More KC-46A woes....

[msbbarratt]

Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.

I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political.

[chopper2004]

[QUOTE=msbbarratt;10569282]Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.

I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political.

L-M and Airbus teaming to promote MRTT in USA as a sort of Omega alternative a year back and it was reaffirmed at Le Bourget back in June.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...-air-show.html

[msbbarratt]

Originally Posted by chopper2004

Originally Posted by msbbarratt

Given the numerous problems besetting Boeing and its programmes at the moment and how much money they've burned through since the MAX crashes, I wonder if the USAF is beginning to quietly make contingency plans for acquiring the Airbus alternative? Some fairly respectable financial analyses I've read recently suggest Boeing are going to have to find new cash around about New Year, if they can't get the MAX back on track. If they can't, and if the company were then to go bust, getting the KC-46s running properly might be difficult.

I have a horrible feeling this is all going to get even more political.

L-M and Airbus teaming to promote MRTT in USA as a sort of Omega alternative a year back and it was reaffirmed at Le Bourget back in June.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/pres...-air-show.html

Hmm, Airbus and Lockheed Martin ganging up on Boeing. Must be pretty uncomfortable to be in Boeing's shoes at present.

[esscee]

Oh dear, how sad, never mind lovely boy! Just about sums up Boeing at present. Far too many corners being cut, not enough supervision and paying peanuts you get monkeys.

[ORAC]

Air Force Magazine

Boeing Floats Two-Step Solution for KC-46 Cargo Issue

Boeing is proposing a two-step solution to address a major new deficiency with its KC-46 tanker, which limits the aircraft’s ability to carry personnel or cargo.

Air Mobility Command on Sept. 11 revealed the deficiency and the restrictions it imposed after multiple incidents in which cargo restraint devices broke open during operational test and evaluation flights. The locks were fully installed and inspected, but still malfunctioned during flight. “No cargo or equipment moved and there was no specific risk to the aircraft or crew,” AMC spokesman Col. Damien Pickart said.

Boeing, in a Sept. 13 statement, said the company and the Air Force team are “making good progress to resolve the issue.”

The company has suggested two paths, one an interim solution and one a long-term fix. For now, the company wants to use tie-down straps to secure the cargo.

“This solution is undergoing further analysis and will be shared with the USAF in the coming days,” the company said. “The straps will enable the USAF to resume some cargo operations.”

Secondly, the company is testing a “robust, longer-term fix” for the malfunctioning lock mechanism. Boeing said it will soon have results of its tests and will present the options to the Air Force early in the week of Sept. 15.

“We stand ready to implement any actions as quickly as possible,” Boeing said. “The safety of the KC-46 aircraft and crew is our top priority.”

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by esscee

Oh dear, how sad, never mind lovely boy! Just about sums up Boeing at present. Far too many corners being cut, not enough supervision and paying peanuts you get monkeys.

Pay is not the problem - Boeing machinists are among the highest compensated blue color workers anywhere.
Lack of supervision is not the problem either - although piss poor management is a contributor.

That being said, Boeing uses thousands of suppliers - yet Boeing gets the flack when 0.01% of those suppliers get it wrong.

[rattman]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Pay is not the problem - Boeing machinists are among the highest compensated blue color workers anywhere.
Lack of supervision is not the problem either - although piss poor management is a contributor.

That being said, Boeing uses thousands of suppliers - yet Boeing gets the flack when 0.01% of those suppliers get it wrong.

I heard depends on where you are, the NC plants that are not unionised the pay is pretty bad, on the other hand everett which is still unionised the pay/conditions and the quality of the planes are better

[Asturias56]

TBh I think Boeing needs "to send a message" by moving their HQ back to Seattle

[ErwinS]

I am just stunned how Boeing can mess this up for over so many years. The airframe is proven, 767.
Italy and Japan are flying for years with the KC-767.
But somehow Boeing has so much trouble with the KC-46. Just beyond me such icompetence.....

[Asturias56]

Classic ase of adding on requirements standards that add very little to the overall mission but then if they'd just bought a KC-767 what would that do for the careers of the Officers given the job of buying it ?

