Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Stratofortress
Topic Author
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:16 am

Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:04 pm

Here is the public blog created by Boeing to explain its side of the story...

http://boeingblogs.com/tanker/

Enjoy...
Forever New Frontiers
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:34 am

Interesting. I can't wait to see AirRyan's and Keesje's comments on this.

The fact that a subsided of NG developed the fleet effectivness requirements (Factor #5, Bullet #1), may be enough to through this award out, and reaward it to Boeing.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:34 am

“It is clear that the original mission for these tankers — that is, a medium-sized tanker where cargo and passenger transport was a secondary consideration — became lost in the process, and the Air Force ended up with an oversized tanker,” McGraw said. “As the requirements were changed to accommodate the bigger, less capable Airbus plane, evaluators arbitrarily discounted the significant strengths of the KC-767, compromising on operational capabilities, including the ability to refuel a more versatile array of aircraft such as the V-22 and even the survivability of the tanker during the most dangerous missions it will encounter.”

Hogwash!

Boeing execs are crying because their company didn't get the fat contract they expected to get. It's not Boeing's place to say that the USAF "ended up with an oversized tanker." And they try to slander the Airbus as being "less capable?" That's laughable.

And why would the KC-767 be able to refuel the V-22 while the KC-330 couldn't? Or how it is supposed to have better survivability "during the most dangerous missions it will encounter?"
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 6:47 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Interesting. I can't wait to see AirRyan's and Keesje's comments on this.

I guess that is what you get when each post is moderated and only allowed to be posted if it is pro Boeing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The fact that a subsided of NG developed the fleet effectivness requirements (Factor #5, Bullet #1), may be enough to through this award out, and reaward it to Boeing.

I don't think that will be proven to be valid, the software in various revisions has been used by the USAF for around 16 years now, it has origins from the old "Grumman Aerospace Corporation", it is not something that was created specifically for this contract. Over the years it has had contributions for various sources, both within and external to the DoD.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:11 am



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 2):
fat contract

This is not a "fat contract" for either NG or Boeing. Their profit here is regulated by law at 5% of the total contract.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
Interesting. I can't wait to see AirRyan's and Keesje's comments on this.

I guess that is what you get when each post is moderated and only allowed to be posted if it is pro Boeing.

Come on now Zeke. There is just as much EADS/Airbus bias as there is Boeing bias. You know I have never hidden the fact I am pro-Boeing, just as AirRyan, Keesje, or you are pro-Airbus. I see nothing wrong with either opinion.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
I don't think that will be proven to be valid, the software in various revisions has been used by the USAF for around 16 years now, it has origins from the old "Grumman Aerospace Corporation", it is not something that was created specifically for this contract. Over the years it has had contributions for various sources, both within and external to the DoD.

But, apparently, Boeing is implying the latest contirbution came from a company within, or related to NG. But, as you know, GAO may need more, but Congress does not. When I suggested throwing out the contract, I was meaning from Congresses prospective. They need very little to do that, and actually don't need any facts.

For those who have not scene Boeing's reference here for what they call factor #5, here is the entire page;

The Facts About the KC-767 Tanker
Factor 1 -- Mission Capability
Boeing scored "Blue (Exceptional) and Low Risk" in this area -- the highest possible rating in the most critical "factor" in this competition.
The Air Force assessed Boeing as meeting or exceeding all Key Performance Parameters (thresholds and objectives).
Indeed, the Air Force evaluated Boeing as having significantly more strengths (discriminators) than the competitor.
Factor 2 -- Proposal Risk
Boeing's proposal risk was rated "Low."
Surprisingly, the competitor was also rated as low despite the high risk associated with its evolving multi-country, multi-facility, multi-build approach as contrasted with Boeing's integrated approach to design, build, and certification in existing facilities with experienced personnel.
Factor 3 -- Past Performance
Boeing's past performance was rated "Satisfactory."
Northrop Grumman/Airbus was also rated satisfactory, despite having no relevant tanker experience and having never delivered a tanker with a refueling boom.
Press reports indicate that some of the most relevant programs for Airbus (the KC-30 for Australia and the A-400M) are both significantly over cost and behind schedule.
Factor 4 -- Cost/Price
As determined by the RFP, "Most Probable Life Cycle Cost" (MPLCC) was the only measure of cost to be assessed.
The Air Force described the cost visibility information Boeing provided as "unprecedented" and rated Boeing's MPLCC cost "Reasonable," "Balanced," and meeting "Realism" criteria -- all the highest ratings a competitor can receive.
As recognized by the Air Force itself in 2002, the significantly bigger A-330 would demand a greater infrastructure investment with dramatically lower operational effectiveness.
Factor 5 -- Integrated Assessment
The model used by the Air Force to judge tanker "fleet effectiveness" was developed and is maintained by Northrop Grumman.
The mission scenarios and operational constraints to be used with the model issued in the draft RFP to judge tanker "fleet effectiveness" were based upon the 2005 Air Mobility Command "Mobility Capabilities Study" (MCS).
Before and after the RFP release, changes to the model's parameters occurred so as to allow a "greater variety of aircraft to be considered" -- in essence to allow larger aircraft to compete. However the Air Force promised that it would tie the numerical output of the model back to real-world constraints by weighing "insights and observations."
The inherent complexities of the model have made its results inconsistent and un-repeatable and its overall operational relevance questionable.

