Last C-17 to go to India...........
 

The U.S. State Department has approved the possible sale to India of one Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, with an estimated cost of $366 million, a Pentagon agency said on Monday.




The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a statement it notified Congress on Monday of the sale, which includes four turbofan engines, a missile warning system, a countermeasures dispensing system and an identification friend or foe transponder.



Rueters

How much infrastructure is necessary to keep a 'fleet' of ONE aircraft operating?

Don't know, it is in addition to the 10 they already have.

Probably do like in Australia and participate in the global spares system. Engine craps out, and yours disappears into the ether and a new one appears.

rather surprised Mr B didn't keep the line ticking over - I'd have thought there'd be a steady trickle of orders going forward - maybe not always bought in advance but willing to pick up a white tail off the shelf

Seriously? And how much do you think that would cost, all on the off chance of a 'trickle of orders'?

-RP

well the line is paid for so you have no major investment and you price each unit to reflect the cost of production + profit

Lot depends on how much of the Corproate Overhead you decide to load onto the programme but it keeps you in the game and, possibly more importantly, acts as road block to any new large freighter development by one of your rivals.............

Close the line at the end of the DoD contract and closure costs are paid for my the taxpayer. Keep it open and all ongoing costs and final closure costs are paid for by the shareholders....

...only it isn't.

• All the fixed assets (tooling, buildings, officers) depreciate on the balance sheet.
• The operational costs of wages for staff, recurrent training, and all supporting logistics (Stores, etc) continue and inflate with time
• The supply chain would need to be kept viable. Boeing's suppliers are not also going to hang around on the off-chance of getting onesy-twosey orders. In fact Boeing's suppliers could very well hit them with Minimum Order Quantities, meaning you pay a lot up front to build a one-er, and sit the surplus kit on the shelf (which you're now carrying on the balance sheet, depreciating, and may time-ex)

CapEx is one thing, and probably well amortised, but the on-going op costs would sting. Cash is king!

It's too late now, at least for Boeing Long Beach where all the C-17 were built:

Boeing auctioned off all the heavy equipment in the facility. If there are anymore C-17s to be built, it won't be in Long Beach, CA.

piperpa46 wrote:

Don't know, it is in addition to the 10 they already have.

Doh! That will (or ought) to teach me not to post when virtually asleep on my feet!

So that's what they do with the overseas aid we give them that they say they do not need.

Harry, it takes a boatload of money to keep a large production line open. Not only are you talking a huge factory - with all the associated costs such as lights, taxes, etc. - there are all the costs the thousands of vendors have to keep the capability going. Vendors are promised a minimum production rate - if it drops below that they are under no obligation to maintain their capability. Bottom line, it's nearly impossible to build airplanes profitably at much less than one/month. When Boeing slowed the 747-8 production to six/year, they took a billion dollar write-off - and the only reason they are bothering to keep the line open is they think the 747-8F still has a promising future (there are over a hundred 747-400F and -400BCFs (not to mention numerous 747 classics) out there that are north of 100,000 hours, and they can't keep flying them forever). Boeing claims they can build 747s at 1/month and make money, but not at 1/2 per month while Airbus is struggling to make the A380 cash flow positive at 1/month while they try to drum up new orders...
Boeing made the decision to build the last ten C-17s as white tails - betting a few billion dollars that they'd be able to sell them eventually. They did, but it took over three years to move all 10 aircraft.

I know, I know - but a lot of it is in the accounting shuffle - the REAL cost I guess is keeping the people on teh production line up to speed

Cost -wise it will probably cost a lot more in the long run to spec., design, test and build a replacement

But they claim they won't need a new one for over 40 years. That's a long time to pay a company to keep a couple of thousand people and $Bs in assets tied up waiting for the odd order or two for a product which is rapidly becoming obsolete as engines, avionics and composite material technology moves on.