Boeing win $35Bn AAR contract
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
knowitall
The U.S. Senate got their fingers burned last year when the BP oil rig blew up in the G of Mexico
BP had paid about $17bn, yup BILLION, to their political funds. They thought they were invincable...bit like PM Cameron. Buzz I call him, as in Lightyear.
Can you blame them for being cautious with EUR companies after that mess?
Regards
The U.S. Senate got their fingers burned last year when the BP oil rig blew up in the G of Mexico
BP had paid about $17bn, yup BILLION, to their political funds. They thought they were invincable...bit like PM Cameron. Buzz I call him, as in Lightyear.
Can you blame them for being cautious with EUR companies after that mess?
Regards
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still find it amusing that while Boeing and Patty Murray were singing about "US national champions" Boeing were secretly talking to Cobham saying "Hey guys, our American AAR system is a pile of crap and doesn't work, can you Brits bail us out?" (Or words to that effect).
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DERG wrote
"BP had paid about $17bn, yup BILLION, to their political funds."
Source please? It really is rubbish
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com
"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."
You've added too many zeros friend
"BP had paid about $17bn, yup BILLION, to their political funds."
Source please? It really is rubbish
Obama biggest recipient of BP cash - Erika Lovley - POLITICO.com
"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."
You've added too many zeros friend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel prices are high and expected to go higher in the future. The A330 simply uses a lot more fuel than the 767.
RichardAboulafia.com
Let’s look at the numbers. According to the authoritative Airline Monitor (November 2010), the average 767-300ER in US airline service burns about 1,550 gallons per block hour (Boeing’s tanker uses a smaller airframe, but more equipment, so we don’t know it’s exact burn rate). The average A330 in US airline service (-200s and -300s; the FAA doesn’t break them out, but the KC-30 too would carry more equipment) burns about 1,900 gallons per block hour. If fuel is $50/bbl, that fuel burn difference isn’t the end of the world. If you start with a base year assumption of $100/bbl, and then add the usual US Government fuel cost inflation factor for a 30 year life span, multiply it times X hundreds of flight hours per year times 179 aircraft, you get a fuel-related operating cost difference wide enough to drive a truck through. The EADS up-front price discount would have been dwarfed by this huge fuel cost divergence.
Except that you would need rather more KC-46As to the same work as a smaller number of KC-30s if you were intelligent enough to have realised that in the first place, instead of looking at aircraft numbers!
The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you people not remember EADS winning last time? I think that alone is enough evidence that this was anyone's game.
This. I personally couldn't understand why the Pentagon would ever take the A330 platform over the 767, seeing as the 767 nearly perfectly fits their desired mission profile and the A330 is way too much airplane, but the rumor mill was not very optimistic for B.
If my history is correct, Boeing won the first competition (rescinded for inappropriate conduct), EADS won the second (rescinded for inconsistent scoring), and now Boeing won this competition.
Yes, and I could buy a 15-passenger van to take my kids to soccer practice, but my Mazda 3 does the same job with a lot less fuel and a lot less car. Why don't the airlines use A380s or 747s to fly between Wichita and Pensacola? Because there's no use for that capacity.
What, just like Boeing and it's political cronies did when they lost the original competition. Also, especially with our economy the way it is, why would we spend our money overseas for an oversized and overpriced solution instead of right at home for an almost-ideal solution?
Best of three?
Best of three?
Except that you would need rather more KC-46As to the same work as a smaller number of KC-30s if you were intelligent enough to have realised that in the first place, instead of looking at aircraft numbers!
The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except that you would need rather more KC-46As to the same work as a smaller number of KC-30s if you were intelligent enough to have realised that in the first place, instead of looking at aircraft numbers!
The fuel burn issue is, frankly, bolleaux. It's like saying the RB211 in the TriStar had a higher fuel burn than in the 747, so was more expensive to operate......except that the 747 had one more engine! A mistake which one airline's beancounters allegedly made...
Neither of us know the DOD assumptions about the missions profiles. But my guess is that they have a pretty good understanding of the typical USAF refueling mission profile.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threads Merged? Not quite.
When I posted this yesterday on KC-X (merged) I mistakenly thought it had merged this string, too. I'll see if I can't delete it from the other thread, so as not to be (crossposting.)
