I'm a member of
Quicksearch
Codenews Search
Disclaimer
The individual owning this blog works at Sun Microsystems GmbH in Germany, a subsidiary of Oracle. The opinions expressed here are his own, are not necessarily reviewed in advance by anyone but the individual author, and neither Oracle nor any other party necessarily agrees with them.
Navigation
Categories
About this blog- Apple
- iPhone
- Aviation
- Bahn
- Begriffe des Lebens
- Blogosphere
- Braindump
- Business Travel
- CANBOX
- CeBIT
- CEC
- Computing
- del.icio.us
- Fundsache
- General
- HHOSUG
- i hate sundays
- Kochen
- Mindfuck
- Movies
- Music
- On Benchmarketing
- Persoenliches Pech
- Photographie
- policy of ...
- Privacy
- Recommended Blogs
- Security
- Solaris
- Strange Days
- Sun/Oracle
- suncec2007
- suncec2008
- Technology
- The IT Business
- Toolbox
- Travel
- Work
News from the tanker deal
Friday, July 11. 2008
Well, Northop lost the deal after the GAO ruling, there will be an new Request for Proposals ... but i really think that Boeing wonīt get the deal in the next attempt either when there is no further political counterfire.
The problem is somewhat bigger: Letīs assume Boeing has enough time to build a tanker on the foundation of the 777 airframe to get a bigger aircraft. They have another problem: They do not have the capacities to build it. The 777 is a successful plane and in addition to that they sell this planes as an interims solution for airlines with an urgent need for aircrafts since the 787 is vastly delayed at the moment. The USAF would be a customer like anyone else and do not believe Boeing can explain to their commercial customers that the next 150 airframes are reserved for the USAF ... which in turn would be nice for Airbus: More A330/A340 to sell. And they canīt put the tanker 777 at the end of the line. At several locations in the net you can read that they need a replacement for their old tankers really soon.
The solution with the 767 wouldnīt have this problem. Itīs an EOLed planed for commercial customers and thus they have the capacities to produce it in the old assembly lines. So the point "the airforce wants a bigger tanker" is a real problem to Boeing. They are dependent to the old requirements in the request for an proposal. And in some news outlets in the US you can already see the lobbying against a modification of the requirements in favour of an bigger plane.
I think, the end of this year will really interesting for both companies.
The problem is somewhat bigger: Letīs assume Boeing has enough time to build a tanker on the foundation of the 777 airframe to get a bigger aircraft. They have another problem: They do not have the capacities to build it. The 777 is a successful plane and in addition to that they sell this planes as an interims solution for airlines with an urgent need for aircrafts since the 787 is vastly delayed at the moment. The USAF would be a customer like anyone else and do not believe Boeing can explain to their commercial customers that the next 150 airframes are reserved for the USAF ... which in turn would be nice for Airbus: More A330/A340 to sell. And they canīt put the tanker 777 at the end of the line. At several locations in the net you can read that they need a replacement for their old tankers really soon.
The solution with the 767 wouldnīt have this problem. Itīs an EOLed planed for commercial customers and thus they have the capacities to produce it in the old assembly lines. So the point "the airforce wants a bigger tanker" is a real problem to Boeing. They are dependent to the old requirements in the request for an proposal. And in some news outlets in the US you can already see the lobbying against a modification of the requirements in favour of an bigger plane.
I think, the end of this year will really interesting for both companies.
Posted by Joerg Moellenkamp
in Aviation, English
at
18:55
| Comments (8)
| Trackbacks (0)
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
Defined tags for this entry: boeing
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
The French nor the British would ever, not in a million years use Boeing over EADS/Airbus.
It would be utterly foolish to allow EADS to get this deal. EADS also wants to be paid in Euros not dollars, so the cost keeps going up and up and up due to the dollar collapse.
It would literally be cheaper for the government to pay to build Boeing a bigger 777 assembly line than it would be to mess around with EADS.