[Scuffers]

Whilst I can understand supporting your own industries, at what point does somebody have to say that this is just not working out?

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the MRTT spec's somewhat better than this disaster?

[Asturias56]

wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................

There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

Classic ase of adding on requirements standards that add very little to the overall mission but then if they'd just bought a KC-767 what would that do for the careers of the Officers given the job of buying it ?

If memory serves, the KC-767 was a disaster, with both subpar performance and massive delivery delays.
So one might have thought that Boeing would by now have learned how to build a tanker version of the 767. Clearly one would have thought wrong, the USAF specs allowed a whole new bunch of flaws to emerge.
I'm confident the Airbus offering would have performed vastly better, if only because they had a NATO spec product ready for production at a new US site.

[Mk 1]

Originally Posted by etudiant

If memory serves, the KC-767 was a disaster, with both subpar performance and massive delivery delays.
So one might have thought that Boeing would by now have learned how to build a tanker version of the 767. Clearly one would have thought wrong, the USAF specs allowed a whole new bunch of flaws to emerge.
I'm confident the Airbus offering would have performed vastly better, if only because they had a NATO spec product ready for production at a new US site.

Seems to be working pretty well here in Australia.

[msbbarratt]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................

There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that

If things keep going badly for Boeing, defending American jobs might become very expensive. I don't know how much thought Uncle Sam is giving to whether it might have to intervene in Boeing's future, but if it does have to, I'd have thought sooner rather than later would be easiest. Left too late, the US gov might have an impossible job reconstituting the company as an operating concern. Laid off staff will disappear into the jobs market ASAP, possibly as far as Mobile...

One supposes that there's quite a lot of functions fulfilled by Boeing that are of strategic and economic importance, and must continue whatever happens. For instance, if Boeing cease operations who'd pick up the Design Authority role for all those airliners, never mind all those military aircraft? The thought of all those aircraft not flying gives me cold sweats.

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

wellll assuming they could make it work ........... but let's not get into the AvB issue again on here please..................

There is no way the current US Govt is going to buy Airbus and ditch Boeing - Trump was elected to defend AMERICAN JOBS, he's running for re-election and that's that

Aren't some Airbuses built in the US, with American jobs ?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by rattman

I heard depends on where you are, the NC plants that are not unionised the pay is pretty bad, on the other hand everett which is still unionised the pay/conditions and the quality of the planes are better

All KC-46s are built in Everett, so that pretty much blows that argument (both major assembly and tanker conversion work). I don't believe there is any meaningful KC-46 content from NC.

Without rehashing hundreds of previous posts, the MRTT doesn't come close to meeting the mandatory USAF requirements (neither did the KC-767 - which is why the KC-46 development was such a huge task). The MRTT would need a massive redesign before it could be considered a viable replacement.
Or is it being advocated to replace a non-compliant Boeing offering with a non-compliant Airbus offering?

[Scuffers]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Without rehashing hundreds of previous posts, the MRTT doesn't come close to meeting the mandatory USAF requirements (neither did the KC-767 - which is why the KC-46 development was such a huge task). The MRTT would need a massive redesign before it could be considered a viable replacement.
Or is it being advocated to replace a non-compliant Boeing offering with a non-compliant Airbus offering?

OK, without doing a re-hash, what are the highlights of the requirements neither plane meet?

As for defending Boeing, that's got to be getting harder with the growing list of disasters? at what point does operational necessity override political preference?

(for the record, I have the same issues with airbus, specifically the A400 project)

[ORAC]

Let’s just say the Boeing plan to have the KC-Y programme (KC-10 replacement) be changed to just an extended purchase of KC-46s might not be so certain as expected a couple of years ago.....

[GlobalNav]

Originally Posted by ErwinS

I am just stunned how Boeing can mess this up for over so many years. The airframe is proven, 767.
Italy and Japan are flying for years with the KC-767.
But somehow Boeing has so much trouble with the KC-46. Just beyond me such icompetence.....

It is stunning. It's not like the means of securing cargo is an unsolved challenge - re: C-130, C-141, C-5, C-17. Boeing (or Air Force?) chose a different method or different materials, but why? Whatever the reason, it defines "dumb as dirt"!