The KC-45 And US Politics

blrsea · Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:47 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 94):
But, France has cut off spares to other countries, in the past (Israel, for example) becasue that country did something the French didn't agree with.

From India's perspective, which is evaluating RFPs for 126 planes, France is a much more reliable supplier than USA. I hope neither LM or Boeing win the Indian contract, for US is notoriously fickle when it comes to defense supplies. They imposed sanctions on India after India exploded nuclear bombs, and even refused to sell spares for Seaking helicopters bought from UK. I would rather the contract went to Eurofighter/rafale/Mig-35 than F-18/F-16.

Given the NATO relationship, US has nothing to fear from its EU partners. I find it strange that US wants to sell defence equipment to EU but is reluctant to buy from them citing nationalistic/xenophobic fears. Shouldn't this be a two-way street atleast with NATO countries with whom you have a mutual defence agreement?

[Edited 2008-03-06 14:50:36]

starrion · Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:14 pm

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 150):
Given the NATO relationship, US has nothing to fear from its EU partners. I find it strange that US wants to sell defence equipment to EU but is reluctant to buy from them citing nationalistic/xenophobic fears. Shouldn't this be a two-way street atleast with NATO countries with whom you have a mutual defence agreement?

Part of the issue is the size of the contract. 179 aircraft now with potentially another 300 later, is on the order of $120 billion dollars. Add in spares, and all the cost overruns (an inevitable part of any military contract) and it's preobably more like $200 Billion going overseas.

Respectfully this not balanced out by a dozen F-16's here (made there) or a couple of AWACs there.

How about France ordering a nearly complete US CVN? Or the UK ordering a compete set of 12 Virginia class SSN's? Might put Astuteman out of a job.
After all an improved Nimitz class CVN would probably be more capable than the ones that are being built there, because it is much bigger. Might also be more expensive but I am sure it would win in a head to head fight.

The US isn't going to lose a crucial defense technology capability because we ordered tankers overseas.
It is bad when multinationals are closing facilities and moving jobs to China and India. It's far worse when the government uses your own tax dollars to do the same thing.

BTW will Russia be invited to subcontract on the Bomber RFP? They build some good ones.

blrsea · Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:28 pm

Quoting Starrion (Reply 151):
The US isn't going to lose a crucial defense technology capability because we ordered tankers overseas.
It is bad when multinationals are closing facilities and moving jobs to China and India. It's far worse when the government uses your own tax dollars to do the same thing.

Isn't that what all trade is about? If Air France buys 20 777s, should it ask US to purchase its equivalent value in goods/services from France? Most of the countries have negative trade deficit( except China probably) and that is part of doing business. $120 billion for US is equivalent to say $10-12 billion for countries like India. And given that US defence budget is more than the next 10 countries combined, and the value of the contract is spread over many years, this won't be such a very large amount of money wrt DoD budget. And some of it will remain in US due to the Alabama plant and lots of other parts being manufactured in US( landing gears, avionics etc).

Wasn't there an earlier post that said that neither are Boeing's planes 100% american nor are Airbus planes 100% european? There is approximately 30-50% non-European content in airbus planes too with most of it being in USA.

US and EU have a good realationship going, why sour the mood for all over this contract? Haven't European countries invested in F-35 too? Don't they buy Honeywell, GE, PW products?

Klaus · Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:45 pm

Quoting Starrion (Reply 151):
Respectfully this not balanced out by a dozen F-16's here (made there) or a couple of AWACs there.

You are joking, right?

The military market is probably the one where the USA have the highest positive trade imbalance with Europe. And that is highly unlikely to change due to this deal - especially since the KC45 will definitely be maxed out with american components (including, of course, the engines).

kc135topboom · Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:20 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 116):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 108):
You might add CA, NY, CT, KS, MA, NH, NV, CO, MI, FL, VA, OH, TX, and a several other states that will loose KC-767 work.

Can they lose what they've never had? They would have only got the work if the KC-767 won.

How about a list of states that will gain work as a result of the KC-30 winning?

Many of the states that will receive work from NG/EADS will only get 200-300 jobs. The Boeing proposal offered 19,000 more US jobs than the NG/EADS proposal did.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 117):
A number of these states will gain much more than they "lose" particularly FL and OH. TX and CA are probably a wash, maybe a bit better off with the EADS win; CA in particular if you consider the profits flowing back to NG HQ.