Boeing Boondoggle: Pork Can Fly
Robert Scheer
Editor of Truthdig.com, Author, 'The Great American Stickup'
Posted: March 2, 2011 02:33 AM
Quote:
"The gift that keeps on giving" should have been the headline on the Pentagon's decision to award the Boeing Co. a $35 billion defense contract. Defense of the nation, of course, had nothing to do with it, since the end of the Cold War also ended the need for midair refueling of the nuclear-armed bombers intended to retaliate after a Soviet first strike, a scenario brought to the public eye in the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove.
Indeed, at a time when drones seem to be bypassing the need for manned military bombers and fighters of any kind, and when schoolteachers and firefighters are being terminated across the country, the awarding of this long-delayed and always questionable military-industrial-complex scam is simply perverse...
The rest at: Robert Scheer: Boeing Boondoggle: Pork Can Fly
--------
When I wrote upstream from here that Second Best Won, I should have written: Second Worst Won.
GB
Boeing Boondoggle: Pork Can Fly
Robert Scheer
Editor of Truthdig.com, Author, 'The Great American Stickup'
Posted: March 2, 2011 02:33 AM
Quote:
"The gift that keeps on giving" should have been the headline on the Pentagon's decision to award the Boeing Co. a $35 billion defense contract. Defense of the nation, of course, had nothing to do with it, since the end of the Cold War also ended the need for midair refueling of the nuclear-armed bombers intended to retaliate after a Soviet first strike, a scenario brought to the public eye in the 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove.
Indeed, at a time when drones seem to be bypassing the need for manned military bombers and fighters of any kind, and when schoolteachers and firefighters are being terminated across the country, the awarding of this long-delayed and always questionable military-industrial-complex scam is simply perverse...
The rest at: Robert Scheer: Boeing Boondoggle: Pork Can Fly
--------
When I wrote upstream from here that Second Best Won, I should have written: Second Worst Won.
GB
OFBSLF, I'm sorry - I didn't mean you personally! I meant 'if you were an assessor' in a generic manner. My apologies for the unintended denigration.
It will indeed to be interesting to see how the 767NoGo fares. Some years ago, we set a simple competition for tanker comparison. Take off from a 10000ft balanced field at sea level/ISA/still-air and what is your max fuel on board? Whereas the A310 and A330 could comfortably take-off with max fuel, the 767 was limited to something like 76 of its 91 tonnes. The first request from the US representative was for a 12000ft balanced field....which was refused.
So I will be most interested to see how the KC-46 performs under hot/high conditions; the Italians have already had to extend Pratica de Mare for their more basic 767-200 derivative but that still means that the MTOW is field-limited during the Mediterranean summer.
Back when the RAF's FSTA competition was between the A330 and B767, I asked the Boeing representative about the poor brochure runway performance figures for the 767-200ER at high weight. "That's where Airbus has the edge", he admitted..... Later some fighter General quoted 767 runway figures, but, having not a clue about scheduled performance, he quoted take-off ground run figures rather than balanced field figures...
Perhaps the KC-46 will have much bigger engines and brakes than the 767-200ER, but with that wing loading they'd need to be much bigger/thirstier engines.
Maybe it's also going to be fitted with anti-gravity systems? Or will it simply rely on Ol' Bubba Boeing's hot air and spin to get it airborne at max fuel?
It will indeed to be interesting to see how the 767NoGo fares. Some years ago, we set a simple competition for tanker comparison. Take off from a 10000ft balanced field at sea level/ISA/still-air and what is your max fuel on board? Whereas the A310 and A330 could comfortably take-off with max fuel, the 767 was limited to something like 76 of its 91 tonnes. The first request from the US representative was for a 12000ft balanced field....which was refused.
So I will be most interested to see how the KC-46 performs under hot/high conditions; the Italians have already had to extend Pratica de Mare for their more basic 767-200 derivative but that still means that the MTOW is field-limited during the Mediterranean summer.
Back when the RAF's FSTA competition was between the A330 and B767, I asked the Boeing representative about the poor brochure runway performance figures for the 767-200ER at high weight. "That's where Airbus has the edge", he admitted..... Later some fighter General quoted 767 runway figures, but, having not a clue about scheduled performance, he quoted take-off ground run figures rather than balanced field figures...
Perhaps the KC-46 will have much bigger engines and brakes than the 767-200ER, but with that wing loading they'd need to be much bigger/thirstier engines.
Maybe it's also going to be fitted with anti-gravity systems? Or will it simply rely on Ol' Bubba Boeing's hot air and spin to get it airborne at max fuel?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re post #56
Heathrow Harry
Yes..my bad!
Yes..my bad!
"On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy."