Here is the refrence web page;

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/facts.html
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:55 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
But, apparently, Boeing is implying the latest contirbution came from a company within, or related to NG. But, as you know, GAO may need more, but Congress does not. When I suggested throwing out the contract, I was meaning from Congresses prospective. They need very little to do that, and actually don't need any facts.

The Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System (and its previous versions) I think has been maintained by NG for about 16 years now and they recently got a contract to roll that software to the whole DoD. I see it as clutching at straw to suggest that NG is behind any changes to the software, that is not how those things work, NG might do the coding of the changes, but only under the direction of the DoD, at the AMC level it is a classified secure application. There are a lot of people in the DoD who know the software backward, and also make contributions to it.

This is not like a patch to MS word, it is a complex application that would have every change documented and tested (and no doubt signed off by the customer) before rolling it out, otherwise it would put all of the AMC planning at risk.

The software used to be maintained by what was called Logicon, now I think it is called NG Information Technology. Boeing use the same people for their National Missile Defense program software, they have large computer software and hardware contracts all through the US DoD and intelligence sectors.

I don't see Boeing getting anywhere with this point, the USAF has been very comfortable with the result generated by it even in times of conflict like Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:59 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
When I suggested throwing out the contract, I was meaning from Congresses prospective.

How many military contracts has congress ever overturned?

If the GAO doesn't uphold Boeing's protest, how will congress justify overturning the contract? It was congress that demanded a contest after the original corrupt KC-767 deal!
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.
 
khobar
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:12 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:44 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
I guess that is what you get when each post is moderated and only allowed to be posted if it is pro Boeing.

This comment comes as a surprise Zeke. No smiley?

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 6):
If the GAO doesn't uphold Boeing's protest, how will congress justify overturning the contract? It was congress that demanded a contest after the original corrupt KC-767 deal!

a) If the GAO doesn't uphold Boeing's protest, Congress can overturn the contract by concluding the tankers aren't really needed. Look for steep defense budget cuts regardless of the outcome of the protest.

b) Congress demanded a competition. If it turns out that this time around the competition was skewed toward NG/EADS, Congress could conclude the competition didn't meet their demands and declare the whole thing null and void.

Remember, with all that's happening in the US and the rest of the world, our Congress decided that what was really most important was whether some baseball player took performing enhancing drugs during his career.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 8:34 pm



Quoting Khobar (Reply 7):
a) If the GAO doesn't uphold Boeing's protest, Congress can overturn the contract by concluding the tankers aren't really needed. Look for steep defense budget cuts regardless of the outcome of the protest.

Yes, but not funding the program is very different to overturning the contract. No funds means no tankers, full-stop. It doesn't gain anything for Boeing. Presumably, the AF can ask for the tankers to be funded the following year. And the following year...

Quoting Khobar (Reply 7):
b) Congress demanded a competition. If it turns out that this time around the competition was skewed toward NG/EADS, Congress could conclude the competition didn't meet their demands and declare the whole thing null and void.

My question was asked with the assumption that Boeing's protest fails. If the GAO does reject Boeing's protest, one would have to conclude that the AF's evaluation was fair, and they selected the tanker that better meets their needs. In those circumstances, other than withholding funding, what can congress do?
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.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13861
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:01 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 8):
AF's evaluation was fair

Lets not be naive here about fairness, No less than John McCain himself has according to news that I have read 3 folks active on his campaign who were tied to lobbyists, or were lobbyists for Airbus. denied by the McCain folks. There is also reference about federal law now being scrutinized because of a perceived bias towards foreign companies. The last three major awards of defense contracts went to foreign contractors according to what I saw on the news. One involved the tankers and one involved helicopters, I cannot remember the other.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:20 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 9):
Lets not be naive here about fairness, No less than John McCain himself has according to news that I have read 3 folks active on his campaign who were tied to lobbyists, or were lobbyists for Airbus.

Apart from quoting me out of context, do you think Boeing doesn't employ lobbyists and make contributions to politicians?  rotfl 
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.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13861
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:22 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 10):


Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 9):
Lets not be naive here about fairness, No less than John McCain himself has according to news that I have read 3 folks active on his campaign who were tied to lobbyists, or were lobbyists for Airbus.

Apart from quoting me out of context, do you think Boeing doesn't employ lobbyists and make contributions to politicians?

My point is, when is any of this process fair? we argue about the merits of the aircraft and we do not know what forces are at work in the background. who knows what was changed or influenced by lobbyists, the end result maybe that we do not get the most capable aircraft for the mission, or the most versatile. I do not think anyone will say that the Airbus in not a fine aircraft, but is it the best for the mission, or was the fix in?
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:30 am



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 2):
And why would the KC-767 be able to refuel the V-22 while the KC-330 couldn't? Or how it is supposed to have better survivability "during the most dangerous missions it will encounter?"

A factory installed Boeing chastity belt on the V-22's refueling probe? Big grin

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
This is not a "fat contract" for either NG or Boeing. Their profit here is regulated by law at 5% of the total contract.

But the marketing gains far outweigh any tangible, direct profits - especially when the contract is extended and the buy becomes closer to $100B - I'll take the multiple decades of work, publicity, and paltry 5% of that deal!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
You know I have never hidden the fact I am pro-Boeing, just as AirRyan, Keesje, or you are pro-Airbus.

Nonsense, I'm a fan of a multiple number of aircraft and by means do I pledge allegiance to any one manufactuer: I'm pro-F/A-18F and EA-18G, P-8, C-40, 777, 747, 787 and quasi C-17. I'm a fan of the C-27, C-130J, F-16, and even the F-35C but not so much the F-35B. I prefer the 737 over the A320, but as you may well know prefer the A330 over the 767 - but not the 787. I prefer GE engines to P&W and RR's makes a decent engine, too - so I'm really not necessarily exclusively pro-anybody!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
The Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System (and its previous versions) I think has been maintained by NG for about 16 years now and they recently got a contract to roll that software to the whole DoD. I see it as clutching at straw to suggest that NG is behind any changes to the software, that is not how those things work, NG might do the coding of the changes, but only under the direction of the DoD, at the AMC level it is a classified secure application. There are a lot of people in the DoD who know the software backward, and also make contributions to it.

Why don't Boeing dispute the formula's used rather than the name of the company awarded the contract to develop those formulas?

Quoting Khobar (Reply 7):
Remember, with all that's happening in the US and the rest of the world, our Congress decided that what was really most important was whether some baseball player took performing enhancing drugs during his career.

Our current 110th Congress led by that skeletor communist Pelosi is so partisan and inept, their like a one-legged midget in an ass-kicking contest full of lumberjacks - their just not very capable of doing much of anything.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:51 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Why don't Boeing dispute the formula's used rather than the name of the company awarded the contract to develop those formulas?

Dont know, before the software suite that is currently in place, they used to use a Boeing suite (from around 1985 to 1992), obviously they saw limitations and/or flaws with that suite and decided to replace it with something more capable.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sxf24
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:53 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Why don't Boeing dispute the formula's used rather than the name of the company awarded the contract to develop those formulas?

They did. The fact that Northrop maintained the formula was simply that, a fact.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Thu Mar 20, 2008 12:55 pm



Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 14):
They did. The fact that Northrop maintained the formula was simply that, a fact.

Maintain does not mean develop !!!
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Thu Mar 20, 2008 1:37 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Factor 3 -- Past Performance
Boeing's past performance was rated "Satisfactory."

Lucky they did not check on Boeing's performance on contracts with Australia then?  Wow!  Big grin
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13861
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:41 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
Lucky they did not check on Boeing's performance on contracts with Australia then?

I would like to know what happened with those contracts with Australia, were they defense related? I am not familiar with the subject.

Cecil.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:59 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):

I would like to know what happened with those contracts with Australia, were they defense related? I am not familiar with the subject.

The main one is Wedgetail, a modified commercial 737 platform for a military application, some details of what was behind it is in this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/bu...%20Topics/People/W/Wayne,%20Leslie
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:35 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 5):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
But, apparently, Boeing is implying the latest contirbution came from a company within, or related to NG. But, as you know, GAO may need more, but Congress does not. When I suggested throwing out the contract, I was meaning from Congresses prospective. They need very little to do that, and actually don't need any facts.

The Consolidated Air Mobility Planning System (and its previous versions) I think has been maintained by NG for about 16 years now and they recently got a contract to roll that software to the whole DoD. I see it as clutching at straw to suggest that NG is behind any changes to the software, that is not how those things work, NG might do the coding of the changes, but only under the direction of the DoD, at the AMC level it is a classified secure application. There are a lot of people in the DoD who know the software backward, and also make contributions to it.