Some will, most will not get the number of job increases they could have gotten from Boeing.

Congress is going to turn this into a jobs and national security issue. I can see the campaign slogan now:

"American jobs securing America's future".

Klaus · Fri Mar 07, 2008 3:08 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 154):
Many of the states that will receive work from NG/EADS will only get 200-300 jobs. The Boeing proposal offered 19,000 more US jobs than the NG/EADS proposal did.

At higher costs, taking more time and still getting the USAF less value in return.

Making it a subsidy for Boeing at the cost of the american taxpayer and at the expense of the capability of your Air Force.

Now that sounds like the perfect proposal for every conservative, doesn't it...? mischievous

MCOflyer · Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:09 am

With the KC45 being built by Europeans, the security risks increase. This keeps getting better and better. I still believe there more besides than that review but we shall see on Friday.

Kinghunter

ME AVN FAN · Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:28 am

Quoting Starrion (Reply 151):
a dozen F-16's

you simply underestimate the volume of the sales of US companies in Europe, with for example 33 F-18 with the Swiss Air Force alone. To be mentioned are the originally 175 F4 Phantom of the German Air Force (to be phased out until 2012)
and the 90 F-16 of the Royal Netherlands Air Force and the 68 F-16 of the Belgian Air Force and the 14 KC-135 Stratotankers of the French Air Force and the 57 F-16 of the Royal Norwegian Air Force.
-

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 156):
With the KC45 being built by Europeans, the security risks increase.

There is no reason, absolutely none, while "security risks" were to increase with airplanes built by Europeans.

scbriml · Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:43 am

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 156):
With the KC45 being built by Europeans, the security risks increase.

Instead of making wild, scare-mongering, unsubstantiated claims like this, try explaining why you think the selection of the KC-30 as the USAF's next tanker presents an increase in security risks?

In order to allay your fears, let me explain how it will work. Airbus will manufacture some A330 parts in Europe and ship them to NG in Alabama. The A330 will then be built on the NG assembly line (in America, by Americans). It will then be taken to a separate NG facility (still in America) to be converted to a KC-45 (still by Americans). All the militarisation of the frame will be done by Americans in America.

Where is the increased security risk? Maybe you're expecting Airbus to bug their parts?

MD11Engineer · Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:01 am

IMO the one thing Boeing is really worried about is not the tanker contract, but the fact that Airbus will set up a production plant (and I'm sure it will not just stay with the A330 and final assembly, IMO once the plant is running they will expand it to manufacture parts and assemble other aircraft of the Airbus family) in the dollar zone. Up to now Airbus has the problem that they have to sell the planes in USD, but have to pay most of their expenses in Euros. Boeing on the other hand profits from the cheap USD.
Once the plant starts churning out aircraft, Airbus will be able to compete with Boeing pricewise on the dollar market.

Jan

Klaus · Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:17 am

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 159):
Once the plant starts churning out aircraft, Airbus will be able to compete with Boeing pricewise on the dollar market.

That may be one thing Boeing fears (hey, it works with cars already!), but at least as threatening is the fact that Airbus has for the first time cracked the US military market. It's a possible precedent for renewed competition where Boeing had over the years eliminated several large competitors directly or indirectly. There goes the (near) monopoly in an important sub-segment - that can't be good for their margins in the medium to long term...

kc135topboom · Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:45 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 133):
Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 126):
Airbus will take a loss

Hardly. Airbus is a privately owned company, and cannot afford losses.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 135):
A-380? (hint they are a long way from the 450 airplane break even point)

Airbus has delivered exactly two A-380s, and they were 4 months apart. Hardly a money making program, at the moment.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 135):
A-400M? (hint, it is a huge LOSS, they have a fixed price contract on each of the 192 ordered airplanes. no one else wants to order them because EADS/Military Aircraft must make up the price very high to begin a break even point in the program).

So, Airbus can loose money on the A-400 program, and it won't hurt?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 136):
They at Airbus are basically on the civil aviation side, but would like to enter the military market. That the first starts into this field cannot be profitable at the beginning is obvious. But their entry into the military business will become profitable.

They are loosing money on the A-400M because they entered into fixed price contracts with everyone, to date, without actually knowing where the break even point of the program was. They are still doing that with the A-380.

