Warbird Information Exchange

No, only in colOr. There is a C-17 flying in (more or less) commercial colOrs now, so you are welcome to paint yours any colOr you like.

(All spellings tongue in cheek!)

re; my post of Sept. 18th. waiting to see what sort of shenanigans the USAF was going to pull-it didn't take them long-

Washington State Representative Norm Dicks reported today that the Air Force has chosen to cite a SPECIFIC fuel offload rate in it's bid request which, amazingly enough is exactly the same rate that AIRBUS says its system is designed to deliver at, what an amazing coincidence!

Oh, yeah, the USAF has not yet accepted the rulings of the WTO on AIRBUSES illegal funding of airframe development.

If the USAF continues to keep sticking it's fingers into this they are never, ever going to get ANY tanker built except perhaps years from now when either China or Japans aerospace industry gets big enough to make the winning bid.

I see another round of court battles ahead

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

I ride KC-135's regularly in and out of SW Asia and at this point I don't give a rat's tootie who builds the plane, they just need something bigger NOW. Alot of missions coming back to europe are Medivac flights and it's just too cramped in the 135. Sometimes the AF uses a C-17 for these missions but that's usually overkill when you've only got 6-8 stretcher patients. The 767 or Abus would be a nice change.

_________________
All I did was press this red button here...

Propaganda (CGI) film of the Boeing "KC-7A7" tanker offering:

http://unitedstatestanker.com/blog/main/2009/10/29/coming-to-a-theater-near-youthe-boeing-kc-7a7

From The Everett Daily HERALD newspaper, Dec. 2, 2009 copywrite by Michelle Dunlop, Herald Writer-

Everett- the Boeing Co.'s rival for the $35 Billion tanker contract threatened Tuesday to drop out unless the Pentagon makes significant changes to it's contest. Northrop Grummans chief executive alleged that the Air Force's initial rules show a 'clear preference' for Boeings smaller tanker.

In a letter addressed to the Pentagons aquisitions chief, Nortrops Wes Bush said the Air Force has declined to make changes to it's requirements, making it unlikely that Nortrop will compete.
"I must regrettably inform you that, absent a responsive set of changes in the final (request for proposals), Northrop Grumman has determined that it cannot submit a bid" Bush wrote.
The Air Force tanker competetion has pitted Boeing against Nortrop and it's partner EADS. The politically charged contest, which has dragged on for several years, also pits Washington state, the home of Boeings wide body factory, against Alabama, where Northrop would assemble it's tanker.

The Air Force issued its draft requirements in late September with the plan of releasing its final rules by years end. In response to Nortrops letter, the Defense Department said that Boeing and Northrop each suggested changes to it's request for proposal that would favor their own planes. "both companies can make a good tanker. The Department wants competetion, but cannot compel the two airplane makers to compete" the statement said.

Some members of Congress, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. had complained when the Air Force wanted to select Boeing's KC-767 tanker without a full competetion in ther months following Sept. 11, 2001. That complaint put an end to Boeings xontract with the Air Force.

When the Air Force renewed its efforts to replace 179 of it's KC-135 tankers in 2006, Northrop Grumman joined with EADS, the parent company of Airbus, to compete. During that contest, Northrop also threatened to withdraw, saying the Air Force alreadt favored Boeing.

The Air Force awarded the $35 Billion deal to Northrop in 2008 but eventually called off the contract after government auditors found numerous flaws in the contest. "Todays threat by Airbus to drop out of the tanker competetion unless the rules are changed in their favor is no surprise" said Sen Patty Murry D-Wash., in a statement "this is a new competetion, but the players are the same and Airbus is up to its same old tricks." Besides claiming that the Air Force preffered Boeings tanker, Nortrops Bush also said that the agencies demands place "contractual and financial burdenson the company that we simply cannot accept." The Air Force is asking for a fixed tanker price, though replacing its existing fleet will stretch out for nearly two decades.

The Defence Department said it regretted "that Northrop- Grumman and Airbus have taken themselves out of the tanker competetion and hope they will return" when the request for proposal is issued, which it now expects in January.

The Pentagon isn't the only one hoping that Northrop will continue in the contest, County commisioners in Mobile, Ala. also issued a statement expressing the importance of the contest to their community and state. And Alabamas governor, Bob Riley, lashed out against the President over the tanker contest. "All Americans should be outraged that the Obama administration has corrupted the tanker selection process with a blatently unfair competetion," Riley said, in a statement "All along, we've said the process should be fair and the needs of our warfighters must come first. That definately isn't happening."


