Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:16 am

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 55):
When we talk about the Job cuts at Boeing during that period etc, let us not forget that it was Boeing's senior management who put the company in that position, they had it coming.

So Boeing's management orchestrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent collapse of world air travel for a period of years?

Damn, I'd better renew my subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly as I'm out of touch!  
 
Ken777
Posts: 10152
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:16 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 26):
Not as good of an aircraft as the KC46, but definitely cheaper.

And it would have been flying now in some numbers.

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 27):
Deal with constant attention and changes and hand holding US military deals require

I think that the USAF might be a bit surprised on this side. They have a fixed cost for a fixed product. CHanges will be costing more money so I believe that there will be caution NOT to move very far from where they are now.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 28):
don't you Americans care ?

I care that the problems with the second round were not investigated as thoroughly as the problems with DoD & a few Boeing staff were.

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

And we will probably still be flying the B-52 as well as some "newer" KC-135s.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 34):
So, the ones writing the requirements could clearly make them align with one or the other airframe, based on political influence.

Which is probably why EADS thought they were going to win. EADS is not without political friends - though none as powerful as McCain.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
The original lease deal,

That deal, IIRC, was really an effort to minimize job losses in the US commercial pane business at a time when the airline industry was reeling form 9/11. It was set up as a lease to avoid big, on budget, cash outlays
 
Danny
Posts: 3753
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:35 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
It's EADS fault

It'a EADS fault that politicians were always going to give this to Bowing no matter what?

I'm just surprised that EADS wasted so much time and resources thinking they could ever get this contract.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:38 am

Congratulations to Boeing!

A sharp price was the trick!
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
chuchoteur
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:17 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:58 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
So Boeing's management orchestrated the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent collapse of world air travel for a period of years?

Damn, I'd better renew my subscription to Conspiracy Quarterly as I'm out of touch!

LoL  

No, Boeing's management placed the company in a situation where it had difficulties handling a downturn (regardless of the origin of that downturn).

We all know the aviation industry is fragile and unpredictable these days (c.f. SARS, the price of oil going back up to $100/barrel etc), and the Boeing management in the late 90's/early 2000's did the company no favours. As a matter of fact, most were kicked out...

I do believe that today's management is a bit more aware/astute than the previous lot.
 
GDB
Posts: 14118
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:59 am

NAV20, you might want to ask the Italian AF about tanker delays, based on a more straightforward 767-200 as well.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:07 am

So congrats to Boeing.

no need for EADS to protest unless there would be some evidence that Boeing had a very very secret last call to manage the price more then 1 % below the EADS price. In this case a protest should be submitted.

However I do not expect anything went wrong here and it was rather EADS who failed to calculate the price.

Winner anyhow is the US Tax payer who also get the Boeing plane now for a cheaper price.
Boeing will have less profit on this contract probably then it usually has on other more exclusive military contracts.

regards

Flyglobal
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:26 am

Quoting Danny (Reply 58):
It'a EADS fault that politicians were always going to give this to Bowing no matter what?

Well you can't truly say "no matter what" since they did win the RFP when the USAF helped cook the numbers (via the "extra credits").  
Quoting GDB (Reply 61):
NAV20, you might want to ask the Italian AF about tanker delays, based on a more straightforward 767-200 as well.

True, but the Aeronautica Militare has taken formal delivery of their first frame.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:31 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 63):
Well you can't truly say "no matter what" since they did win the RFP when the USAF helped cook the numbers (via the "extra credits").

It's been amazing reading this thread and the comments that seem to ignore that fact. It's like when I hire an employee and it doesn't work out. "You never liked me, you've wanted me gone..." etc. Uh, hello? I friggin' HIRED you.

Sometimes logic gets so twisted.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
LH526
Posts: 1990
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2000 2:23 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:42 am

From what I've heard from pilots and engineers, Boeing aircraft tend to be more rugged designed, with wider tolerances and "easier" to maintain .. could that have been a valid argument pro-Boeing in the background of military deployment?
Trittst im Morgenrot daher, seh ich dich im Strahlenmeer ...
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:44 am

Congratulations to the Air Force that there is a chance they really get these planes now. Congratulations to Boeing for getting this order. Congratulations for EADS for getting so far and their product so visible - and to be able to sell MANY A330 frames still with larger profits to airlines. Congratulations to the workers in Washington that their jobs are safe. Congratulations to the workers in Toulouse who will not be replaced by cheaper workers in the Southern US to assemble civil A330s.

My regrets go with the Southern US and the people in Alabama, who again lost a chance to catch up with the victorous North, and to EADS shareholders.
 
bj87
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:26 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:51 am

This outcome definitely isn't a shocker.

Quoting wolbo (Reply 5):

Any other outcome would have been politically unacceptable so this decision was not a surprise.

I agree, especially considering the economic recession and the need for Boeing to get some cash flow to be able to build an A320 NEO competitor.

Personally I was surprised that Airbus even participated in the second bid after the requirements for the plane had been changed in Boeing's favour. Guess EADS and Airbus will know better next time and not invest a huge amount of money in a political race that they are bound to lose.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 7):

It could also be that the 767 met all the requirements at a lower price, couldn't it?

For the tax payers sake I would hope so. But if the 767 was cheaper why didn't they choose it the first time around? Or was the price to high then?
 
GDB
Posts: 14118
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:57 am

Sitch, yes the Italian AF have now got their first KC-767, just that it's 5 years late;

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-first-delayed-kc-767a-tanker.html
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10666
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:35 am

Quoting aerobalance (Reply 38):
Explain that please.

The US Airforce is made up of individuals who volunteer to serve their country in the military, it is not some private company who you just throw of the deep end if they make "questionable" decisions. A lot of American in these threads have always touted getting what is best for the warfighter as these indviduals are willing to pay the ultimate price and are thus deserving of the country's best effort. When individuals who wear the uniform "butcher" a project this way, if as a nation it can juts be shrugged off then fine, more power to ya.

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 55):
I disagree. Competition is essential for the USAF and DoD to get the right product for their needs, based on their requirements and not what the manufacturer wants to palm over.

Well Europeans have shown that competition is not necessary so...........

But to take your point further, how can you have a competition for off the shelf products between the OEM's, that competition would be about politics and not the products themselves since they are known, already in use and can be verified.
If this was for a new design then yes, competition would help, but as the Europeans have shown, it is not necessary.
 
na
Posts: 9830
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:13 pm

So the US Forces ordered a facelifted Ford Model T 
Hardly a surprise, patriotism before modernism is the parole.

When the US ordered the predecessor, the KC-135, it was an advanced aircraft ahead of civilian aviation. Today, with this decision, they opted for the exact opposite. A type soon becoming obsolete in civil aviation with largely 1980s technology will fly for the USAF until the, what? - 2040s at least. How will a dinosaur from the last millennium be looked at then?
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:01 pm

Quoting GDB (Reply 61):
NAV20, you might want to ask the Italian AF about tanker delays, based on a more straightforward 767-200 as well.
Quoting GDB (Reply 68):
Sitch, yes the Italian AF have now got their first KC-767, just that it's 5 years late;

Point is, to me, GDB, that the 767-based tanker is out of the woods now. The A330 equivalent is still 'feeling its way.' Don't forget, from the description of that recent boom failure, people could well have lost their lives in that incident.

Quoting na (Reply 70):
A type soon becoming obsolete in civil aviation with largely 1980s technology will fly for the USAF until the, what? - 2040s at least. How will a dinosaur from the last millennium be looked at then?

I thought that both the 767 and the A330 date from quite far back in 'the last millennium'?   Besides, in my time in the army, they issued me with a rifle that was basically an 1888 ('Lee-Metford') design; it was still a good gun, if 'push had come to shove' I'd have been a lot happier behind it than in front of it.......  

Do military refuelling tankers actually NEED to be up-to-the-minute high-tech designs? I've no idea - but I can't see any obvious reason why they would need 'cutting-edge' technology? Even if the (1983) A330 basic design could provide any such thing?  
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:06 pm

Quoting bj87 (Reply 67):
Personally I was surprised that Airbus even participated in the second bid after the requirements for the plane had been changed in Boeing's favour. Guess EADS and Airbus will know better next time and not invest a huge amount of money in a political race that they are bound to lose.

Exactly. Bad luck for the American taxpayer. It has been shown that, if in doubt, the hometeam will always win.
The same happens over here with EADS as well, both Boeing and EADS are more or less monopolists in their respective zone of influence now. They got their licence for printing money.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:24 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 27):
Yep. But what they are all failing to realize is; it's quite possibly a good thing for EADS that they lost this bid. Boeing now has to deal with another distraction (this contract) with margins that have been squeezed due to the 3x bidding process. EADS meaning does not have to:

The economic side is monumental. A French citizen, and AF employee asked me Tuesday why the US would ever consider the A330. The logic was completely fair.
First, DC and Obama is pushing buy Ameican, an AB win would have been a military slap in the Presidents face.