Both programs are bleeding hugh sums of money.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 136):
They make their money with A319/A320/A321/A330/A340

The A-319, A-320, and A-321 are all in the same program, as they are A-320 derivitives (you forgot to mention the A-318) (oh yeah, it is loosing money, too). Many A-330s became "give away airplanes to cover compensation for late deliveries of the A-380s. The A-340-500/-600 are money loosers.

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 141):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 135):
Actually, they are not a monopoly. LM builds more US Military aircraft than anyone. Monopolies are good somethiomes, not always.

Within the vertical market of tankers after the MD merger they do have a monopoly for anything with a boom currently, or at least they did a week ago.

LM had the box wing design proposal for the KC-X compitition. They lost, too.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 142):
Since Airbus became a registered company, the two governments cannot simply "feed money" into the company.

You are right, they are given government development non-repayable loans.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 146):
Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 139):
. Who builds the Apache helicopter? Who builds the the C17? Who built the current tankers, and fighter a/c? We do build inferior airplanes

How's that Osprey doing ?

Actually, the CV-22 program is now maturing quite well now.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 155):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 154):
Many of the states that will receive work from NG/EADS will only get 200-300 jobs. The Boeing proposal offered 19,000 more US jobs than the NG/EADS proposal did.

At higher costs, taking more time and still getting the USAF less value in return.

Making it a subsidy for Boeing at the cost of the american taxpayer and at the expense of the capability of your Air Force.

So, the 25,000 NG/EADS US jobs under the KC-45 program are subsudised by the French tax payers?

moo · Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:49 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):

Airbus has delivered exactly two A-380s, and they were 4 months apart. Hardly a money making program, at the moment.

Uhm, would any aircraft be 'making money' after only two deliveries?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
They are loosing money on the A-400M because they entered into fixed price contracts with everyone

The UK at least isn't in a fixed price contract - there were discussions in Parliament fairly recently about the price increases.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
(you forgot to mention the A-318) (oh yeah, it is loosing money, too)

Got a source or any justification for that? The A318 has over a hundred sales, and it is a simple shrink of the A319 - how can it be losing money? The B747-8, which is a much more complex change to the -400, is apparently already broken even with around 70 sales according to common A.net folklaw.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
You are right, they are given government development non-repayable loans.

Ahh yes, more of the same old false propaganda from a US member of the forums.

ME AVN FAN · Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:30 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
hey are loosing money on the A-400M because they entered into fixed price contracts with everyone, to date, without actually knowing where the break even point of the program was. They are still doing that with the A-380.

Both programs are bleeding hugh sums of money.

-
While the A-400M as such may be a money-loser, the A380 will become THE money-earner of the company. Deliveries of course have just started.
-
AND, to say it again, to enter into a new field of activity always is loss-making in the beginning. The tanker-contract however should bring some modest profits and establish Airbus in MILITARY aviation, where they up to now were a nobody.
-

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
The A-319, A-320, and A-321 are all in the same program, as they are A-320 derivitives

the A320 program including the A318 is profitable
-

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
Many A-330s became "give away airplanes to cover compensation for late deliveries of the A-380s. The A-340-500/-600 are money loosers.

But the A330 program makes money, and the A340 program overall also is profitable
-

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
government development non-repayable loans

That was in the past, at the start of Airbus, when the various governments combined still had a majority in the Airbus-program and long BEFORE Airbus became a registered company .
-

bhmbaglock · Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:44 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 158):
Airbus will manufacture some A330 parts in Europe and ship them to NG in Alabama. The A330 will then be built on the NG assembly line (in America, by Americans). It will then be taken to a separate NG facility (still in America) to be converted to a KC-45 (still by Americans). All the militarisation of the frame will be done by Americans in America.

Actually, you are not correct. The A330 will be built on an EADS production line at BFM then transferred to a separate NG facility for conversion and militarization. Otherwise, your points about Americans doing the work, etc. are corect.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 158):
Where is the increased security risk? Maybe you're expecting Airbus to bug their parts?

I'm sure you're right about this. Smile

Francoflier · Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:08 pm

Why would the government (congress) cancel that decision now?

If politicians have any word in this, then they should have acted when the two projects were being decided upon. The RFP has been out and widely advertised and the conscequences of both options known for a long while now...

Why then wait until the word is out. It's one of two things then: They either didn't care before or didn't really look into it, and are now reacting loudly because of the campaign, or: They just couldn't believe the contract was ever going to go to NG/EADS...

One thing is sure, it is a campaign issue now.