This is not like a patch to MS word, it is a complex application that would have every change documented and tested (and no doubt signed off by the customer) before rolling it out, otherwise it would put all of the AMC planning at risk.

The software used to be maintained by what was called Logicon, now I think it is called NG Information Technology. Boeing use the same people for their National Missile Defense program software, they have large computer software and hardware contracts all through the US DoD and intelligence sectors.

While all that is true, Congress dose not need such facts, which was my point.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 6):
How many military contracts has congress ever overturned?

If the GAO doesn't uphold Boeing's protest, how will congress justify overturning the contract? It was congress that demanded a contest after the original corrupt KC-767 deal!

The US Congress doesn't need to justify anyhting,they just say it will crete or perserve US Jobs. I can think of twice off the top of my head where Congress overrulled, changed, or added to a US Defense contract.

1. in the mid 1980s the USAF wanted to end production of the A-10. The NY State Congressional deligation (the airplane was assembled on Long Island) had pork inserted into the defense bill to build the airplane for an additional 4 years. IIRC, it was at a very low rate (for fighter/attack aircraft) of about 12 airplanes per year.
2. In the mid 1990s, the Maine Congressional deligation fearing that jobs would be lost at Bath Iron Works in Portland made the USN split the production of the DDG-51, Burke class DDGs.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 12):
Quoting Khobar (Reply 7):
Remember, with all that's happening in the US and the rest of the world, our Congress decided that what was really most important was whether some baseball player took performing enhancing drugs during his career.

Our current 110th Congress led by that skeletor communist Pelosi is so partisan and inept, their like a one-legged midget in an ass-kicking contest full of lumberjacks - their just not very capable of doing much of anything.

AirRyan, you and I do agree on something.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
Factor 3 -- Past Performance
Boeing's past performance was rated "Satisfactory."

Lucky they did not check on Boeing's performance on contracts with Australia then?

Actually, they cannot. Past performance means in (recent) DOD contracts, so Boeing's C-32s C-40s, C-17s, F-15C/E, and EA and F/A-18s programs were reviewed. Overseas and airliner contracts don't count. For NG, they reviewed the EC-18 conversions, F-14 and B-2 contracts, and EF-111 conversions.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:00 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
While all that is true, Congress dose not need such facts, which was my point.

It may also interest you that the model was changed at the time of the original 767 lease deal to accommodate the KC-767A, for the KC-X competition it was changed so the KC-767AT and KC-30A could compete.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:17 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
It may also interest you that the model was changed at the time of the original 767 lease deal to accommodate the KC-767A, for the KC-X competition it was changed so the KC-767AT and KC-30A could compete.

I knew it was changed for the KC-X (KC-45A and KC-767AT), I did not know (or don't remember, at least) it being updated for the KC-767A lease (but, that makes sense as it would have to be updated).
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:34 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 17):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 16):
Lucky they did not check on Boeing's performance on contracts with Australia then?

I would like to know what happened with those contracts with Australia, were they defense related? I am not familiar with the subject.

KC135 might be right in terms of what was relevant, but in terms of what comes to mind if you are in Aus, here is a list. I include the non-B ones to be fair. And thanks to WarRI1 for asking because I knew I should write it out at the time. Tonight I was hunting for where I thought I saw it (SMH) which has an excellent website only to find that it was Fin Rev which has wrecked its web site trying to make money. But I digress!!

Fin Rev Tuesday 18 Mrch 2008, p 68
"Defence targets its own mistakes"

Edited down for the essentials and retyped, so errors and omissions excepted!!
1. FFG - guided missile frigate upgrade
Cost to date, about $1 billion (all dollars assumed to be A$, but only a 6 to 9% difference now).
Number ships operational - nil

2. Tiger helicopters.
Cost $1.99 billion
Number of helicopters delivered 11 out of 22, remainder expected by end 2008.

3. Project Vigilare air defence command and control system.
Boeing
Nearly five years late
Cost $130 million plus (not clear how much spent already).

4. Airborne early warning and control aircraft.
Boeing
Two year late.
Cost $3.5 billion

5. HF comms system modernization
Boeing.
Four years late
Cost $619 million.

6. M113 armour personnel carrier upgrade
Tenix
6 month delay
Cost $ 585 million

7. Lightweight torpedo
Djimindi alliance.
2 years late
Cost $331 million.
Source ASPI defence budget brief 2007-2008. Defence portfolio statements 2007-2008.

I have a suggestion as a target for testing the lightweight torpedo!

What a tale of procurement woes. We should have put it all out to that Gov of NY state, he seems to know how that should go!  Wow!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18979
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:44 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I can think of twice off the top of my head where Congress overrulled, changed, or added to a US Defense contract.

