PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - More KC-46A woes....
View Single Post
Old 16th Jan 2019, 18:51
  #718 (permalink)  
CONSO
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

[QUOTE=KenV;10362344]Which brings up some interesting factoids about funding and the "color of money".

"When the KC-767 lease idea was put forward, the point was to avoid sinking lots of money into half century old airframes to keep them flying until a suitable replacement could be developed. The lease option was based on using KC-135 operating/maintenance dollars to lease the KC-767s, because buying them would require procurement dollars (one color of money) which USAF did not have and instead using operating/maintenance dollars (a different color of money) which USAF did have. But Senator McCain essentially single handedly killed that idea because he seriously disliked Boeing and called it "corporate welfare." So instead, the KC-135 fleet was upgraded with new avionics/cockpits to keep them flying. "......


++++
Partly correct- but somehat wrong- The cliff note version of what follows is that the lease of 767 tankers was to save employment and more specifically the 767 Assembly line...


. A bit of history- prior to 911, Boeing had put forward the 767 as a tanker and had contracted with Japan and Italy for a few. Airframe had been "mil spec" certified and design work was well underway. - 767 line at that time was close to running down- out. When 911 happened, the effects on Boeing re airplanes, was significant- and air travel all of sudden got more expensive. - Meanwhile, back at the ranch- The local union ( SPEEA ) was putting together a CVD (Countervailing duties petitiion ) against airbus without any help from Boeing re Airbus selling into the U.S at ultralowball prices. Boeing had that summer quietly hired Rudy DeLeon ( former asst sec defense ) to start to push 767 as a U.S tanker( and squelch the CVD ) . Since after 911, it was obvious that Boeing (BA) was going to take a majo employment hit, insurance costs to airlines were going up, etc, and the 767 line was near end.- A non management Boeing engineer with a unique background and many many very high level contacts was asked by the Senator from Alaska (Ted Stevens) what might be done re Boeing. The answer was threefold. 1) Feds to provide special insurance re hijacking 2) Increase airport security, and 3) Use funds to lease with option to buy at a later date 767 tankers similar to the japan and italian version. this would support the 767 line and dull somewhat the expected drop in airtravel, and bolster the expected need for more tankers to help carry on overseas activites by military re al queda and similar.

But then what happened was the MDC dummies stepped in re how to build and deliver said tankers by Everett delivering to the military division a green- flyable airplane which would then be flown to Wichita and disassembled to install tanks, booms, etc, and re- assembled. As if that wasn't enough Ms Dryiun and Mr Sears got involved wIth corruption and bribes etc. Meanwhile, Boeing stepped in and squelched The CVD re backdoor methods, and sent Rudy de Leon to persuade SPEEA to push the tanker and provided a two page analysis and comments about how the costs/arrangements would be handled. Problem was it was a poorly written attempt to snow the engineers who were supposed to stand in awe of a former asst sec def with his tassel toed sneakers, etc. His presentation did NOT go well when one Engineer stood up, waved Rudy's paper handout and splaIned to Rudy it was a buch of garbage, and as to rudys comments re tankers,
Said engineer explained he was delivering the KC135/s when Rudy was not yet in high school- or maybe it was grammer school.- and BTW said engineer also splained to rudy ( not me BTW ) that he had probably been in more high level pentagon meetings than Rudy. So politican v Engineer did not come out well.

Of course mccain was unhappy- and as the corruption and insane pricing game came to the front, the whole mess was cancelled.

How do I know all this- ? 1) I was at said meeting 2) Said Engineer was a good friend of mine and was WELL known by upper management for being a straight shooter and more than willing to speak truth to power.

Last edited by CONSO; 16th Jan 2019 at 19:05. Reason: typos and such
CONSO is offline