The other thing I wanted to point out (...and I'm putting on my bullet-proof lead-plated Nomex/Kevlar suit now...) is that us Europeans have been criticized for a long time by our American friends to encourage national preference and protectionism when it came to national key industries/technologies, because it went against free competition and tended towards socialism...
Why are many now outraged by the US air force's decision? Surely national preference was considered in that choice, and thus the NG/EADS product must have been clearly at a technical advantage to be elected?...

MCOflyer · Fri Mar 07, 2008 1:12 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 158):

Where is the increased security risk? Maybe you're expecting Airbus to bug their parts?

It will easier for people to get a hold of our tanker plans and should anyone want them out of the sky, well there you go.

Kinghunter

scbriml · Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:03 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 166):
It will easier for people to get a hold of our tanker plans and should anyone want them out of the sky, well there you go.

How?

How will the fact that Airbus supplies the basic airframe, which is assembled in Alabama (by Americans), then taken to an NG facility for militarisation (by Americans in America) make it easier for "people" (who are these people anyway?) to get hold of your tanker plans?

JGPH1A · Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:14 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 166):
It will easier for people to get a hold of our tanker plans and should anyone want them out of the sky, well there you go.

Reaching, much ? Like it's any harder to get hold of 767 "plans" from just about anywhere if you feel so inclined. Please, address the issue seriously or don't contribute to the thread at all.

moo · Fri Mar 07, 2008 2:14 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 166):

It will easier for people to get a hold of our tanker plans and should anyone want them out of the sky, well there you go.

As opposed to the thousand or so 767s flying around, and the technology Boeing is selling to foreign companies.

Get a grip.

legoguy · Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:47 pm

If this tanker deal goes through, would Airbus will eventually move the A330F on to the Tanker FAL in the US? Surely this is a bonus to the US. Rather than the A330F being assembled in Europe, it would be assembled in the US.

scbriml · Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:08 pm

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 170):
If this tanker deal goes through, would Airbus will eventually move the A330F on to the Tanker FAL in the US?

Yes, this is what Airbus said they would do if they won the tanker contract.

Farcry · Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:13 pm

This is going off topic I realise but, it has a certain 'smack' about it. The British (Labour) Government cancelled the TSR2 as being too expensive. It went instead for the American F-111. We then received and flew how many of these aircraft.?

I just wish certain Americans would stop being so paranoid about the USAFs decision. Would you please stop referring to us as 'foreigners' and maybe consider using the word 'allies' instead. As all here are aware, there is more American stuff over here than there is European stuff over there. Also, please remember that most terrorist threats are nearer to this Continent than yours.

legoguy · Fri Mar 07, 2008 5:36 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 171):
Yes, this is what Airbus said they would do if they won the tanker contract.

So essentially there is a movement of jobs from Europe to the US when the A330F is assembled in the US.

scbriml · Fri Mar 07, 2008 6:37 pm

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 173):
So essentially there is a movement of jobs from Europe to the US when the A330F is assembled in the US.

No, certainly not in the short-term. It's important to understand the jobs different folks have in different locations. The distinction needs to be made between manufacturing and assembly jobs.

The folks that that will be assembling KC-45s and A330Fs in Mobile will be new, American jobs. Those parts will still be made in Europe by the same folks that are making them today. So, for example, the folks in the UK manufacturing A330 wings, will continue to manufacture A330 wings, regardless of whether those wings are for a passenger A330 in Toulouse or a KC-45 or A330F in Mobile.

Now, much further in the future, as A330 passenger sales dwindle (as they inevitably will), it is possible that Airbus will switch all A330 assembly to Mobile to make way at Toulouse for the A350. Depending on the timing, it could be that no jobs will be lost in Europe. However, there is a chance of a gap between A330 assembly closing down and A350 assembly starting up. In that case, there could well be some jobs lost in Toulouse (but, presumably, some would come back as A350 production ramps up).

So, you could argue, there is a chance that some assembly jobs in Toulouse could move to Mobile, but not for a few years yet.

GDB · Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:20 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 126):
UH60, Are you an American! We need to support our American companies! Airbus is supported by many European countries (Germany and France). Airbus always undercuts Boeing superior products. Boeing is responsible for all military aircraft for the U.S. military some products include (737,757, 777, and 787 that will blow Airbus out the water).

Aaahh, the naivete of youth! (Are you 'American' as in Mexican, or Canadian, since you insist Airbus is just French and German-but an improvement on the usual whine of 'it's French').