1. in the mid 1980s the USAF wanted to end production of the A-10. The NY State Congressional deligation (the airplane was assembled on Long Island) had pork inserted into the defense bill to build the airplane for an additional 4 years. IIRC, it was at a very low rate (for fighter/attack aircraft) of about 12 airplanes per year.
2. In the mid 1990s, the Maine Congressional deligation fearing that jobs would be lost at Bath Iron Works in Portland made the USN split the production of the DDG-51, Burke class DDGs.

But neither of those are examples of where the AF selected product X through competition and congress said "No, you have to take product Y." Has that ever happened?

If the GAO says the competition was fair, aside from not funding KC-45, what can congress do? Can they actually force the AF to take KC-767s instead? What would the mechanism for this be and wouldn't NG have some recourse?
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.
 
dk1967
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:56 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:11 pm



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 23):
If the GAO says the competition was fair, aside from not funding KC-45, what can congress do? Can they actually force the AF to take KC-767s instead? What would the mechanism for this be and wouldn't NG have some recourse?

Yes, they can. The mechanism would be a line in the DoD's funding bill saying, "And you will buy KC-767's instead of that French thing." Or possibly a line that says, "Buy whatever you want, as long as it's not based on a French commerical airframe." Or even, "You can buy the French one, but because it's so much bigger and better and more efficient, you only get funding for 10 of them."
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 1:57 pm

Additions of contractors for completeness (the table was all in fine print!!)

From Baroque,reply 22 Edited down for the essentials and retyped, so errors and omissions excepted!!
1. FFG - guided missile frigate upgrade
Thales/ADI
Cost to date, about $1 billion (all dollars assumed to be A$, but only a 6 to 9% difference now).
Number ships operational - nil

2. Tiger helicopters.
Eurocopter
Cost $1.99 billion
Number of helicopters delivered 11 out of 22, remainder expected by end 2008.[/quote]
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:26 pm

Quoting Dk1967 (Reply 24):
Yes, they can. The mechanism would be a line in the DoD's funding bill saying, "And you will buy KC-767's instead of that French thing." Or possibly a line that says, "Buy whatever you want, as long as it's not based on a French commerical airframe." Or even, "You can buy the French one, but because it's so much bigger and better and more efficient, you only get funding for 10 of them."

Or they can force NG to actually BUILD the aircraft, i.e license the A330 design and build 85% (Remember that number?)in the United States. That would basically kill off NG's arguments and raise the cost of the KC-30, as tooling, facilities and specialized workers would have to be factored in.

No wonder NG/EADS is getting nervous.

[Edited 2008-03-21 08:26:48]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:43 pm



Quoting Dk1967 (Reply 24):
Yes, they can. The mechanism would be a line in the DoD's funding bill saying, "And you will buy KC-767's instead of that French thing." Or possibly a line that says, "Buy whatever you want, as long as it's not based on a French commerical airframe." Or even, "You can buy the French one, but because it's so much bigger and better and more efficient, you only get funding for 10 of them."

What percentage is French ? What makes it a "French commerical airframe" ?

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 26):
85% (Remember that number?)in the United States

That would rule out the 777 and 787 as well.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 26):

No wonder NG/EADS is getting nervous.

Are they ? they have completed one test airframe, and the other 3 are in production ...by the time the GAO work out a ruling, they would have the 4 A330-200 test airframes complete ready for conversion.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:04 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
That would rule out the 777 and 787 as well.

787 you're right, 777 I'm not so sure...

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Are they ? they have completed one test airframe, and the other 3 are in production ...by the time the GAO work out a ruling, they would have the 4 A330-200 test airframes complete ready for conversion.

Then you're not familiar with or ignoring the firestorm this issue has created here in the United States and yes they are very nervous. Before the announcement NG/EADS claimed 25,000 jobs would be created. After Boeing filed it's protest, that number almost doubles to 48,000.

Both sides are preparing to fight this in Congress. Boeing clearly has the advantage in that branch of government.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Are they ? they have completed one test airframe, and the other 3 are in production ...by the time the GAO work out a ruling, they would have the 4 A330-200 test airframes complete ready for conversion.

Under U.S. law, NG/EADS MUST stop all work on the program, while the GAO investigation procedure is in process.
Therefore, at the time of this writing, nothing is getting built.

[Edited 2008-03-21 09:11:40]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
TristarAtLCA
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:16 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 4:17 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
they have completed one test airframe, and the other 3 are in production

Zeke, just for clarification, are these frames the MRTT examples or the KC-30 test frames?
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:57 pm



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 28):
787 you're right, 777 I'm not so sure...