Second, and very interesting. I was told by two different AF pilots that they as a Pilot group prefer flying Boeing to programming an Airbus. So take ths a step further. The AF uses pilots who are an elite group, when asked what they would prefer the answer had to be overwhelming. Pilots would rather fly than program. When pilots compare the two acft how do you ignore what the operators want and would be operating.

I am looking for a pilot who will tell me they prefer to fly the Bus, I cannot find one. If you are talking military cockpits isn't this damning for AB?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:36 pm

Congratulations to Boeing. What a great tanker plane she will be.

EADS had a good plane too. Condolences to EADS.

This time it should be done.
You are here.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:36 pm

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 72):
Quoting bj87 (Reply 67):
Personally I was surprised that Airbus even participated in the second bid after the requirements for the plane had been changed in Boeing's favour. Guess EADS and Airbus will know better next time and not invest a huge amount of money in a political race that they are bound to lose.

Exactly. Bad luck for the American taxpayer



I agree in general with this, but bad luck?

Due to the competition the USAF is getting much more then ever anticipated and at lower prices. So the fact that there was a better competitor, it forced the prices to go down. The American tax payer and the man and women who depend on these tankers will be the winners here. The total package could (should?) have even better of the superior plane was selected, but overall this 2011 deal is good for the tax payer and for everybody at the USAF.

And since I want to see this mess getting over a.s.a.p. let's all stand by this decision, even if I for the obvious reasons of supporting the better plane would have made a different choice.  .
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:41 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 73):
I am looking for a pilot who will tell me they prefer to fly the Bus, I


Read in the Tech/Ops department. More and more pilots nowadays (>50%) prefer the extra qualities the Airbus cockpit offers them. The most old school pilots (many of them in the AF) still like the Boeing cockpit better, mostly because they have never flown an Airbus as a pilot.  .
 
User avatar
PITingres
Posts: 1348
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:59 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:47 pm

Quoting na (Reply 70):
When the US ordered the predecessor, the KC-135, it was an advanced aircraft ahead of civilian aviation. Today, with this decision, they opted for the exact opposite. A type soon becoming obsolete in civil aviation with largely 1980s technology will fly for the USAF until the, what? - 2040s at least. How will a dinosaur from the last millennium be looked at then?

If if flies well and performs its job?

Gratefully.

The USAF was supposed to pick the best tanker for the job. Presumably that job is refuelling. Being "more advanced" has nothing to do with it, particularly when the state of the art has advanced way past good-enough in the last couple decades. Calling the 767 a dinosaur is silly hyperbole.

This time around, the USAF decided it didn't need extra size or capabilities, and didn't want to pay for them. Simple as that.
Fly, you fools! Fly!
 
travelavnut
Posts: 1327
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 1:35 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:04 pm

Congratulations to Boeing on this massive order!!

Quoting billreid (Reply 73):
Pilots would rather fly than program.

The amount of "programming" between Boeing's philosophy and that of Airbus is probarbly the same. A very common misconception that in the Bus you only push buttons..

Quoting billreid (Reply 73):
I am looking for a pilot who will tell me they prefer to fly the Bus, I cannot find one. If you are talking military cockpits isn't this damning for AB?

Suggest you talk too PGNS or Phirefo, both guys flew almost everything out there a prefer the 'Bus.
Live From Amsterdam!
 
vfw614
Posts: 3965
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:07 pm

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 55):
Competition is essential for the USAF and DoD to get the right product for their needs, based on their requirements and not what the manufacturer wants to palm over. Whether that competition is subsequently well managed or not is an entirely different affair

I certainly believe that had there not been a competition, the USAF would have got a lower quality product, at a higher cost.

That was probably the last time the US tax payer was that lucky. Wouldn't be surprised if EADS now puts the USAF in the same category as Ryanair and cannot be bothered to waste time and money on submitting bids in upcoming tenders. So Boeing will be able to charge monopolistic prices. Good for them, bad for the taxpayer.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:19 pm

Quoting billreid (Reply 73):
Second, and very interesting. I was told by two different AF pilots that they as a Pilot group prefer flying Boeing to programming an Airbus.

VERY interesting point, billreid. However, by 'AF' did you mean 'Air France' or 'Air Force'? I assume 'Air Force.'

Also struck by your reference to 'flying versus programming.'