Keep telling yourself that bit of nonsense is true, the thing is, the Pentagon, USAF do not quite see it that way.
Go e-mail them, tell how wrong they are. Give 'em your expertise.

Born too early I suppose to get het up by the USAF buying Canberra's in the 50's, Harriers in the 60's and 70's, Hawks in the 80's, that's just jet combat or trainer aircraft.
There are many, many others, like the fact that the US ground forces are fighting with Belgium designed light and medium machine guns, British 81mm mortars, British 105mm guns (both the current light gun and the previous tank gun), a German tank gun, British developed armour on M1 tanks, Italian 9mm pistols, Swiss designed LAV's, the next President will start to fly on a British/Italian helicopter, the US Army are now using a European light chopper, Italian, British and Canadian light/tactical transports have been used in the past.
This list could, with enough research, make for a very big thread!

(You know, it's said that those who are secure in themselves, their beliefs etc, never need to denigrate others).

We should file this one with classics here in the past, such as the A380 will never be able to leave the ground .

If not for space restrictions, the true thread title here would be perhaps better described as KC-45 And The Inevitable Sour Grapes, Usual Myths And Shock That A Global Economy And More Open Trade Does Not Mean Total US Domination As We Expected

Sorry to be like this, but really, some of the stuff on here is mind boggling.
And I do know that the attitudes I'm alluding to is certainly NOT true of many, most even, US members here.

ME AVN FAN · Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:23 pm

Quoting Legoguy (Reply 170):
would Airbus will eventually move

I heard about ideas to move production lines of ALL major types to a US-American facility for the NorthAmerican AND Latin American markets, so that this might well be the beginning
-

Venus6971 · Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:41 pm

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 157):
you simply underestimate the volume of the sales of US companies in Europe, with for example 33 F-18 with the Swiss Air Force alone. To be mentioned are the originally 175 F4 Phantom of the German Air Force (to be phased out until 2012)
and the 90 F-16 of the Royal Netherlands Air Force and the 68 F-16 of the Belgian Air Force and the 14 KC-135 Stratotankers of the French Air Force and the 57 F-16 of the Royal Norwegian Air Force.
-

All built by Europeans at Fokker. Which still doesn't compare to size of this contract. The 14 KC-135 French birds were bought at a time when Boeing was the only choice and Lockheed paper airplane was a bust. Lockheed was the winner of the tanker competition back in the early 50's but could not deliver and SAC did a interim buy of 10 KC-135's because B

Quoting Farcry (Reply 172):
just wish certain Americans would stop being so paranoid about the USAFs decision. Would you please stop referring to us as 'foreigners' and maybe consider using the word 'allies' instead. As all here are aware, there is more American stuff over here than there is European stuff over there. Also, please remember that most terrorist threats are nearer to this Continent than yours.

I remember my time at Egun from 84 to 86 that there was alot of teethknashing going on between labor and the tories to keep throwing good money after bad in the Nimrod AEW or buy Boeing E-3D's, I remember a full page ad in the times from BAE to keep funding the R&D for the Nimrod.

Scorpio · Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:00 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 177):
All built by Europeans at Fokker. Which still doesn't compare to size of this contract.

Actually, assembled by Europeans at Fokker and SABCA (Belgium), in a similar fashion to what will now happen with the KC-45. And we're talking about over 500 F-16s which, at today's prices, represents some $20 billion. Not exactly peanuts. And that's just that one deal, it's not counting all the Chinooks, Apaches, C-130s, KC-135s, C-17s, E-3s, F-4s, F/A-18s flying around over here, or the F-16s that went to, say, the Greek AF.

kc135topboom · Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:29 am

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 163):
While the A-400M as such may be a money-loser, the A380 will become THE money-earner of the company. Deliveries of course have just started.

There are something like 30 A-380s in various levels of assembly. Only 2 have been delivered, and they cannot go to full production, yet. Each airframe must be hand built until Airbus receives their production certificate, from EASA. Becuase they don't have that, now a year since the airplane was certified, tells me there is still something wrong with assembly. As each month goes by and having to hand build each airplanes slips the entire program deeper into the red. Right now, at least 450 airplanes must be sold and delivered (at list price, which Airbus is not selling the airplanes at) just to break even. My guess is the number is closer to 550 airplane.

If the A-400M program cannot sell many more airplanes (than the 193 on contract now), that program will also have huge losses.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 163):
The tanker-contract however should bring some modest profits and establish Airbus in MILITARY aviation, where they up to now were a nobody.