A KC-777 would have about the same US content as the KC-30

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 28):
Then you're not familiar with or ignoring the firestorm this issue has created here in the United States and yes they are very nervous. Before the announcement NG/EADS claimed 25,000 jobs would be created. After Boeing filed it's protest, that number almost doubles to 48,000.

A am familiar with the amount of money Boeing is throwing at this. NG/EAGS are not saying they are creating 48,000 jobs, they are looking at 14,147 direct jobs and 34,190 indirect jobs. The numbers are worked out from what the 230 KC-30 suppliers have told NG. I do not like either side using the indirect jobs numbers, I see no tangible way of measuring them.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 28):
Under U.S. law, NG/EADS MUST stop all work on the program, while the GAO investigation procedure is in process.
Therefore, at the time of this writing, nothing is getting built.

EADS can make a 4 frames (one has already flown), and have them sitting there awaiting conversion. I think this shows their willingness to be on time to meet the 2010 target date for their delivery.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 29):

Zeke, just for clarification, are these frames the MRTT examples or the KC-30 test frames?

KC-30
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:37 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):

The fact that a subsided of NG developed the fleet effectivness requirements (Factor #5, Bullet #1), may be enough to through this award out, and reaward it to Boeing.

I've always said factor 5 was the undoing. Regardless of which is better, it will be overturned. The crews driving the 135's get screwed some more, and no guarantees of a KC-67 contract with a GAO finding in Boeings favor.

Governments suck.
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13861
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:49 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 18):
The main one is Wedgetail, a modified commercial 737 platform for a military application, some details of what was behind it is in this article

I thank you for the link, that brings it all back.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:53 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
A am familiar with the amount of money Boeing is throwing at this. NG/EAGS are not saying they are creating 48,000 jobs, they are looking at 14,147 direct jobs and 34,190 indirect jobs. The numbers are worked out from what the 230 KC-30 suppliers have told NG. I do not like either side using the indirect jobs numbers, I see no tangible way of measuring them.

Can we at least try to show some balance, even though we're clarly on opposite ends of this discussion. There's plenty of money being thrown around by BOTH camps. There is a blacklash going on though, and it's clearly favoring Boeing, at least here in the States. The KC-30 zealots may not like it, but it is what it is.

I agree with you about indirect jobs though, but logic dictates that Boeing's figures are probably closer to reality.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
A KC-777 would have about the same US content as the KC-30

Then I've seen different content numbers then you have. I'll get back to you on that but I doubt it's anywhere near as low a percentage as the KC-30s domestic content.

[Edited 2008-03-21 19:54:35]
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13861
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:08 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
a suggestion as a target for testing the lightweight torpedo!

What a tale of procurement woes. We should have put it all out to that Gov of NY state, he seems to know how that should

I do not blame you for being upset about those costs and the delays. I know what you mean about Boeing in this case and about the new torpedo and what to use it on. I think you need more than one torpedo. Thanks for the information.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:18 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 34):

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
a suggestion as a target for testing the lightweight torpedo!

What a tale of procurement woes. We should have put it all out to that Gov of NY state, he seems to know how that should

I do not blame you for being upset about those costs and the delays. I know what you mean about Boeing in this case and about the new torpedo and what to use it on. I think you need more than one torpedo. Thanks for the information.

To judge from the success of our efforts to date, we might be lucky to get even one torp!! If I were Boeing, I would start to worry that the order for the Super Bugs might mean that the entire production line will suddenly collapse! I am not sure where they are made but if it is in St Louis, perhaps the Madrid earthquake will recur - it (that earthquake) became officially overdue as from 2000.
http://hsv.com/genlintr/newmadrd/

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 33):

I agree with you about indirect jobs though, but logic dictates that Boeing's figures are probably closer to reality.

Which logic would that be?  Smile  Smile Using the Aus list, you would not want to be very happy with delivery dates from Boeing, or indeed a few other suppliers.  Wow!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:25 am



Quoting Scbriml (Reply 23):
But neither of those are examples of where the AF selected product X through competition and congress said "No, you have to take product Y." Has that ever happened?

If the GAO says the competition was fair, aside from not funding KC-45, what can congress do? Can they actually force the AF to take KC-767s instead? What would the mechanism for this be and wouldn't NG have some recourse?

I cannot think of a case where Congress overruled and selected an opposing product, than that selected by any government agency. But, they clearly have the ability, and power (legally) to do that, if they choise. No court in the country can overrule the wishes of Congress, once it gets signed into law.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 26):
Quoting Dk1967 (Reply 24):
Yes, they can. The mechanism would be a line in the DoD's funding bill saying, "And you will buy KC-767's instead of that French thing." Or possibly a line that says, "Buy whatever you want, as long as it's not based on a French commerical airframe." Or even, "You can buy the French one, but because it's so much bigger and better and more efficient, you only get funding for 10 of them."


