Boeing reports KC-46A financial loss, rejects wider concerns
Thread Starter
Boeing reports KC-46A financial loss, rejects wider concerns
Cue an outbreak of schadenfreude at Airbus Military...
Article on Flight Global
extract:-
Article on Flight Global
extract:-
Boeing blames a wiring redesign on the KC-46A programme for a $272 million forward loss announced on 24 July in a second quarter earnings filing, but dismisses a government estimate predicting more delays and up to another $515 in cost overruns.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...turns out to be the batteries??" ..eh?
What this story really highlights is that while selling mil tankers used to be a massive deal for plane makers (the KC 135 being what launched Boeing into the jet-age), this is no longer the case. Indeed with the KC 46, one gets the impression that refurbing a few out-of-production airliners is an inconvenience they'd rather do without.
What this story really highlights is that while selling mil tankers used to be a massive deal for plane makers (the KC 135 being what launched Boeing into the jet-age), this is no longer the case. Indeed with the KC 46, one gets the impression that refurbing a few out-of-production airliners is an inconvenience they'd rather do without.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some, much more wiser than myself, might say that it, possibly, demonstrates the modern, inherent contempt the airframer community in the US has for it's government customers...
Some, much more wiser than myself, might say that it, possibly, demonstrates the modern, inherent contempt the airframer community in the US has for it's government customers...
What this story really highlights is that while selling mil tankers used to be a massive deal for plane makers (the KC 135 being what launched Boeing into the jet-age), this is no longer the case. Indeed with the KC 46, one gets the impression that refurbing a few out-of-production airliners is an inconvenience they'd rather do without.
It's a drop in the bucket compared to the problems Boeing may have if the recent disasters with 777s turn out to be the batteries
Indeed with the KC 46, one gets the impression that refurbing a few out-of-production airliners is an inconvenience they'd rather do without.
You make the real money on subsequent orders, production and upgrades- and even more when the politicians order planes the armed service didn't ask for
You make the real
money on subsequent orders, production and upgrades- and even more when the
politicians order planes the armed service didn't ask for
and of course "spares and support"
money on subsequent orders, production and upgrades- and even more when the
politicians order planes the armed service didn't ask for
and of course "spares and support"
That's how to hit a company in the pocket if they don't perform.
Last edited by melmothtw; 28th Jul 2014 at 19:01.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Was there ever a type to enter service that didnt enjoy an overspend"?? Well, yes; pretty much every civil airliner flying! And if there was, it wasnt funded by the customer. Perhaps its time to look at what they're doing that mil/civil service procurement types seem unable or unwilling to achieve?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number of customers for a new tanker = approximately 4
Number of major airframe manufacturers willing to gamble over $5 billion on an aircraft with no confirmed customers = 0
Ask Northrop how its F-20 fighter program turned out.
TRYING TOO HARD?
Perhaps the main issue with the KC-46A programme is that ol' Bubba Boeing sitting there in the old Red Barn is just trying too hard?
The KC-767I took ages to develop, surely it wouldn't have been difficult to develop an improved version for the USAF? But no, too many bells, whistles and the 787 flight deck have ensured that the Frankentanker will be some time yet in gestation.
Whereas despite the fact that its mission system still has what one might politely term 'issues' (Hecha en Espaņa = No funciona!), the A330MRTT family is selling pretty well......
The KC-767I took ages to develop, surely it wouldn't have been difficult to develop an improved version for the USAF? But no, too many bells, whistles and the 787 flight deck have ensured that the Frankentanker will be some time yet in gestation.
Whereas despite the fact that its mission system still has what one might politely term 'issues' (Hecha en Espaņa = No funciona!), the A330MRTT family is selling pretty well......
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were certainly trying too hard back in, what, 2004 when they won, then lost the contract in a blaze of corruption allegations -didn't some procurement guy serve jail time? This would have meant a great deal more to Boeing back then with 767 production in full swing than it does now in the type's twilight years.
Of course they were sore, I agree, to lose (briefly) the contract; no company wants to lose out, certainly not to a bunch of Frenchies. But this is tempered by the need to retain a production line which was drawing to a natural close.
Of course they were sore, I agree, to lose (briefly) the contract; no company wants to lose out, certainly not to a bunch of Frenchies. But this is tempered by the need to retain a production line which was drawing to a natural close.