If they are depending on that, EADS is stupid and does not understand US Military contracts, and how they are priced. By US Laws, Military contracts cannot include more than a 5% profit for the base contractor. NG will maintane the 5% profit down through parts costs from EADS.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 165):
Why would the government (congress) cancel that decision now?

US jobs, and it is an election year. 44,000 US jobs from Boeing (and sub contractors) vs. 25,000 US jobs from NG (and sub contractors), plus what Congress sees as an undetermined number of French jobs that Congress deems should be US jobs.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 165):
If politicians have any word in this, then they should have acted when the two projects were being decided upon. The RFP has been out and widely advertised and the conscequences of both options known for a long while now...

Why then wait until the word is out. It's one of two things then: They either didn't care before or didn't really look into it, and are now reacting loudly because of the campaign,

I will not speak for the US Congress, but they may have been distracted by "important" US and political issues, like stroride use in Baseball.

BHMNONREV · Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:35 am

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 78):
The only thing that concerns me about this is the supposed last minute changes to the RFP. If that is true, then NG and Boeing should have been given more time to prepare new proposals. Perhaps Boeing would have offered a 777-based tanker.

Correct sir. Any changes to an RFP must be re-submitted to all prospective suppliers. After the last Boeing/AF fiasco you can bet the Procurement process was strictly adhered to..

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 84):
Instead many, including myself, thought the biggest deciding factor was going to be cost. The Air Force is currently in a major cash crunch, and was thought to possibly sacrifice superior performance (KC30) for superior cost savings (KC767). Whether this would have been right or wrong would have been irrelevant, since the money simply isn't there.

Spot on Chief, normally in Procurement we are concerned with lowest cost, not necessarily superior performance. But if lower costs can be proven over a period of time then we are justified and expected to purchase a higher priced item. But when a DCAA auditor shows up on your front porch in 10 years you better be prepared to discuss your decision...

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 53):
btw...for those who can't see the detail, the dinghy is named "Original Contract", while the yacht is named "Change Order".
btw2...as soon as I can trackdown the Wizrd of Id cartoon lamenting low-bid contracts, I'll post it.

Tom, that is absolutely priceless.. And so frickin true, story of our life here in Government Procrurement...

moo · Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:04 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 179):
Becuase they don't have that, now a year since the airplane was certified, tells me there is still something wrong with assembly.

MSN 026 is currently in production, out of sequence with the MSN production schedule precisely because that is the airframe that will get Airbus the production certificate.

It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with production - Airbus have a backlog of 25 frames to clear, and those take up space all along the production line. There is a physical limit to how many aircraft can be built at any one time.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 179):
Right now, at least 450 airplanes must be sold and delivered (at list price, which Airbus is not selling the airplanes at) just to break even.

Wrong - the list price is base frame cost (production cost, plus investment costs, plus overheads) plus profit margin (which we know from other sources is a substantial markup) - Airbus does not need to sell all of them at list price, which would be a practical impossibility anyway (how many 787s have Boeing sold at list? How many aircraft have ever been sold at list?), they just have to sell enough of them over and above the base frame cost in order to cover unexpected program expenditure.

Francoflier · Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:29 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 179):
but they may have been distracted by "important" US and political issues, like stroride use in Baseball.

I love politicians: No matter what part of the world you're talking about, they all think and act alike...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 179):
If the A-400M program cannot sell many more airplanes (than the 193 on contract now), that program will also have huge losses.

Probably true, but remember, the Air Forces and governments that have asked for and bought it have nowhere near the cash the US air force have. It is a military program after all, and I'm sure I can mention a few development programs that would have sunk American manufacturers if it wasn't for the congress sponging up all the overflowing development costs. The most famous case being the B-2.

Profitability is not always a requirements in military programs. Some are profitable, some aren't and the governments involved usually end up picking up the tab. Works the same everywhere.
And another thing: US military orders are usually so significant it is much easier for the manufacturer to offset the development costs. Which also results in an a very competitive product on the subsequent export market.

bhmbaglock · Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:32 pm

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 174):
Those parts will still be made in Europe by the same folks that are making them today.

Likewise the parts made in the US for the A330 - and there are many.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 182):
I love politicians: No matter what part of the world you're talking about, they all think and act alike...

I don't notice the "thinking " part too often with politicians.