Or they can force NG to actually BUILD the aircraft, i.e license the A330 design and build 85% (Remember that number?)in the United States. That would basically kill off NG's arguments and raise the cost of the KC-30, as tooling, facilities and specialized workers would have to be factored in.

Since NG is not licensed to build that airplane, this will not happen.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
What percentage is French ? What makes it a "French commerical airframe" ?

Any percentage, real or preceived, above "zero", that Congress thinks it is.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 27):
Are they ? they have completed one test airframe, and the other 3 are in production ...by the time the GAO work out a ruling, they would have the 4 A330-200 test airframes complete ready for conversion.



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 28):
Under U.S. law, NG/EADS MUST stop all work on the program, while the GAO investigation procedure is in process.
Therefore, at the time of this writing, nothing is getting built.



Quoting Zeke (Reply 30):
EADS can make a 4 frames (one has already flown), and have them sitting there awaiting conversion. I think this shows their willingness to be on time to meet the 2010 target date for their delivery.

Since there are no contracts actually signed, by the US Government, at this time (since Boeing filed their protest within the 45 day waiting period from contract award date, to the signing date), anything EADS, NG, or Airbus builds, will be at their expense. Those airplanes could end up just sitting around for years (like the 2002 version of the B/KC-767 at PAE). EADS or NG cannot eventually charge the USAF for storage fees, either.

The 2010 date to fly the SDDs may be a meaningless date (and 2013 EIS) by the time this is all over.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:00 pm



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 33):
Then I've seen different content numbers then you have. I'll get back to you on that but I doubt it's anywhere near as low a percentage as the KC-30s domestic content.

Please do, I always understood Japan alone had 20% content on the 777 (center wing box, forward and aft fuselage), empennage from Europe and Australia, and higher foreign content on the available engines (inc the GE and P&W options)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
Since there are no contracts actually signed, by the US Government, at this time (since Boeing filed their protest within the 45 day waiting period from contract award date, to the signing date), anything EADS, NG, or Airbus builds, will be at their expense. Those airplanes could end up just sitting around for years (like the 2002 version of the B/KC-767 at PAE). EADS or NG cannot eventually charge the USAF for storage fees, either.

The 2010 date to fly the SDDs may be a meaningless date (and 2013 EIS) by the time this is all over.

Since they are standard A330-200 airframes, they can be sold very quickly, they are in VERY high demand. Airbus will not worry about parking the frames, I think they are more motivated to get the USAF the aircraft ASAP.

On the other side, I am not aware of the KC-767AT design to be complete, let alone any commencement on production, I fail to see how they could get them to the USAF in 2010 to commence testing.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:47 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
Since they are standard A330-200 airframes, they can be sold very quickly, they are in VERY high demand. Airbus will not worry about parking the frames, I think they are more motivated to get the USAF the aircraft ASAP.

Agreed.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 37):
On the other side, I am not aware of the KC-767AT design to be complete, let alone any commencement on production, I fail to see how they could get them to the USAF in 2010 to commence testing.

But they do have the one KC-767A (B-767-200ER?) that can be completed as SDD #1.

EADS will be a little ahead of Boeing, on the SDDs availabliity. But, remember, the clock on delivering the SDDs, and final versions of the tankers, has stopped. Right now, the 2010 and 2013 dates are valid, but that will change.

On the plus side, because it is an election year, it should not take more than 9-10 months to settle this, so the time shift will only be about 1 year. I don't see this dragging on for years, like the CSAR-X protest is doing.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:57 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 35):
Which logic would that be? Smile Smile Using the Aus list, you would not want to be very
happy with delivery dates from Boeing, or indeed a few other suppliers. Wow!

My logic! Delivery dates quoted by both companies are best case, and will slip for sure. The reality is that some slippage will occur.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
On the plus side, because it is an election year, it should not take more than 9-10 months to settle this, so the time shift will only be about 1 year. I don't see this dragging on for years, like the CSAR-X protest is doing.

If my predictions hold up, that is that the GAO will force a split contract, the politicians, especially McCain will pressure the DoD to put this mess to bed quickly.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:06 pm



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 39):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
On the plus side, because it is an election year, it should not take more than 9-10 months to settle this, so the time shift will only be about 1 year. I don't see this dragging on for years, like the CSAR-X protest is doing.

If my predictions hold up, that is that the GAO will force a split contract, the politicians, especially McCain will pressure the DoD to put this mess to bed quickly.

the political out avaiable to Congress, is reaward the KC-X contract to Boeing, and the CA+SAR-X contract to LM. I don't see Congress willing to split the contract, and increase the costs.