The 747 was build in 1969, works today, great. Took Airbus nearly 40 years to "beat it" (the A380 failed the wing load test). The KC-135 is a 707/Dash-80 first made 55 years ago. Works today. The Boeing B-52 is another first made 55 years ago plane works today. It outlived the F111, the B1A, and is still cheaper than the B1B and the B2 and works just as good.
Why is it even legal for us to consider scarebus? none of the planes they make can last as long in service as Boeing, and the last 50 years proves this. After 20 years, the Airbus stuff falls apart, bad, Boeing 707s still fly today.
It would be utterly foolish to allow EADS to get this deal. EADS also wants to be paid in Euros not dollars, so the cost keeps going up and up and up due to the dollar collapse.
It would literally be cheaper for the government to pay to build Boeing a bigger 777 assembly line than it would be to mess around with EADS.
The 747 was build in 1969, works today, great. Took Airbus nearly 40 years to "beat it" (the A380 failed the wing load test). The KC-135 is a 707/Dash-80 first made 55 years ago. Works today. The Boeing B-52 is another first made 55 years ago plane works today. It outlived the F111, the B1A, and is still cheaper than the B1B and the B2 and works just as good.
Why is it even legal for us to consider scarebus? none of the planes they make can last as long in service as Boeing, and the last 50 years proves this. After 20 years, the Airbus stuff falls apart, bad, Boeing 707s still fly today.
This seems to be the logic of a pure Boeing fanboy:
1. You forgot the germans ... they produce large parts of the plane.
2. Do you know how many Euros goes to the big military companies of the US of A? Itīs an incredible amount of money.
3. The comment with "paid in Euro" is nonsense ... itīs this spin doctored stuff. Do you really believe that ... ?
4. The FAL and the militarization for the tanker is in Mobile/Alabama and thats the expensive part ... so no problem. Last time i heard of it, it was a location where you pay with dollars, and Northrop-Grumman will be paid in US$.
The 747 is an really old plane. The -8 is just a 747 with new engines. It tool Airbus 40 years because the have started a few years ago after obliterating the market for the Classic 737 and today, Boeing can only sell their planes by being cheaper.
4. And well ... itīs interesting that the aircraft industry of the US wasnīt able to build a plane again (since the 707 or B52) that was able to survive 55 years. The B-52 is only capable to survive today as itīs used to to bombardments in locations where the US already has air supremacy ... against a modern air defense system the plane is like large good target. And today you can even detect the B2 by radar ...
And who told you that shit with falling apart after 20 years ? Someone at Boeing ?
Believe it or not ... building aircrafts is not a business mastered by the US only ...
1. You forgot the germans ... they produce large parts of the plane.
2. Do you know how many Euros goes to the big military companies of the US of A? Itīs an incredible amount of money.
3. The comment with "paid in Euro" is nonsense ... itīs this spin doctored stuff. Do you really believe that ... ?
4. The FAL and the militarization for the tanker is in Mobile/Alabama and thats the expensive part ... so no problem. Last time i heard of it, it was a location where you pay with dollars, and Northrop-Grumman will be paid in US$.
The 747 is an really old plane. The -8 is just a 747 with new engines. It tool Airbus 40 years because the have started a few years ago after obliterating the market for the Classic 737 and today, Boeing can only sell their planes by being cheaper.
4. And well ... itīs interesting that the aircraft industry of the US wasnīt able to build a plane again (since the 707 or B52) that was able to survive 55 years. The B-52 is only capable to survive today as itīs used to to bombardments in locations where the US already has air supremacy ... against a modern air defense system the plane is like large good target. And today you can even detect the B2 by radar ...
And who told you that shit with falling apart after 20 years ? Someone at Boeing ?
Believe it or not ... building aircrafts is not a business mastered by the US only ...
2. Since when does EADS bill in ? AFAIK they even pay their european suppliers in USD. 
OK time to take off the rose coloured glasses, this rebid will go to Boeing, the bid is only to be judged on those points that were brought to the GAO as in dispute:
requisites:
The aircraft must be able to fuel all U.S. aircraft equipped with in-air refueling capabilities, The 767 can
The A330 cannot
The aircraft must be able to operate out of all existing Air Force facilities.
