Viva France!!!
OH, GOD! MY inner evil twin brother took control for a second. How unpatriotic could this buy be? American economy tanking? I think so. Au contraire, good day for France, but still, Airbus?
Viva France!!!
OH, GOD! MY inner evil twin brother took control for a second. How unpatriotic could this buy be? American economy tanking? I think so. Au contraire, good day for France, but still, Airbus?
"lol retart"
After picking my jaw up off the floor my knee jerk reaction was how could the USAF do this? The patriotic side of me says with the economy in recession (face it people) we're forking over tens of billions of dollars to Airbus and costing thousands of US jobs. Not to mention the mental stigma of the of the backbone of the USAF's logistcal fleet for the next 50+ years wil be basically a European aicraft.
But after soaking it all up for a few days my sense of reason comes up with a far different answer. The fact is that the A-330 is far more capable of meeting the needs of the USAF as a whole. I believe the biggest impact on the decision may well have been the current crisis the USAF is facing with strategic air lift. 40-50 year old KC-135's, 30+ year old C-5's with a upgrade program for them in limbo and C-17's pushed to the brink after their 1 for 2 takeover of the C-141 fleet. The Airbus will carry more fuel and cargo than the 767. Multiply that difference by the projected 400 aircraft fleet and the final numbers were fat too much for an already overstretched USAF to overlook.
To sum it up I'm OK with deal but will not believe the final assembly taking place in Alabama story until I see the aircraft rolling off the line and rotating for take off. Had Boeing submitted a serious 777 proposal 4 years ago and pursued a flying example as Airbus did the outcome may have been very different. In closing I say what about some USAF heavy lift AN-225's? They would look pretty nice lined up at Dover AFB!
+++++1970-2006+++++
Tomcats Forever, Baby!
I agree , If there was a B777 tanker prototype , it may have swayed the brass a little better? That is not to say the B767 based tanker isnt a good product. I imagined a mixed order. In some cases a 767 can operate into places the -330 cant because of it's size. In the end , would it have been better to order both? I guess time will tell.Originally Posted by MORS-AB-ALTO
BTW . Its not uncommon to see an A124 sitting on the ramp at Dover or Charleston , flying under contract to the AMC...
I would love to get my hands on the US Air debrief :mrgreen:
Boeing to File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080310/aqm146.html?.v=30
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
I would love to get my hands on the US Air debrief :mrgreen:
Boeing to File Protest of U.S. Air Force Tanker Contract Award
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/080310/aqm146.html?.v=30
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
Additional information:
Now I can see the risk factor that the US Air Force was speaking about, the A330 is the same aircraft that the Aussies have...The team has been criticized for offering too complex an aircraft, with the 767-200 airframe; over-wing exits from the -300; floors, doors and structurally enhanced wings from the -300F; a cockpit, tail section and flaps from the -400ER. However, the Boeing executives said their model of building in as many of these features as possible, limiting the military modification work, was less risky than the Air Force rated.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... el=defense
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
It's flat out WRONG.
"my finger on the shutter button, while my eye is over my shoulder"
I fail to see the risk in the 767's design, I'm no expert in that, It would seem by using components of aircraft already built and in service would not add risk but reduce it.
Seems like Boeing has valid points regarding how the USAF changed the ramp and runway requirements.
Im sure there will be many more twists and turns to come...
The risk has to do with the proposed 767 model has never been built before, the Boeing proposal had parts of the 767-200, 767-300, & the 767-400, so, there was some risk. The A330 proposal has already been designed.....
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
The Aussies have them on order but I don't think any have been delivered yet. Delivery is set for early 2009, which is a few months delayed from the original schedule.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9
If delivery is set for early 2009, that means the aircraft has been designed, constructed & has had the various test flights, which reduces the risk......
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually,
run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
The 1st 2 KC-767's have already been delvered to the Japanese Air Force. So in that regard the Boeing is ahead of the Airbus.If delivery is set for early 2009, that means the aircraft has been designed, constructed & has had the various test flights, which reduces the risk......
By the 767 sharing the -300F's wings is no differrent than what Boeing has already done with the BBJ / C-40.
Since the -400 is merely an evolution of the -200 . Why would the flightdeck be a risk?
Boeing took out a full-page color ad in the New York Times yesterday titled "THE TANKER DECISION: WHY IT DOESN'T ADD UP.". I would scan and post it, but I can't seem to find a copy of the paper around here :shock:
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks