gave the lease contract to Boeing and the next Monday showed up at Boeing and said, "Here I am!". I don't think it went quite that way. Boeing was involved as much as the Air Force (who failed to properly monitor their purchasing function.)

If you read my reply carefully you will see that I totally agree with you. What you are saying is what I tried to say. I never said the USAF person showed up at Boeing and said "Here I am!". I just stated in my post that the original lease deal was corrupt. No matter who was officially guilty or not. It was therefore justified that the deal was called of by Congress, especially by Senator McCain. So no argument here.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 245):
However, Boeing made a titanic PR blunder by trashing the Air Force in public. That in itself indicates to me that they know their protest will fail on the technical merits of the protest. Also, as a Boeing shareholder, they need to be paying attention to fixing the colossal mess they have created with the 787 line.

This is also in line with several comments I made. And about the B787: I do hope that they get the problems on that plane sorted out and get this beautiful bird in the air a.s.a.p. The customers (and the aviation fans like me) are waiting anxiously. And it will give the Boeing shareholders an assured feeling that this important program is heading in the right direction.

Kind regards!
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Fri May 09, 2008 3:43 pm

The record will show in the KC-X Tanker scandal that:

Darlen Druyun - A Boeing employee and former USAF acquisition official went to jail. After negotiating a job for herself and her daughter with Boeing. She left the USAF and went to work for them. Boeing fired her after it came to light she helped Boeing in the KC-X and other programs.

Mike Sears - The CFO of Boeing who went to jail for offering Ms. Druyun the job at Boeing while she was working for the USAF.

Phil Condit - Boeing's CEO who resigned over the deal.


Partial statement on the matter from Sen. McCain is below.


About two months ago, Ms. Druyun was sentenced to nine months in prison on public corruption charges. Her crime: negotiating the $30 billion deal with Boeing while negotiating with Boeing for a job. Ms. Druyun's sentencing occurred months after Boeing's board of directors fired her and former Chief Financial Officer Michael Sears for misconduct arising from the tanker negotiations. Boeing's Chief Executive Officer Phil Condit soon left the company under a cloud of suspicion.

In court papers accompanying her sentencing, Ms. Druyun admitted to overpricing Boeing's 767s as a "parting gift" to Boeing. She admitted that she did this to "ingratiate herself" with her future employer and help secure employment for her daughter and future son-in-law at the company. Astonishingly, Ms. Druyun also admitted that she similarly harmed the United States on behalf of Boeing on several other major defense programs, including the NATO AWACS, C-130 AMP, and the C-17 programs. How much taxpayers were fleeced remains unclear. But this matter remains under investigation by the Justice Department and other authorities. The scope of these investigations seems to widen almost weekly. Ultimately, it is likely that Ms. Druyun's misconduct cost taxpayers an astronomical sum.

Over the past few weeks, Air Force leadership has tried to delude the American people into believing that all of this happened because of one person, and that because no one else has been hired for her position, the problem has been solved. I don't buy it. I simply cannot believe that one person, acting alone, can rip off taxpayers out of possibly billions of dollars. This appears to be a case of either a systemic failure in procurement oversight, wilful blindness, or rank corruption. Either way, full accountability among Air Force leadership is in order.

Just this week, Secretary Roche and Ms. Druyun's old boss, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions Marvin Sambur, announced their resignations. But, among Air Force leadership, no one has assumed responsibility for this debacle. Ms. Druyun is, perhaps grudgingly, accepting responsibility for her role. To some extent, Boeing has accepted responsibility for its. The Justice Department and others are continuing to ferret out others who may be responsible. However, accountability among Air Force leadership has been inadequate. It seems that it business as usual. Air Force leadership remains content laying all the blame at the feet of a single individual, Darleen Druyun.


Full Statement Here....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...8AAAEAAA1jRv0AAAAF&modele=verbatim
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sat May 10, 2008 4:43 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 243):
Boeing cannot automatically be awarded the tanker contract.

not *quite* true since Congress can authorise money that could only be spent at Boeing for a KC767 with proper language in the bill providing said money. However it doesn't mean that the USAF has to spend it at all, just that its there if they want it they must comply with the specifics. Clearly if Congress offers $20Billion for a tanker aircraft with no greater than a 420K lbs MTOW and a minimum of 180K lbs payload at MTOW with 2 engines sourced from a US supplier with greater than 65% domestic content, the USAF is going to have HELL trying find anything but the KC767 to spend it on. More work on the specifications for this money would lock down to only one choice.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Appeal Of KC-45A Award

Sun May 11, 2008 10:57 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 244):
We already discussed the huge similarities between the KC-30 and KC-45. They are incomparably more identical to each other than the B767-T for Italy, the B767-T for Japan and the B767-AT for the USAF. The differences the last three mentioned aircraft have when compared to each other are enormous (within one product family!)



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 244):
So do not even begin to compare those to the highly identical KC-30 and KC-45. It has been discussed over and over again, but I repeat it here so that everyone gets the correct picture of the facts of the situation here.

There are similarities between the KC-30 and KC-45, as well as the A-330TT and A-330MRTT, just as the KC-767A, KC-767J, and KC-767AT have similarities. The KC-30 is based on the A-330-200 airliner, the KC-45 (if built) will be based on the A-330-200F, the USAF said that. The KC-45A will have different avionics than the KC-30B, as well as "smart tanker" technoligy (in most KC-135Rs) the RAAF isn't getting. The KC-45A will have a MTOW of 513Klbs, compared to the 508Klbs of the KC-30B. The KC-30B has a refueling boom designed and built in Spain. While the KC-45A will have a slightly different refueling EADS boom built in West Virgina.

The Italian KC-767A is the same tanker offered to the USAF in the 2002 lease deal. It also features WARPs and body fuel tanks, like the KC-135 and KC-10. The KC-767A is based on the B-767-200ERF airplane. The KC-767A has a MTOW of 395Klbs. It does not have "smart tanker".

The KC-767J for the Japanese is based on the B-767-200ER airliner, and does not have body fuel tanks or WARPs. The KC-767J has a MTOW of 375Klbs to 380Klbs. It, also, does not have "smart tanker".

The proposed KC-767AT for the USAF is based on the yet to be built B-767-200LRF airplane. Like the KC-767A, it has body fuel tanks and WARPs, but carries more fuel in the body fuel tanks, it will have "smart tanker" provisions and a completely new refueling boom, and Boom Operator Station from the KC-767A/J. The KC-767AT will also have different engines. The KC-767AT has a MTOW of 413Klbs.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 246):
I just stated in my post that the original lease deal was corrupt. No matter who was officially guilty or not.



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 247):
But, among Air Force leadership, no one has assumed responsibility for this debacle. Ms. Druyun is, perhaps grudgingly, accepting responsibility for her role. To some extent, Boeing has accepted responsibility for its. The Justice Department and others are continuing to ferret out others who may be responsible. However, accountability among Air Force leadership has been inadequate. It seems that it business as usual. Air Force leadership remains content laying all the blame at the feet of a single individual, Darleen Druyun.

The curruption was on the USAF side, Boeing thought they were accepting a very good deal.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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