[Yo-Yo]

OK, try to outline life-cycle costs 40 years out. How are you possibly going to predict what structural repairs, avionics and engine upgrades, and new mission adaptations will be required in 40 years?

[Yo-Yo]

Ping

[cmdr straker]

OK, try to outline life-cycle costs 40 years out. How are you possibly going to predict what structural repairs, avionics and engine upgrades, and new mission adaptations will be required in 40 years

Easy for Boeing they still have planes flying that old. EADS will have a problem with it as there planes do not last even close to that long.

Acutally its a formula derived from maintenace records showing trends and life cycles of equipment engines gear ect.

As for this new RFP its gonna get hammered down by congress before it gets off the ground already congress had a bill that states it must be on the original RFP and no extra credit. also takes into account work force and foreign content.

[Paleo Conservative]

How are you possibly going to predict what structural repairs, avionics and engine upgrades, and new mission adaptations will be required in 40 years?

Well the 767 has been flying in commercial service for 26 years, so some of the structural repairs are probably already known. On the other hand, new build 767's probably already have modifications to correct deficiencies in the original design, so they may have different issues 40-60 years down the line.

[Ingtar]

As a refueler put it to me in explaining this, “They need to put a different criteria first as it is the most important: can it perform the mission as well as the current craft?” This apparently eliminates the Airbus offering as it does not have the acceleration to handle any problems in a fueling. You will see more accidents/crashes/loss of life with the Airbus plane.

[lilylangtree]

I just read that Boeing can’t meet the deadline in submitting the new specs for the larger plane. This brings to mind the question: then why re-open the bidding process and waste all the taxpayers monies?