That will cut into their earmarks.
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:09 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 40):
the political out avaiable to Congress, is reaward the KC-X contract to Boeing, and the CA+SAR-X contract to LM. I don't see Congress willing to split the contract, and increase the costs.

I agree with you on the KC-X, but this thing has ironically shined the lights on both the CSAR-X and Presidential helicopter programs as well. I see Congress taking a long, hard look at both of those fiascoes too. The VH-71 when completed (If it gets completed) will have little resemblance to the original design and it's costs are becoming staggering.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sikorsky is the one that benefits the most from this controversy, much to the chagrin of our E-101 loving friend.  Wink
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11177
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:15 pm



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 41):
I agree with you on the KC-X, but this thing has ironically shined the lights on both the CSAR-X and Presidential helicopter programs as well. I see Congress taking a long, hard look at both of those fiascoes too. The VH-71 when completed (If it gets completed) will have little resemblance to the original design and it's costs are becoming staggering.
I wouldn't be surprised if Sikorsky is the one that benefits the most from this controversy, much to the chagrin of our E-101 loving friend.

 checkmark 
 
Ken777
Posts: 10037
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:38 pm



Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 33):
There is a blacklash going on though, and it's clearly favoring Boeing, at least here in the States.

There is no doubt that there will be a backlash, and the first one is political. Let's face it - a ham sandwich can become political, especially in an election year.

The major longer term problem that I see is the Air Force continually going for more money for other aircraft - especially fighters - with a lot of politicians father unhappy about their selection methods. The AF is going to face some rather tough questions in the future. Is the Boeing option cheaper per plane? Will it do the job in the original specs? Will the AF be satisfied with fewer fighters in order to get the NG/Airbus tanker?

The AF seems to believe that they can get unlimited funds and I see that situation changing a lot over the next few years because of the country's financial situation. Even if we left Iraq today the military is going to need huge investments to resupply and rebuild back to their pre-war status. Continual "spec creep" is going to be a painful lesson that a lot of generals and admirals will be learning and the tanker bid may well be the first lesson taught.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14924
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:26 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 38):
But they do have the one KC-767A (B-767-200ER?) that can be completed as SDD #1.

Wrong wing, wrong gear, wrong cockpit, no engines.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 39):
If my predictions hold up, that is that the GAO will force a split contract, the politicians, especially McCain will pressure the DoD to put this mess to bed quickly.

Can the GAO "force" anything ?

"Technically, the GAO's recommendations on protests are advisory only to the federal agency. But it is rare for the agency to disregard the recommendations."

from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/356033_gaotanker22.html
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:04 pm

Can anyone here provide a link which shows the production content for all of Boeing's aircraft line (737-747)?

Thanks..
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:39 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
I cannot think of a case where Congress overruled and selected an opposing product, than that selected by any government agency. But, they clearly have the ability, and power (legally) to do that, if they choise. No court in the country can overrule the wishes of Congress, once it gets signed into law.

Never has until now. I think it may happen. The economy is going to tank. Were in the 2nd inning, not the 8th IMO.

Anyone think Boeing is making things look a "little" worse for the 787 program for the "sympathy" factor? I would not put it past McNerney. He is a Jack Welsh diciple, and we all know the type of hardball GE played during his tenure.

I need more sleep. Too many conspiricy thoughts in my head.

[Edited 2008-03-22 12:41:28]
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13861
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:17 am

I think this is the man who has the power, with his committee, if they choose to use that power.


http://www.murtha.house.gov/index.ph..._content&task=view&id=412&Itemid=1


Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
Can the GAO "force" anything ?

It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13861
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:36 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 47):

Click on (Newsroom) and then (In the news) for other statements from Rep. Murtha
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
andhen
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:32 pm

RE: Boeing Co Tanker Blog

Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:50 am

Hi, interesting discussion!

I will just remind USAF336TFS that Eurocopter (EADS) delivered the UH-72 not on time, but earlier..! I think EADS will be even more motivated to deliver this project on time, or even better, earlier..

I have tried to hint at this point earlier in a similar thread, but you guys didnt pick it up, so I will have another go..: Here goes.. I think the UH-72 sucsess has been a dooropener for EADS in this procurement, they delivered on time and made a lot of new american jobs, and they showed that a large military contract doesnt necicarilly involve large cost overruns and time overruns (which seems to bee the rule rather than the exeption nowdays in the US..)

Thanks a lot for the higly informative discussion here, I am new to this game, but very interested in learning more, and I find most of your posts very informative, and that goes to both sides of intersts here (a/b). Thank you for keeping it sivilised, I see stong opinions on both sides, but luckely no bashing or flaming or personal attacks. Thank you.

andhen
a332/3, 773-ER

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ThePointblank and 4 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