I begin to reflect on the fact that refuelling pilots face very different problems to any others. They HAVE to bust a gut to keep their aeroplane flying 'dead straight and level' as much as anyone can while a bloke flying a high-performance jet fighter lines up (literally within inches) with the refuelling cone.

I guess we ALL, as enthusiasts, know that Boeing 'systems' traditionally give the pilot the final say; whereas Airbus systems are designed to 'override' the pilot on occasion. That's the basic difference between the two types, in piloting terms.

These sorts of aeroplanes are way outside my own ('90-knots is fast') experience. But I can see how it MIGHT be a serious issue for tanker pilots.

AND their customers...........
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11207
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:20 pm

Quoting na (Reply 70):
So the US Forces ordered a facelifted Ford Model T
Hardly a surprise, patriotism before modernism is the parole.

You do know the DOD still buys new build Browning .50 caliber HMG M-2 and M-3 versions. That design dates back to 1919, Itself an up-caiber version of the M-1917 .30 claiber BMG.

The DOD also is still buying the C-40A, which is a B-737-700C, but the design dates back to the B-737-100 (launched by LH) in 1965.

There is only a 9 year seperation between the original B-767 design and the original A-330/A-340 design.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11207
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:27 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 80):
Quoting billreid (Reply 73):
Second, and very interesting. I was told by two different AF pilots that they as a Pilot group prefer flying Boeing to programming an Airbus.

VERY interesting point, billreid. However, by 'AF' did you mean 'Air France' or 'Air Force'? I assume 'Air Force.'

Also struck by your reference to 'flying versus programming.'

I begin to reflect on the fact that refuelling pilots face very different problems to any others. They HAVE to bust a gut to keep their aeroplane flying 'dead straight and level' as much as anyone can while a bloke flying a high-performance jet fighter lines up (literally within inches) with the refuelling cone.

Actually, during refueling the tanker is not limited by manuvers like turns, climbs, and decents. The tanker does not have to fly straight and level.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:40 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 82):
Actually, during refueling the tanker is not limited by manuvers like turns, climbs, and decents. The tanker does not have to fly straight and level.

Interesting, KC135TopBoom. Not my field, obviously - but is it all done by 'electronic guidance' nowadays?
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3820
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:03 pm

Quoting lh526 (Reply 65):
more rugged designed, with wider tolerances

Wider tolerances makes for a less efficient structure. The tighter the tolerance, allow for easier assembly with fewer mis-matches and better lifetime performance. Toyota is a master of this.

Either way, I don't think it would impact the design decision.

Quoting na (Reply 70):
When the US ordered the predecessor, the KC-135, it was an advanced aircraft ahead of civilian aviation. Today, with this decision, they opted for the exact opposite. A type soon becoming obsolete in civil aviation with largely 1980s technology will fly for the USAF until the, what? - 2040s at least. How will a dinosaur from the last millennium be looked at then?

LOL. From your logic, if the US Air Force will be flying 767 Dinosaurs, then the US Navy will be flying 737 crustaceans (P-8A). Ah, but you may have heard, it is the scientific consensus that birds of today are decedents from dinosaurs. And who would argue that the KC-46 is not a bird  

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:24 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 84):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81):
There is only a 9 year seperation between the original B-767 design and the original A-330/A-340 design

That's a fact that seems to be "overlooked".


The 9 year is misleading here. The B767 was the last of the old school wide-bodies where the A330 is representing the second generation of civilian FBW wide-body aircraft. The fact that the B767 is hardly selling for quite a number of years now in the competitive market, where as the A330 is and will sell in that same market for many years (and in quite large numbers) to come, says enough about the fact that this 9-year gap is actually much more when it comes to aircraft performance and capabilities, and how modern the product is.

Obviously Airbus has kept the A330 much more up to date then Boeing did the with B767, which was also easier for Airbus to do since the base-line platform was and is so much more advanced to begin with.  .

[Edited 2011-02-25 07:25:50]
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:32 pm

Lets not forget that the south is getting a Boeing plant in Charleston and the USAF has been invited by Congress to testify on their selection by committees run by southern Republicans, don't be surprised if Boeing does set up shop in Mobile in a right to work state for some assembly of military contracts. 117 planes requires alot of labor, space, and logistics. I believe NG will still win as being a subcontractor to Boeing for the mission suite. This is a huge order so common sense dictates alot of work is going to have to be spread out. Once the 787 is flying on revenue flights and it is performing to what BA claims they will not be able to build them fast enough which would take away from the KC-46. Witchita might turn into a assy factory instead of a mod center and a alot of southern suppliers will be tasked for this program.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:43 pm

Quoting bj87 (Reply 67):
For the tax payers sake I would hope so. But if the 767 was cheaper why didn't they choose it the first time around? Or was the price to high then?

The 767 proposed in this competition was considerably different from the plane proposed in the last competition, and was indeed cheaper.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25798
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:45 pm

Above I wondered why EADS even bothered to stay in the contest. After reading a few things, it's clear that if nothing else, EADS has learned a lot about how the USAF evaluates tankers, and that will helpful should they bid on KC-Y.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
which is why the GAO invalidated it and forced the USAF to draft an RFP that was fair and open

To be fair, GAO did not do that, in fact, GAO just pointed out the areas of the proposal that USAF had to re-evaluate correctly. It was the USAF who ultimately decided to start all over again.

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

WRONG!

That was the tanker offered in the 2008 competition.

As for the current offering:

Quote:

Boeing revised its approach after losing the first competition, dropping plans to develop an aircraft combining elements of several different 767 models and basing its �NewGen� tanker bid on a 767-200 equipped with an upgraded KC-10 refueling boom and 787 cockpit displays. The company said its price would be lower the second time around.

Ref: KC-X" target="_blank">http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...staged%20U.S.%20Air%20Force%20KC-X

Quoting na (Reply 70):
So the US Forces ordered a facelifted Ford Model T
Hardly a surprise, patriotism before modernism is the parole.

Exaggerate much, dear na?

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 72):
Exactly. Bad luck for the American taxpayer. It has been shown that, if in doubt, the hometeam will always win.
The same happens over here with EADS as well, both Boeing and EADS are more or less monopolists in their respective zone of influence now. They got their licence for printing money.

Much more balanced if not depressing perspective.

Some stuff from around the web:

Quote:

Boeing has made a major improvement in its production costs with the shift in January from its 30 year old line to a new, lean manufacturing line for the 767. This shaves about 20% from production costs (but add back in cost increases in materials and labor), a significant number Boeing factored into its bid cost and price.

It also made more room available to the 787 program.

Ref: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/recapping-the-kc-x-contest/

Quote:

A change in how the Air Force assessed the rival planes' fuel-consumption costs may have been critical, said Dicks. Muilenburg agreed that was "a key criterion."

The EADS tanker, based on an Airbus A330 airliner, is much bigger and burns about 24 percent more fuel than the 767. The initial Air Force proposal would have assessed the total fuel-burn costs of the two planes over 25 years, but Dicks successfully pushed for that to be changed to 40 years.

"The difference was billions of dollars," Dicks said.

Seems Mr Dicks is quite pleased with himself.

Quote:

Based on expectations that Airbus could price its plane lower than Boeing, and on leaks suggesting the EADS A330 had outscored the Boeing 767 on a key mission evaluation that was part of the Air Force assessment, analysts had recently been predicting an EADS win.

This may disappoint some members to learn that indeed most analysts thought EADS was going to win this one.

Ref: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...aerospace/2014320058_tanker25.html

As above, I'd love to see a KC-Y being built by EADS in Mobile. Don't know if the order will be large enough for EADS to justify building an all new plant, but the US content rules pretty much mean they'd have to.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2138
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:56 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 86):

I'm not saying you're wrong. The comparison being made here by most is that Boeing is proposing the Wright Flyer whereas EADS is proposing the greatest technology you can by. These are the same folks that miss the fact that the A320 design is coming up on the 30 year mark, which seems to be "overlooked".

No matter what the platform, I just hate the fact that people look at the shell but don't consider what they don't see to be the deciding factor. Just like the 737NG and A320 line for that matter.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14120
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:04 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 35):
As already mentioned, McCain did more harm to Boeing, the US Aerospace industry and the US tax payors by his decision, since he coudl not control the ball rolling downhill, he started something that he could not control.

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

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

Hmmmm, which one is it.

If there were corrupt people in the USAF, I don't see how it's McCain fault, and exposing them should be a good thing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 37):
The original lease deal, which members flying European flags have been lambasting for going on eight years now, was in fact written so as to deny EADS a shot at bidding. So if it's okay for EADS to deny Pratt a shot to bid on the A400M propulsion project, it's mighty hypocritical to than call the USAF and Boeing to task for the original lease deal denying EADS a shot to bid.