Same answer as above
as an aside the Air Force would have to spend nearly half a Billion Dollars in additional costs to rebuild hangers and runways to accommodate the A330.
These costs were not factored into the bid by EADS/NG and as the GAO has pointed out they must be included in the bid cost.
All this can be confirmed by going to the DOD web site and reading the GAO document.
And as for the production of the Airbus it will continue to be built in France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and other Euro countries.
The plant in the Mobile will only assemble those parts shipped from Europe, along with installing the required military equipment.
And the other consideration not brought to light but will certainly weigh with congress is the fact that the twenty two senior management of EADS and Airbus are under investigation for criminal fraud with some already indicted.
These are only a very few of the many findings by the GAO that are in dispute, and as they have publicly stated, they are of the opinion that had the Air Force carried this bid and evaluation process out properly and the cost calculated correctly then Boeing would have won???
requisites:
The aircraft must be able to fuel all U.S. aircraft equipped with in-air refueling capabilities, The 767 can
The A330 cannot
The aircraft must be able to operate out of all existing Air Force facilities.
Same answer as above
as an aside the Air Force would have to spend nearly half a Billion Dollars in additional costs to rebuild hangers and runways to accommodate the A330.
These costs were not factored into the bid by EADS/NG and as the GAO has pointed out they must be included in the bid cost.
All this can be confirmed by going to the DOD web site and reading the GAO document.
And as for the production of the Airbus it will continue to be built in France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and other Euro countries.
The plant in the Mobile will only assemble those parts shipped from Europe, along with installing the required military equipment.
And the other consideration not brought to light but will certainly weigh with congress is the fact that the twenty two senior management of EADS and Airbus are under investigation for criminal fraud with some already indicted.
These are only a very few of the many findings by the GAO that are in dispute, and as they have publicly stated, they are of the opinion that had the Air Force carried this bid and evaluation process out properly and the cost calculated correctly then Boeing would have won???
1. It was a "must" requirement, that the new tanker is able to refill all planes. So this isnīt a problem, as the NG tanke is able to do so.
2. The A330 isnīt the biggest plane in the portfolio of the USAF. You donīt need to update all this hangars.
Well ... before i start to dissect all your arguments i think i will ask something in return.
1. Did you forget, that this RfP was nescessary, because of the leasing rip off in the first round? Two people were court-martialed in the aftermath of this thing ...
2. It wasnīt fraud, it was "insider trading" and there are examinations, not a running lawsuit.
3. There was a massive push to skew the competition by factoring in subsidies, before an upcoming WTO decision is made ...
4. When you you think, the first boeing tanker would fly? The KC767 is a chimera out of many components from many other aircrafts with a first flight years in future ...
Face it, itīs just all about a publicy traded company trying to secure a huge deal from the military with patriots card.
But otherwise, they donīt give a shit about the american workers ... just think about the 787 ... with brings the NG/EADS tanker modell to the extreme ... just plugging some components together in the US. 3 days of work for the US
2. The A330 isnīt the biggest plane in the portfolio of the USAF. You donīt need to update all this hangars.
Well ... before i start to dissect all your arguments i think i will ask something in return.
1. Did you forget, that this RfP was nescessary, because of the leasing rip off in the first round? Two people were court-martialed in the aftermath of this thing ...
2. It wasnīt fraud, it was "insider trading" and there are examinations, not a running lawsuit.
3. There was a massive push to skew the competition by factoring in subsidies, before an upcoming WTO decision is made ...
4. When you you think, the first boeing tanker would fly? The KC767 is a chimera out of many components from many other aircrafts with a first flight years in future ...
Face it, itīs just all about a publicy traded company trying to secure a huge deal from the military with patriots card.
But otherwise, they donīt give a shit about the american workers ... just think about the 787 ... with brings the NG/EADS tanker modell to the extreme ... just plugging some components together in the US. 3 days of work for the US
This opinion from a former Air Force General will shed some light on the requirements stated in the RFP.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27374&s=rcmp
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27374&s=rcmp
This opinion from a former Air Force General will shed some light on the requirements stated in the RFP.