So, expain to me why the Department of Defenses trying to keep the competetion as level and even as possible and get the best deal for me, the guy paying for them, is the fault of the President? Bob old buddy, NORGRUMBUS is and has corrupted the process, Or is he just spouting populist ultra conservative right wing 'it's gotta be someone elses fault, lets blame the Democrat' ejecta from the party of "NO" I believe the Air Force basically, initially asked for the equivelent of a half ton pickup truck and that IS what Boeing offered but NORGRUMBUS decided that that wasn't what the customer really wanted and pressured it into accepting a sales order for a 1 ton dually. the GAO looked at the bids and requirements and decided that all was not square and level and requested another round of offers from both groups.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Super, the political pressure achieves to change the requirement to insure that Boeing will have the contract

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

Iclo -

The RFP being issued now and the RFP issued previously are essentially the same. The difference was that the "MRTT" that NG/EADS offered in the first competition did not conform to the original RFP and the Air Force allowed it and then gave bonus points where it said it wouldn't in the RFP. This is what Boeing successfully protested. Now that the RFP has been issued again and the same language has been applied that reiterates that the smaller 767 / A310 package that the USAF wanted originally is what they want to see, NG/EADS are throwing a tantrum because their "perfect" tanker isn't so perfect.

I hate to tell you, but it's a foundation of European aircraft designs. The BAC 1-11 suffered from it. The Trident suffered from it. The Caravelle suffered from it. They all did their production wrong - they told the customer what they needed. EADS has continued this tradition. Instead of asking what the customer needs and designing around it, all of their offerings are based on what they think the "need" is and what the other guys are offering. They are "take it or leave it". They tell you what you "need" and when you tell them that it's not, they act like you're a complete idiot and can't possibly be intelligent. I have had personal dealings with members of EADS and Airbus. I know several people whom have as well, and it's the same thing from everyone (and these people I've talked to are not all American).

If NG/EADS can't offer the A310 Tanker, then that's their problem, not the US's. NG/EADS chose to ignore the rules the first time and now they're suffering the consequences. Boeing suffered the consequences for trying to go around the rules the first time, so it's not a "US vs. the World" deal. It's all about the fact that US Governmental Acquisition policy is a very strict thing and when you're found to not comply with those policies, bad things happen.

Did anyone really need the A380? It failed at JFK (never even close to full) last year so Emirates went back to the 777 on 380 routes. Must be fun boarding with 600-800 people, waiting for checked luggage with 600-800 people.....oh wait, they are usually 200 people below capacity! I remember they said that AirBus could fail if the 380 failed. Great time for it to begin its lifespan, in the middle of a world recession with loads at record lows.

_________________
Cessna 195

At Boeing, the customer is the King. The customer reps are all over the aircraft and have final approval on any engineering fixes that need attention because goof ups happen all the time, the customer also takes money off the final price based on how serious the goof up is, and they can reject fixes like an oversized hole in a skin "show me on this engineering drawing where it's acceptable to install an oversized fastener, Oh you can't then I want a brand new one installed" and Boeing eats a $ 300K skin to keep the customer satisfied.

At EADS the customer isn't even allowed to see the airplane until it's out on the preflight ramp, they are given little to no input on changes or engineering fixes, and "Ah AM sorreee, no money off".
The NORGRUMBUS response is typical spoiled smarta$$ response to a situation ' then I'll just take my ball and go home and sulk'. You can look @ an Airbus product and tell where various sections were built by looking @ the quality of work and the attention to (or lack thereof) in the installation, you can tell the German sections because every wire in a bundle is pefectly straight while the French stuff shoots all over the bay like silly string, and tubing and ducting, for no apparent reason crosses the cargo bay bulkhead to the other side (ever heard of specific length 'not sell me that, I'll make it work'?)and then crosses back over to it's valve or use point.
Unless you provide or specify that you want YOUR configuration and interior installed (and in a lot of cases, you need to provide it to EADS), you get the standard Airbus casino gameroom rugs and rags 'does that carpet have a 'mute' setting?'

So, it's pretty easy to see as CAPFlyer says, they just don't get it and probably never will-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Yess, of course, Airbus only built junk airplanes.... It's so strang that so many customers including US major buy these plane from so long.
Having peoples criticising Caravelle, one of the best success plane in its time is really really funny.

Considering, the term of the deal, when Boeing legaly lost the bid, and some politician were shoked 'Oh, my God, I'm a representative of Washington state, it's not possible than a manufacturer of my state lost a bid against a $é&^z european opponents" The following is very easy: change the specs to be sure thant Boeing will win...+
In a democracy, seeing a polician doing pressure to obtain a market, it's simply a shame.

