|Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 173):|
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
How is it a better value.
I said IF it burns more fuel but can offload enough to compensate, THEN it is a better value.
Which, IMO, is unarguable. Per your analysis, I note that that is not the case. I question, however, how one can know what prices were presented to the USAF. List prices don't count.
Those figures are USAF
numbers based on an assumed mission of each type of tanker taking off at MTOW, flying 1,000nm, offloading the maximum amount of fuel (different for each tanker), and flying up to 1,500nm back to home base.
This was the mission sighted in the original USAF
award to EADS/NG last 29 Feb. In this case, the GAO concluded the KC
-767AT was more cost effective than the KC
-30A, but not as good as the current KC
-135R. Additionally, the USAF
added a cargo hauling factor to skew the numbers in favor of the KC
-30A. One this mission, no secondary mission was identified, so cargo factors should not have been considered.
|Quoting Scbriml (Reply 174):|
Young said at the press conference that both bidders were free to completely change their bids.
Are you saying Boeing could make four separate bids based on each type, or offer a combination of all four types in a single bid? If the second option, I really can't see that working. Young said the AF only wanted a single type (he said this when ruling out the option of a split buy).
No, I was suggesting Boeing COULD submit as many as four individual bids, each competing against each other and the EADS/NG bid. Sorry if I caused confusion and made a suggestion of a mixed bid from Boeing. I am not suggesting anyone, Boeing or EADS/NG submit a mixed bit. OTOH, EADS/NG could also submit bids on the KC
-30, A-330-200F, and a new A-340-500F, if they wanted to.
|Quoting Scbriml (Reply 174):|
[I assume you mean a tanker based on the 777F? There's no such thing as a -300LRF.]
Oops, typo, me bad. It should have read the B-777-200LRF.
|Quoting Keesje (Reply 175):|
Northwest says the A330-300 uses 30% less fuel then the DC10-30 it replaces..
A330 More Efficient, Quieter Aircraft than DC10
The A330 provides Northwest with up to 30 percent in fuel savings, lower maintenance costs, and is a much quieter aircraft, than the DC10-30 it replaces. As an example, on the Minneapolis/St. Paul Amsterdam route, the A330 will carry 25 more passengers, yet consume 6,100 fewer gallons (23,090 liters) of fuel each way, than the DC10.
doesn't compare airplanes based on seat miles per pound of fuel burned. My point is the KC
-10 delivery costs for each gallon of transferred fuel is lower than that of the KC
-30, based on a combination of fuel burnmed by the tanker, and fuel offloaded, and RTB to launch base. That is how the USAF
figuers the total cost of each tanker types of hourly operating costs (which includes crew, maintenance, fuel burned, fuel offloaded, and fair wear and tear) I do know the current total cost per hour of KC
-135R flying, based on all these, is $11,500 per flying hour. It is much higher for each of the other 3 tankers.
|Quoting MD-90 (Reply 176):|
Quoting NorCal (Reply 74):
The only reason Airbus is interested in the area is the relative cheapness of the labor. Once that disappears, so will Airbus.
And how many centuries will it be, if ever, that labor in Alabama becomes more expensive than labor in Germany or France?
Once US labor unions get into this, the French and German labor costs will look like a bargan. This will happen within 3 years of the start of production in MOB
|Quoting Stitch (Reply 177):|
I would imagine it would be based on a newly-launched 767-400ERF.
Perhaps, but Boeing already has the B-767-300ERF in production, and it would be quicker to do the tanker engineering on this model, than a new B-767-400ERF or B-767-200LRF.
|Quoting EPA001 (Reply 180):|
I do not agree with you on this one RedFlyer. KC135TopBoom specifically writes about fuel consumption per hour. Everybody in the aviation world knows that any A330 is far more economical to fly then any DC-10.
Almost right, I am talking about the total cost, of which fuel burn is only one factor. Perhaps I could have written it better than below? Other factors are crew costs (3-4 man crew), total offload, maintenance/parts, etc.
|Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):|
Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 67):
If it burns more fuel but can offload enough to compensate, then it is a better value.
No, it is not. At the current price of JP-8, it costs some $40.50 for each gallon of fuel delivered by the KC-135R, $53.00 from a KC-10A. The B-767 burns less fuel per hour than a KC-10 does, but more per hour than the KC-135 does. The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.