Well, back when Boeing won that deal, we didn't care at all, was EADS even asking for a shot ? There is no hypocrisy, we favor our team, you favor your team. The problem is when the other team is invited only to make the home team look better. Like if Pratt was invited on the A400M, offered a better engine, and then RR was selected.

I might add that for the EU it makes quite a lot more sense to favor our teams, as we buy FAR FAR less military stuff than the US, so if we don't buy our own stuff, our military industry would not survive. The US on the other hand likes to buy hardware by the countless numbers and variants (I mean, 200 KC-46 + 60 KC-10 ? That must be more tankers that all other countries on the globe combined !), so if one here or there is not home made, it doesn't affect their industry much. And of course, those numbers (and other political considerations) also help the US to export their stuff even when it's not the best.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 80):
I begin to reflect on the fact that refuelling pilots face very different problems to any others. They HAVE to bust a gut to keep their aeroplane flying 'dead straight and level' as much as anyone can while a bloke flying a high-performance jet fighter lines up (literally within inches) with the refuelling cone.

Well, the A330 offers (as an option) automatic gust alleviation technology. Does the 767 have this ? Aside from that, you can fly an Airbus as you wish, it will only stop you when you're on the verge of breaking something. And my guess is the control laws of the KC-45 would have been significantly altered compared to the A330 ones.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:09 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 86):
The 9 year is misleading here.


No, what's misleading here is your entire premise that the B767-200 and the A330-200 are analogs and should be analysed and compared to each other as apple to apple. The truth is that these aircraft are A) very different sized, and B)the attributes that make an aircraft successful as a airliner are not necessarily advantageous in a tanker application.

The A330-200 is approximately 45% larger than the B767-200 by Weight/PAX/Cargo. That makes it a much more efficient airliner, but it also makes it much too large as a replacement for the KC-135. The A330-200 is more than twice the size of the KC-135. Many people have suggested the size difference was a serious liability for EADS from the very start. I think that's correct.

The A330 based MRTT may end up being a fine tanker once they get the bugs worked out, but it is way, way too big as a KC-135 replacement; square peg, round hole.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
VS11
Posts: 1714
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:10 pm

Maybe someone can enlighten me but from a purely conceptual point, in view of the mission profile for the tanker planes, why wouldn't you want to get the plane that can carry most fuel in a single take-off? Between the two comparable planes, A332 seems to be the one to fit that (most critical in my opinion) requirement.

Based on the aircraft data portion of this site, and calculating the difference between maximum take-off weight and empty weight, the A332 wins over the B762-ER by close to 24,000lbs.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:27 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 91):
I'm not saying you're wrong.


I don't think you are wrong either.  .

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 91):
The comparison being made here by most is that Boeing is proposing the Wright Flyer whereas EADS is proposing the greatest technology you can by.


In all sentiments which are attached to this whole, rather ugly tanker dossier, people will always exaggerate or even lie to make their point. The B767 based tanker will no doubt be a very fine product, and will be upgraded where possible to meet the tasks the USAF requires it to do. Personally I still believe the A330-MRTT is a more capable platform to create a tanker aircraft, but that is just my personal opinion.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 91):
, I just hate the fact that people look at the shell but don't consider what they don't see to be the deciding factor.


Like I said, in sentiment and emotions the details, which make or break the object of discussion, are the first casualties.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 93):
No, what's misleading here is your entire premise that the B767-200 and the A330-200 are analogs and should be analysed and compared to each other as apple to apple


I am not saying they should be analysed in such a way. And for that matter, that has already been done by the market and the market has clearly spoken in favor of the A330-platform. That does not imply that the B767 is a bad platform, far from it and I love to fly on one, especially with that comfortable 2-3-2 seating configuration. But if you want the best, and at one time also the USAF considered it to be the best (and I guess they still do), a tanker based on the A330-MRTT platform would have made a better and for sure more modern performer.  .
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3820
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:31 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 90):

As above, I'd love to see a KC-Y being built by EADS in Mobile. Don't know if the order will be large enough for EADS to justify building an all new plant, but the US content rules pretty much mean they'd have to.

For the KC-Y competition, the 777 will eat the A330 for lunch. Let that debate begin.  
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 87):
don't be surprised if Boeing does set up shop in Mobile in a right to work state for some assembly of military contracts.

Boeing already have a shop (both engineering and production) in Huntsville, which can ramp up quickly to support any tanker work.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 89):
The 767 proposed in this competition was considerably different from the plane proposed in the last competition, and was indeed cheaper.

And some of the cost came down because Boeing will now do much of the work in-line, and less work as modifications. Similar to the way the P-8A is structured.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:56 pm

Quoting VS11 (Reply 94):
Maybe someone can enlighten me but from a purely conceptual point, in view of the mission profile for the tanker planes, why wouldn't you want to get the plane that can carry most fuel in a single take-off? Between the two comparable planes, A332 seems to be the one to fit that (most critical in my opinion) requirement.

I tend to agree with you. But, in airlines, you prefer a 762 in cases when it performs 100% of your mission goal at lower cost (and with a smaller cheaper aircraft). That is why the 762 is still flown today. You don't always use a 747-400 for everything. If all your payload fits in the 762, you are good to go. This may be true for 98% of USAF missions, I don't know. In the rare case then the 762 is too small, you fly two of them.

But, I can imagine having the 332 increases your strategic options. It allows a wider set of possible deployment options. That is what we both heard, anyway.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1289
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:11 pm

Quoting VS11 (Reply 94):
Maybe someone can enlighten me but from a purely conceptual point, in view of the mission profile for the tanker planes, why wouldn't you want to get the plane that can carry most fuel in a single take-off? Between the two comparable planes, A332 seems to be the one to fit that (most critical in my opinion) requirement.

Based on the aircraft data portion of this site, and calculating the difference between maximum take-off weight and empty weight, the A332 wins over the B762-ER by close to 24,000lbs.

A tanker can only refuel one plane at a time (in USAF boom configuration), so even if it is more efficient in terms of fuel burn per gallon offloaded, one big tanker may actually be less effective than two smaller tankers if it results in unacceptable queue times. A delicate balance has to be struck between offload per plane, number of planes, and total cost. Otherwise we could just skip to KC-380s or KC-747-8s and be done with it.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 95):
But if you want the best, and at one time also the USAF considered it to be the best (and I guess they still do), a tanker based on the A330-MRTT platform would have made a better and for sure more modern performer.

Define "best." For smaller countries with more limited resources, the A330MRTT is probably a better choice; it can perform a wide number of roles with high overall performance. It's a great jack-of-all-trades for many customers. But the RAF and RAAF simply have vastly different operational requirements and resource constraints than the USAF, which is why we have not only KC-135s but also KC-10s and KC-130s and "KF-18s." It makes no sense to argue that because these two customers selected the A330MRTT, the KC-767 is self-evidently inferior and an unworthy choice for any potential operator.

In this case, the USAF made it clear it wanted a straight replacement for the KC-135 and did not want to pay more for additional capability. You may disagree with their criteria, but the award is not surprising given what the USAF asked for. As a taxpayer, I for one am glad - the A330 may have prettier looks and neat sidesticks and fly-by-wire control surfaces and pairs of LD3s living side-by-side in bliss in the cargo hold, but I don't want to pay for it if the 767 can do the job just fine, which at the end of the day, no one seems to dispute. The only surprising element, apparently, is how aggressive Boeing decided to be on the cost front.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
chuchoteur
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:17 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:14 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 96):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 90):

As above, I'd love to see a KC-Y being built by EADS in Mobile. Don't know if the order will be large enough for EADS to justify building an all new plant, but the US content rules pretty much mean they'd have to.

For the KC-Y competition, the 777 will eat the A330 for lunch. Let that debate begin.

Replacing the KC10, given that aircraft's fuel and payload capability, there isn't really anything in the Airbus lineup that would match... aside from the A350-1000 in a few years  
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:18 pm

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

In the short term, EADS might be better off and at an advantage with Boeing now being burdened and distracted with yet another product to develop; however, in the long term this is a huge loss as it was hoped a win here would open the door wide for their defense business.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 86):
The fact that the B767 is hardly selling for quite a number of years now in the competitive market, where as the A330 is and will sell in that same market for many years (and in quite large numbers) to come, says enough about the fact that this 9-year gap is actually much more when it comes to aircraft performance and capabilities, and how modern the product is.

The A330 is outselling the B767 in the commercial market because of its capabilities in the commercial market, which essentially come down to size and not its FBW technology or the fact that it's a mere 9 years newer design. And, as has been pointed out ad nauseam in many, many, many threads, military operations are quite different than commercial operations. I could be wrong, but I'm not aware of a single commercial airline that runs aerial refueling operations anywhere in the world.  
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
Stitch
Posts: 27521
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:18 pm

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 79):
That was probably the last time the US tax payer was that lucky. Wouldn't be surprised if EADS now puts the USAF in the same category as Ryanair and cannot be bothered to waste time and money on submitting bids in upcoming tenders. So Boeing will be able to charge monopolistic prices. Good for them, bad for the taxpayer.