: http://tinyurl.com/5ku39f
: http://tinyurl.com/5ku39f
A "retired general" in the news is often just a oxymoron for a hired PR gun. I want informations from active general or even better from active soldiers working with the planes and flying the planes or the soldiers at the AMC. This would give much more insight to the problem.
Links in this article
The LKSF book
The book with the consolidated Less known Solaris Tutorials is available for download here
Twitterfeeds
twitter.com/c0t0d0s0
@klarekante So nach der Art: "Dieser Zug is im A...,ihr habt das Bordbistro bereits leergesoffen und jetzt geht laufen?" #ICEdefekt
twitter.com/codenews
6934845 copy audioemu10k audio control register functions into audiohd, to make latter one simpler http://bit.ly/cHDLyu
twitter.com/SunPatches
125332-09 - JDS 3: Macromedia Flash Player Plugin Patch. Available for SPARC since Mar/15/10. http://bit.ly/au3wfA
twitter.com/SolPatchesX86
142047-03 - SunOS 5.10_x86: ike patch. Available since Mar/16/10. http://bit.ly/aJuHaU
twitter.com/SolPatchesSPARC
142046-03 - SunOS 5.10: ike patch. Available since Mar/16/10. http://bit.ly/cALaiF
@klarekante So nach der Art: "Dieser Zug is im A...,ihr habt das Bordbistro bereits leergesoffen und jetzt geht laufen?" #ICEdefekt
twitter.com/codenews
6934845 copy audioemu10k audio control register functions into audiohd, to make latter one simpler http://bit.ly/cHDLyu
twitter.com/SunPatches
125332-09 - JDS 3: Macromedia Flash Player Plugin Patch. Available for SPARC since Mar/15/10. http://bit.ly/au3wfA
twitter.com/SolPatchesX86
142047-03 - SunOS 5.10_x86: ike patch. Available since Mar/16/10. http://bit.ly/aJuHaU
twitter.com/SolPatchesSPARC
142046-03 - SunOS 5.10: ike patch. Available since Mar/16/10. http://bit.ly/cALaiF
Web 2.0
Contact
Networking
open.bc
LinkedIn
Facebook
My photos
- mail: joerg@c0t0d0s0.org
- icq: 144000169
- Me, myself and I
- openBC
- My del.icio.us
- c0t0d0s0@twitter
- c0t0d0s0@last.fm
- wiki@c0t0d0s0
- Amazon Wishlist
Networking
open.bc
My photos
Syndication
Tagged articles
AMD Apple avs Bahn Blogging Blogosphere braindump Business Travel CeBIT cec cec2006 CMT del.icio.us deutsch dtrace fliegen Fundsache General Hamburg IBM i hate sundays Intel iscsi jumpstart Links Linux lksf Mindfuck Movies Music Musik Niagara Opensolaris Opteron Photographie policy of ... Politik Security Solaris storage Sun suncec2007 sunw t1 The IT Business Ultrasparc ultrasparc t1 Wirtschaft Work ZFS
Comments
Wed, 17.03.2010 08:23
I have had a number of disk cr
ashes that I suspect comes fro
m lack of cooling.
However, t
he drives have been > 3 [...]
about Who are you?
Wed, 17.03.2010 08:05
Working with IT since 1986. Bo
ught my first computer Osborne
1 in 1982.
Solarisadmin a
t work. Uusing Solaris o [...]
Wed, 17.03.2010 07:30
I'm quite satisfied with the S
eagate ST32000542AS (2TB LP).
They don't need active cooling
and stay at about 24 C. [...]
Wed, 17.03.2010 05:00
I get bad disks often, mostly
related to (I think) the bays.
We had a dust storm in Sydney
a few months ago, and a [...]
Tue, 16.03.2010 22:58
I have never gotten a checksum
error. One array is in a 1U c
ase with a couple of Xeons - t
he Xeon fans pull air ac [...]
Buttons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Germany License
