Posted on 03/05/2010 8:42:47 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Range of a 767-300ER is about 6,000 nm. LaGuardia to California is just about 2,000 nm. A full 767-300ER can't takeoff from LaGuardia. Required runway length is over 8,000 ft.
I don’t believe that Airbus 330’s can takeoff from LGA.
NG just posted their decision to no-bid the contract.
Good decision.
To: boycott
“Well it wasn’t part of the deal what Northrop/EADS won the bid on last time. The only reason it was pulled is because of politics and unions.”
Strange, the reason NG bailed was because their aircraft (the EADS A330) failed to meet several requirements during the 2008 KC-X Selection.
“Northrop/EADS and the communities that were going to build the tanker that won the bid were screwed.”
Yes, I do feel sorry for Toulouse, Hamburg and several other European cities that will not receive a bailout.
“No need to go back and forth about it. The folks with Boeing must find it difficult to keep a straight face when they defend Boeing on this deal.”
Perhaps they took lessons from NG/EADS after they “won” the 2008 selection with a plane that FAILED to meet requirements.
“Again, no need to go on. It just the “Take that EADS!” comment keeps it going. We know we were screwed and treated unfairly by this nation that requires us to pay our fair share of taxes.”
How do you feel you were screwed? Your plane FAILED to meet the requirements of the selection process.
“They should sit it out and just tell the government to go ahead and give Boeing their “blank check.” “
NG is sitting this out, too much risk; NG will not get “Launch Aid” from the EU for the KC-30. EADS just got a ‘blank check’ from the EU for the A400.
“No way the politicians and unions are going to let Northrop/EADS win fairly or under any circumstances.”
The only way the A330 can win is “under any circumstances” meaning changes are made to the requirements allowing the A330 to meet adjusted requirement, since the A330 FAILED to meet several key requirements during the 2008 selection process.
“Foreign nations should take note before buying anything made by Boeing or other USA weapons manufacturers. They need to realize that they will not be treated fairly in the USA.”
EADS and other EU companies routinely bribe foreign govt officials and company exec to purchase EADS/EU products. Boeing cannot bribe people, because the USA has laws regarding that, like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977.
Well, that and the fact that the Air Force changed and fudged its requirements after the RFP had been released, and then did not follow the rules in their source selection.
Successful protests are rare, especially for contracts like this one. The fact that the protest was granted, says a whole lot. Boeing had a legitimate complaint, and it was upheld.
Sorry, pal.... the USAF seriously screwed the pooch last time.
Whatever, pal.
This story is over a month old. Let it go.
In my opinion, Boeing is as corrupt as the politicians that won them the contract. Nothing you can come up with is going to change that opinion.
I hope all the corrupt politicians, the Boeing thugs, and union thugs choke on it.
Again, the story is over a month old. You guys stole it so I hope you choke on it. Now leave me alone, ....... pal.
Wow....
Your ... “Sorry, pal ......... “ comment is where that came from.
Spin it all you want but you and I both know how it was meant.
Wow... you’re really touchy.
Wow... you’re really touchy.
Bye.
To: Yo-Yo
“The burn rate isn’t that dramatically different with equal loads. Why do you think the A330 decimated civil 767 sales? Because it has a lower seat-mile cost. Fly both of the aircraft empty, and sure the Boeing costs less. Fly them both at 200,000 lbs of fuel, and they’re close enough to being equal. Fly them both with 240,000 lbs of fuel, and - oh wait, the Boeing can’t hold 240,000 lbs of fuel.”
Yo-Yo, the USAF is not interested in seat-mile cost because the KC-X is not being chosen for its passenger carrying ability. The A330 burns 20-25% more fuel than a 767. Load an A330 with 240,000 lbs of fuel and a 767 with 200,000 lbs of fuel, then have both of them fly the same 6,500 NM route carrying the same load and guess what both will land with almost the same amount of fuel. Why/how? With 240,000 lbs of fuel an A330 can fly with 6,750NM while the 767 with 200,000 lbs of fuel can fly 6,590NM.
“Yes, there is no getting around the fact that the A330 would take more ramp space and larger hanger space than the 767.”
Correct, an A330 is 55% larger than a 767. Compared to the KC-135, the plane that KC-X will replace, the 767 is 24% larger (for a 5-10% increase in fuel capability), while the A330 is 78% larger (for a 25% increase in fuel capability).
“However, in forward airbases, the A330 can operate out of shorter fields while delivering the same amount of fuel as the 767. When operating in a combat environment, the A330 can carry and deliver more fuel, and stay on station longer, so fewer sorties will be required to deliver the same amount of fuel, an overall savings in time and number of aircraft required for the mission.”
Yo-Yo, think about it, at a forward airbase you are not going to have a large amount of ramp space. The A330 requires 55% more ramp space than a 767, meaning you can park three 767 on the same amount of ramp space that you can park two A330. Two A330 tankers can carry 490,000 lbs of fuel while three 767 tankers can carry over 600,000 lbs of fuel. The A330 can carry more fuel but the longer it stay on station the less fuel it can give away. Taking off with 240,000 lbs of fuel, one hour later an A330 would have 37,000 more fuel than a 767, but after 8 hours (typical tanker missions last 6-8 hours) that number drops to 17,000 lbs more fuel. Why? Because the A330 is 55% bigger, weighs 65,000 lbs more and burn 2,700 to 3,000 lbs of fuel more per hour than a 767.
“Interesting tidbit: Boeing has never, in it’s history, won a tanker competition with the USAF. The KB-29, KB-50, KC-97 and KC-135 were sole sourced to Boeing. McDonnell Douglas’ KC-10 beat Boeing’s KC-747 offering in the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft competition, and the KC-767AT lost to NG-EADS’ KC-30. in the last KC-X competition.”
Yo-Yo, do some research, Yes the KB-29 & KB-50 were selected without competition, Why? Because the USAF had hundreds of B-29 & B-50 already flying and the KB-29 & KB-50 were conversions of existing B-29 & B-50. Boeing lost the original KC-135 selection to the Douglas DC-8, the DC-8 based proposal was better than the 707 based Boeing tanker. Unfortunately for Douglas, the DC-8 tanker was still on the drawing board, the USAF ordered 29 KC-135A as interim tankers, pending delivery of the DC-8 based tanker, due to development & production delays the USAF ordered additional KC-135 from Boeing and later cancelled the DC-8 tanker.
Regarding the previous KC-X selection, Yes the EADS KC-30 was selected BUT as the GAO discovered during its investigation there was a pattern of bias in the way the competition was conducted to include the addition of new scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted, improper communications between the Air Force and the Northrop Grumman-led team, the use of erroneous data on past performance and vehicle costs, and changing the weights assigned to certain factors after the proposals were received. These were not faux pas but major errors that bordered on criminal behavior. In plain English the USAF conducted an incompetent, unprofessional source selection. That’s why a second round was required — to fix all the problems arising out of the first round.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.