_________________
Sorry for my bad English:-(

I never said Airbus built 'junk' airplanes, they build inexpensive, readily available aircraft (if they are built a bit less robustly than their American contemporaries, thats is a philosophical and political decision). The reason that so many US carriers lease them is because they ARE cheap to buy and the carriers that do use them are the ones closest to the edge of financial ruin who need to upgrade the fleet because of aging equipment and changing policies and requirements of the Federal agencies who regulate them. USAIR/AMWEST, United, NWA/DELTA all are very close to not being here in another year or two, their fleets were very old, and not being strong enough financially to obtain money from their banks to purchase more expensive Boeing airframes, they went the lower cost, 'lease for a few years and throw it away' philosophy trying to stay in business (and knowing that if tehy went under, the leasing company was stuck with paying off the loan not now gone NARROWSEAT AIRLINES). Airbus has always built designed to a price 'less expensive' taxicab airframes that are good enough for 7 to 10 years then are beyond economical to fix so they get turned back to the leasing company as partial down on more taxicab airframes.

The original RFP(have you bothered to look at the RFP Iclo?) specified an airframe with close to the footprint of the current tanker fleet, KC-135/KC-10, that means a 767 or A 310 sized airframe, not something 35% larger because you don't believe the customer really knows what he wants and can be bamboozled into buying the bigger one for 'just a few dollars more' sort of like a car salesman who tries (and succeeds about 65% of the time) in pushing dad and mom into the bigger, more expensive car they really don't need or want. Boeing stuck to what the customer asked for and that is what CAPFlyer and I are trying to get you to understand, EADS is trying to make 'me' the US taxpayer buy a vehicle that is too big and expensive for my budget never mind the smooth tongued saleman who would sell his Mother to make a buck, I know what I want and it's not the much larger A-330. If EADS can't or won't build a 310 sized tanker then, that too is a political and philosophical decision built on pigheadedness. I do remember that they did bust their collective rearends to fire up the 310 lines again to get FEDEX and UPS freighters that allowed them to operate in Europe with the EU's freezeout of US built airframes that were doing the job just fine,talk about politically motivated chicanery that is a classic example, but then the French have always pushed the world around with its mouth and attitudes.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

...you know it's threads like this that make me want to leave this place

_________________
Paul Filmer
skippyscage photography

I'm not sure what you were expecting to see here in this thread?????

This is a very contentious issue, and has been for some time. There are allegations on both sides about illegal government subsidies, and protests from both sides have been sustained in two separate competitions. Then there is the current senator and failed presidential candidate from Arizona that has a well known vedetta against Boeing.

I admit to not being objective on this topic, but I do like to hear the opinions of others even if they disagree with me. You might also consider the fact that some of the posters in this thread have a vested interest in the outcome- this competition might have a tremendous effect on their livelihoods and that of their friends and associates.

I enjoy this discussion because I'm not very familiar with the differences in the various commercial based aircraft. I'm here to learn from the people involved- not some reporter that writes about a topic he has no real knowledge of.

I would hate to see you leave, but I won't beg you to stay either. That is your decision alone.

I will echo "The Inspectors" sentiments on the Airbus. They are safe aircraft - when handled (flown) and maintained under extremely regimented conditions.

However, on the maintenance side, they are much less tolerant to failure (i.e. more things will ground the plane) and the replacement pipeline is much more "structured". By this I mean that when you need a spare part, instead of being able to get just one, Airbus figures out how many you "need" based on your total fleet and then makes you purchase that many or else they won't sell it to you. Then they tell you they have to inspect them at Toulouse before sending it to you and charge you for that shipping, yet the parts show up 24-48 hours later direct from the subcontractor who made it. In addition, they won't let you deal directly with any of the suppliers for parts other than "wear" items like tires, brakes, and some flexible hoses, so you can't get yourself a better deal direct.

From a ground handling side, Airbuses fuel slower, the fuel panels are patently unsafe (nothing to prevent them from interfering with slats if not properly secured, no over-center locking mechanism or other secondary locking mechanism), and they all have a very high ground clearance requiring ladders and other "big bird" equipment like belt loaders to even access the A318/319/320/321, requiring a lot of extra handling equipment not required for most other aircraft of similar size.

Having fueled both the A330 and A340, I don't see how these aircraft will be capable of the quick turn times that may be required of them unless a massive redesign of the single point fuel system connection and fuel panel placement locations is undertaken.

I find this somewhat humorous because this is EXACTLY the same discussion that was going on in the 1980s at Douglas Aircraft when people were comparing Douglas designed aircraft to those of Boeing. The word was that Douglas aircraft were designed for an indefinite service life while the Boeing aircraft were throwaways. Sounds like history repeating itself, at least if opinions alone are being considered. You tend to rationalize that which you know.