MCOflyer · Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:07 pm

GDB,

At least I try to make quality post(s) and explain why it was foiled. What does my age have to with it might I ask? I was born in 87 right when 767 was booming. I know for sure the 762ER with Pratt Whitney 4056 engines can take on a A332 with GE any day. I wish the AF would see it that way.

Kinghunter

Scorpio · Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:24 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 184):
I know for sure the 762ER with Pratt Whitney 4056 engines can take on a A332 with GE any day.

In what regard exactly?

You've been stating repeatedly here that 'Boeing is better' or that 'the 767 is better', but we still haven't seen you bring up any serious arguments for that.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 184):
At least I try to make quality post(s) and explain why it was foiled.

First you question UH60's patriotism, and now you are going to teach GDB about quality posts? When it comes to quality posts, you can learn a thing or two from GDB...

Francoflier · Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:49 pm

Quoting BHMBAGLOCK (Reply 183):
I don't notice the "thinking " part too often with politicians.

Oh, they think, alright... Just not about you or me, ...or anybody other than themselves...

Wink

JGPH1A · Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:59 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 184):
I know for sure the 762ER with Pratt Whitney 4056 engines can take on a A332 with GE any day.

"Take on" ? What, like in a dogfight ? I'd pay to see that.

Clearly by the parameters of the USAF RFP, the 767 did not "take on" the A330. So on what parameters do you feel the competition should be based ? Seat pitch ? Galley space ? IFE ?

MCOflyer · Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:01 pm

It was a done deal and Boeing already had it before the AF issued a list of guidelines. But when the Boeing CFO got in trouble, that is when the USAF decided to issue that RFP list. The USAF needed another supplier to put Boeing out and that supplier was Northrop Grumman teaming up with EADS airbus and their a/c was the A332 MRTT. In addition it should be noted that john McCain, scuttled, the Boeing deal and pushed on the EADS deal. Article Here:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...w-9ToDpN8lzCLyiVd2NNL_d1QD8V9AE100

Kinghunter

JGPH1A · Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:08 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 188):
It was a done deal and Boeing already had it before the AF issued a list of guidelines. But when the Boeing CFO got in trouble, that is when the USAF decided to issue that RFP list.

So the fact that the USAF was essentially forced to re-tender because of apparently blantant corruption in the orignal deal, actually upsets you ? Aren't you pleased that the system detected the corruption and did something about it ? Or are you happy for your parents' taxpayers' dollars to be spent on USD20,000.00 toilet seats - in other words, the old way ?

MCOflyer · Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:20 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 189):
So the fact that the USAF was essentially forced to re-tender because of apparently blantant corruption in the orignal deal, actually upsets you ? Aren't you pleased that the system detected the corruption and did something about it ? Or are you happy for your parents' taxpayers' dollars to be spent on USD20,000.00 toilet seats - in other words, the old way ?

Well it upsets me, but members on here were asking me for proof so I gave them just that. Smile

Kinghunter

JGPH1A · Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:25 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 190):
but members on here were asking me for proof so I gave them just that.

Wild allegations and unfounded statements are not proof. We're still waiting for that.

Scorpio · Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:44 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 190):
Well it upsets me, but members on here were asking me for proof so I gave them just that.

I'm sorry, I must have missed that. Where exactly did you provide 'proof' that

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 184):
the 762ER with Pratt Whitney 4056 engines can take on a A332 with GE any day

?

bhmbaglock · Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:15 pm

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 189):
So the fact that the USAF was essentially forced to re-tender because of apparently blantant corruption in the orignal deal, actually upsets you ? Aren't you pleased that the system detected the corruption and did something about it ? Or are you happy for your parents' taxpayers' dollars to be spent on USD20,000.00 toilet seats - in other words, the old way ?

Exactly! Some people here just don't get the fact that the earlier programs featured specs written around the 767 and its capabilities. A "recompete" with no changes in specs would be nothing more than a pony show. Instead, the USAF started from scratch by looking at what was actually possible and came up with new specs and requiements. The changes are indeed evidence of the system working, not of corruption and bias towards EADS.

I can guarantee you that the Generals and contracting people involved would have been much happier if there had been sufficient parity between the two bids to allow them to choose Boeing; there wasn't and they're sticking to their guns

Klaus · Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:24 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 161):
So, the 25,000 NG/EADS US jobs under the KC-45 program are subsudised by the French tax payers?