And if EADS had won, and the 767 line closed, meaning that when it comes time to replace all those other 787-based airframes (E-3, E-8, EC-135, etc.) the A330 was the only platform available, EADS would be able to charge monopolistic prices. Which would be good for EADS and bad for the taxpayer.




Quoting Revelation (Reply 90):
As above, I'd love to see a KC-Y being built by EADS in Mobile. Don't know if the order will be large enough for EADS to justify building an all new plant, but the US content rules pretty much mean they'd have to.
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 96):
For the KC-Y competition, the 777 will eat the A330 for lunch. Let that debate begin.  

Actually, in KC-Y the 777 should be at the same disadvantage the A330 was in KC-X. It's a much larger plane than the one being replaced (the A330 is very similar in volume to the KC-10), is much heavier (MILCON costs could be much higher to reinforce pads and taxiways), is much more expensive (at list and in production costs) and more thirsty thanks to those huge GE90-110b engines.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:21 pm

Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 99):
Replacing the KC10, given that aircraft's fuel and payload capability, there isn't really anything in the Airbus lineup that would match... aside from the A350-1000 in a few years  

A340-500.
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
Revelation
Posts: 25798
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
Actually, in KC-Y the 777 should be at the same disadvantage the A330 was in KC-X. It's a much larger plane than the one being replaced (the A330 is very similar in volume to the KC-10), is much heavier (MILCON costs could be much higher to reinforce pads and taxiways), is much more expensive (at list and in production costs) and more thirsty thanks to those huge GE90-110b engines.

Yes, that was my thinking too.

And, as above, one imagines EADS has learned a lot about how USAF does tanker selection now.

So, next time round, they will be quite knowledgeable and can decide to jump right in, or quickly walk away, when the KC-Y RFP is released.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
GDB
Posts: 14118
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 5:53 pm

It does seem to make logical sense, if you are about replacing KC-135's as part of a (huge!) mixed fleet of tanker/transport assets, to go with the 767.
(Not really keeping up with all this tortuous process, I was unaware that the winning bid was not that several 767 version hybrid from before).
But given this long and drawn out saga, from abroad, it does seem like a fix, if you don't allow for the way US government and procurement works - even if that's seriously got out of control with these appeals and suchlike.

But since most other AF's will have a one type tanker fleet, with a very significant transport role too, in most cases, the A330 based solution makes sense as shown for the past few years.
Including the RAF and RAAF. The former will also replace their Tristars with the Airbus too.
If the French part of EADS is unhappy about not getting the USAF order, maybe they should spend less on Presidential jets and more on some A330 tanker/transports of their own. Which would of course be replacing KC-135's!
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:09 pm

Good for Boeing to come from behind and pull out a win in this long drawn-out and nasty fight.

Hope the "Buy American" clause in the 2009 stimulus bill didn't sway the Pentagon's decision in the end...
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:23 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 92):
If there were corrupt people in the USAF, I don't see how it's McCain fault, and exposing them should be a good thing.

McCain is part of the overall effort put into influencing the outcome of the 2008 bid. He sent a letter to the USAF and the next day he received $$$$$ from all the higherups at EADS NA. Clear and unambigous "pay for play" corruption, but heck he only got a slap on the wrist for his involvement in the keeting 5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Never mistake McCain for lacking corruption, no matter what he says.
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

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

Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:29 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 90):
Ref: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/recapping-the-kc-x-contest/
Quote:

A change in how the Air Force assessed the rival planes' fuel-consumption costs may have been critical, said Dicks. Muilenburg agreed that was "a key criterion."

The EADS tanker, based on an Airbus A330 airliner, is much bigger and burns about 24 percent more fuel than the 767. The initial Air Force proposal would have assessed the total fuel-burn costs of the two planes over 25 years, but Dicks successfully pushed for that to be changed to 40 years.

"The difference was billions of dollars," Dicks said.

Seems Mr Dicks is quite pleased with himself.


Along these same lines, I hope Boeing and the DoD take another look at engines for the KC-46A. It would seem the GEnx units (GEnx-2B67) developed for the 747-8 might provide significant (15%-20%) fuel savings over time compared to the current 767 engine choices.
WhaleJets Rule!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TWA772LR and 27 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