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OFBSLF, I'm sorry - I didn't mean you personally! I meant 'if you were an assessor' in a generic manner. My apologies for the unintended denigration.
It will indeed to be interesting to see how the 767NoGo fares. Some years ago, we set a simple competition for tanker comparison. Take off from a 10000ft balanced field at sea level/ISA/still-air and what is your max fuel on board? Whereas the A310 and A330 could comfortably take-off with max fuel, the 767 was limited to something like 76 of its 91 tonnes. The first request from the US representative was for a 12000ft balanced field....which was refused.
So I will be most interested to see how the KC-46 performs under hot/high conditions; the Italians have already had to extend Pratica de Mare for their more basic 767-200 derivative but that still means that the MTOW is field-limited during the Mediterranean summer.
Back when the RAF's FSTA competition was between the A330 and B767, I asked the Boeing representative about the poor brochure runway performance figures for the 767-200ER at high weight. "That's where Airbus has the edge", he admitted..... Later some fighter General quoted 767 runway figures, but, having not a clue about scheduled performance, he quoted take-off ground run figures rather than balanced field figures...
Perhaps the KC-46 will have much bigger engines and brakes than the 767-200ER, but with that wing loading they'd need to be much bigger/thirstier engines.
Maybe it's also going to be fitted with anti-gravity systems? Or will it simply rely on Ol' Bubba Boeing's hot air and spin to get it airborne at max fuel?
It will indeed to be interesting to see how the 767NoGo fares. Some years ago, we set a simple competition for tanker comparison. Take off from a 10000ft balanced field at sea level/ISA/still-air and what is your max fuel on board? Whereas the A310 and A330 could comfortably take-off with max fuel, the 767 was limited to something like 76 of its 91 tonnes. The first request from the US representative was for a 12000ft balanced field....which was refused.
So I will be most interested to see how the KC-46 performs under hot/high conditions; the Italians have already had to extend Pratica de Mare for their more basic 767-200 derivative but that still means that the MTOW is field-limited during the Mediterranean summer.
Back when the RAF's FSTA competition was between the A330 and B767, I asked the Boeing representative about the poor brochure runway performance figures for the 767-200ER at high weight. "That's where Airbus has the edge", he admitted..... Later some fighter General quoted 767 runway figures, but, having not a clue about scheduled performance, he quoted take-off ground run figures rather than balanced field figures...
Perhaps the KC-46 will have much bigger engines and brakes than the 767-200ER, but with that wing loading they'd need to be much bigger/thirstier engines.
Maybe it's also going to be fitted with anti-gravity systems? Or will it simply rely on Ol' Bubba Boeing's hot air and spin to get it airborne at max fuel?
Indeed, Brain Potter!
I wonder whether Ol' Bubba Boeing will have more success with this digitally-remastered old airliner than he's had with the 'plastic fantastic' 7-late-7? Or the KC-767I which was something like 6 years late and still hasn't passed its operational acceptance with the Italian Air Force.
Still, at least the ignorant rednecks are happy - they won't have to worry about their 'warfighters' (I hate that stupid American term) flying a 'goddam French airplane'.....
I wonder whether Ol' Bubba Boeing will have more success with this digitally-remastered old airliner than he's had with the 'plastic fantastic' 7-late-7? Or the KC-767I which was something like 6 years late and still hasn't passed its operational acceptance with the Italian Air Force.
Still, at least the ignorant rednecks are happy - they won't have to worry about their 'warfighters' (I hate that stupid American term) flying a 'goddam French airplane'.....
So Boeing won the contest yet they cannot, or will not, give any clear details on whether it is a hybrid of 767 versions or based on one version, no details on the range, payload, and fuel offoad of the winning bid.
Perhaps they are still re-writing their bid to fit what is required?
Perhaps they are still re-writing their bid to fit what is required?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report
From Defense News
EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report
EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report - Defense News
Will they or wont they? They certainly should
EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report
EADS Won't Appeal USAF Tanker Choice: Report - Defense News
Will they or wont they? They certainly should
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ftrplt
.. Maybe. when they have actually finished designing it.. 
Given your moniker and location I thought you would have been privy to what went on with the boom incident? More so I thought you would have had a good understanding of the regularity of boom mishaps throughout tanker fleets globally??
at least its boom will probably be able to safely and reliably pass fuel before the Airbus one will
Given your moniker and location I thought you would have been privy to what went on with the boom incident? More so I thought you would have had a good understanding of the regularity of boom mishaps throughout tanker fleets globally??