They would be, if the USAF received an inferior capability for an inflated price. But after the previous non-competition disaster, I'm reasonably confident that the USAF would not be able to get away with such a decision, especially not under the added scrutiny for making a choice that's unpopular with many people domestically.

Quoting GDB (Reply 175):
If not for space restrictions, the true thread title here would be perhaps better described as KC-45 And The Inevitable Sour Grapes, Usual Myths And Shock That A Global Economy And More Open Trade Does Not Mean Total US Domination As We Expected

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 184):
At least I try to make quality post(s) and explain why it was foiled. What does my age have to with it might I ask? I was born in 87 right when 767 was booming. I know for sure the 762ER with Pratt Whitney 4056 engines can take on a A332 with GE any day. I wish the AF would see it that way.

As the others above, I'm waiting with bated breath for your detailed explanation for this claim! Wow!

MCOflyer · Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:46 pm

Scorpio,

See reply 188. I will say it again. It was a done deal before the USAF issued a RFP. All the news papers had articles on KC767 prior to the RFP and even pointed out all the positives on that a/c that USAF pointed out. Now they issue a unfair RFP for an a/c that is bigger than they need. Give me a break please. Hadn't the CFO over at Boeing screwed up, we would not be in this mess. It is pure politics.

Kinghunter

moo · Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:59 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
See reply 188. I will say it again. It was a done deal before the USAF issued a RFP. All the news papers had articles on KC767 prior to the RFP and even pointed out all the positives on that a/c that USAF pointed out.

A done deal that was the result of criminal intent. People went to prison over it.

But that doesn't seem to register in your mind, does it?

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
Now they issue a unfair RFP for an a/c that is bigger than they need.

An unfair RFP? You *do* realise that there *was* an RFP issued prior to the changes that brought NG into the mix, right?

And you *do* realise that as written, no one in the entire world could have met the RFP requirements. Except for Boeing.

Right?

The changes to the RFP allowed a second competitor to enter the bidding, ensuring the USAF got the best price, if nothing more. Even if Boeing won in the end, it would have been a better result.

Right?

Now which RFP was unfair?

JGPH1A · Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:01 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
Now they issue a unfair RFP for an a/c that is bigger than they need.

"Bigger than they need" - who says ? The USAF ? Um, no - they ordered the bigger plane. How is the RFP unfair ? Unless it doesn't come out with the result that you don't like.

Suck it up - so Boeing didn't win, boo hoo. How about you make a video like that sad numbnuts did about "Leave Brittany alone !" - you could call it "Leave Boeing Alone" and have a good cry under your duvet for the camera.

Klaus · Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:16 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
See reply 188.

You still owe us an explanation on how the 767 can "beat" the 330 any day, even though the market - and now the USAF - clearly say otherwise.

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
All the news papers had articles on KC767 prior to the RFP and even pointed out all the positives on that a/c that USAF pointed out. Now they issue a unfair RFP for an a/c that is bigger than they need.

The USAF has explicitly explained that with the KC45 they can conduct extensive missions with a much smaller number of tankers than they would have been able to with the 767, and the longer the range, the larger the amount of fuel carried and the longer the duration the more ponounced the advantage got.

Even the expected reliability of the development process itself looked better with EADS/NG than it did with Boeing, with Boeing's cost projections being considered questionable.

So where is your magic bullet which can nullify all the issues where the USAF considered the KC45 the better option?

Scorpio · Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:57 pm

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
Scorpio,

See reply 188.

Saw it.

Now where's the proof that

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 184):
the 762ER with Pratt Whitney 4056 engines can take on a A332 with GE any day.

? Because it sure isn't anywhere in that post...

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
It was a done deal before the USAF issued a RFP.

It was a CORRUPT 'done deal'. It was axed for a reason, you know, and 'the USAF hates Boeing' was not it...

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 195):
Now they issue a unfair RFP for an a/c that is bigger than they need.

An 'unfair' RFP? Pray tell, if the RFP was so incredibly 'unfair', why did Boeing never complain about this 'unfair' RFP when it was issued? They knew exactly what was in there, and they didn't complain, as far as I know. If it had been an 'unfair' RFP, trust me, Boeing would have complained. The RFP was changed for the simple reason that the OLD one was 'unfair', in that it was written in such a way that ONLY the 767 could win the contract. Not exactly fair when you write an RFP in such a way that you already know who's going to win before the competition has started, now is it?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net