Warthog Territory Forums
http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/

It's official: Boeing's KC-767 is a piece of crap!
http://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5924		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  a10stress [ 16 Apr 2004, 15:07 ]
Post subject: 
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The aircraft will be built at Airbus's manufacturing plants in Europe, but will be refitted for refueling in Australia by Qantas, which will also maintain them for the Australian air force.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't know why you're so down on 767's. The airlines that operate them seem to make money with them. It's a commodity medium range, medium payload aluminum tube twinjet family. Not a lot of stretching the technology is required. It was just a better geopolitical business deal for the Aussies. A local company is doing the conversion. Boeing didn't offer that kind of offset. Maybe they were offering a turn key system because otherwise they would be competing with their own product (used 767's with a local conversion). That brings up my question. Why didn't the Aussies buy used airliners if they are going to convert them themselves, and only five to boot? Why did Boeing bother? Maybe they were the spoiler here again, like the RAF "competition". They should really make some mischief and enter the French tanker frey with a real lowball bid. That would be fun to watch.
Author:  Rafale Blackhall [ 20 Apr 2004, 15:44 ]
Post subject: 
jeez that 747sp is ugly!!!!!what the hell where the boys in seattle thinking when they did that to the 747. though long legged then, the 400 is far more attractive and, I think, longer ranged, I will have to have a look at that.

for the USAF to even consider the airbus 330 as a possible tanker option must be a warning to boeing, though personally Id use the A340 due to 4 engines, rather than 2. though what is wrong with the KC10A Extender, why not use MD11 airframes to have the KC11????

<img src="http://www.boomspeed.com/megazone23/su27.jpg" border=0>

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US
Author:  Horrido [ 20 Apr 2004, 19:32 ]
Post subject: 
Oddly enough, the closest things dimensionally to the KC-135s are the 737-400, 757-200, and Airbus 321, though their posted performances fall short of the KC-135. What the Air Force wants is a smaller tanker comparable to the KC-135. Though they don't carry as much fuel as a KC-10, they want a smaller aircraft that can use more runways, fit more of them on an airstrip, and have greater numbers to disperse and fuel more aircraft at one time. Using a 777 would be the equivalent of using a KC-10. A 7E7 is also quite large for their criteria, I believe even larger than an Airbus 330. Even a 767 or Airbus 330 are approaching the size of a KC-10 or 777. I just got curious a couple of nights ago and looked up the dimensions and performance characteristics of each of these aircraft. Unfortunately, ideally, I think you want a three- or four-engined aircraft for the safety margin, and if that's the case, you're looking at a purpose-built tanker.

Has anyone found the posted Air Force requirements for the new tanker, if there are any?

Fear and anxiety are for losers...So lets get moving and <i>KICK SOME ASS!</i>
Author:  boomer [ 21 Apr 2004, 00:23 ]
Post subject: 
as I recall the requirements are $$$. The tanker work for a 767 had already been done for other customers, they thought they could get 767s out of the desert CHEAP with the downturn in the airlines. Then they figured leasing would be cheaper than buying, then it all turned into a mess.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>
Author:  tritonal [ 21 Apr 2004, 00:47 ]
Post subject: 
<i>Ex-Air Force, Boeing Aide Pleads Guilty

Tue Apr 20,12:00 PM ET Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Andrea Shalal-Esa

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Reuters) - A tearful former U.S. Air Force acquisitions official on Tuesday pleaded guilty to conspiracy for discussing a job with Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA - news) while still overseeing its business dealings with the Air Force.

Missed Tech Tuesday?
Conquer the data mountain, preview Longhorn's data tools and check the best software for managing your data.





Darleen Druyun, 56, who retired as the Air Force's No. 2 acquisition official in November 2002 and took a job with Boeing two months later, agreed to cooperate with prosecutors, who are still investigating Michael Sears, the former Boeing chief financial officer who hired her.


"I deeply regret my actions," an emotional Druyun told Judge T.S. Ellis III in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.


Druyun has been under investigation for possible conflicts of interest in a $23.5 billion Air Force plan to lease and buy 100 Boeing 767s as refueling planes, a deal sharply criticized by the Pentagon (news - web sites) inspector general and other agencies.


Boeing fired Druyun and Sears on Nov. 24, saying the two violated company ethics rules by discussing a Boeing job for Druyun while she was still working on Boeing-related Air Force programs and then trying to cover it up. Boeing Chief Executive Officer Phil Condit resigned a week later.


Druyun on Tuesday admitted negotiating the Boeing job while still at the Air Force and then trying to conceal the talks.


She faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine and could be ordered to pay restitution.


Under the terms of the plea agreement, Druyun has agreed to provide any information she has about criminal behavior and submit to a lie-detector test.


The government agreed not to prosecute Druyun's daughter, Heather McKee -- who is still employed by Boeing -- for her role in facilitating communications between Druyun and a senior Boeing official who was not named in the plea agreement.


U.S. District Attorney Paul McNulty said the government would continue its investigation but gave no details.


Last week, the Pentagon's inspector general said the Air Force also improperly awarded Boeing a $1.32 billion contract for NATO (news - web sites) surveillance-plane upgrades that was negotiated by Druyun.


Boeing General Counsel Doug Bain said it was important that the conspiracy charge related to a conflict-of-interest in Druyun's hiring and was not related to Boeing business, its financial performance or the 767 tanker program.


"Today's events represent another step toward concluding a very disappointing chapter in the company's 88-year history of serving our customers and operating with the highest integrity," Bain said in a statement.




</i>
Author:  M21 Sniper [ 21 Apr 2004, 06:44 ]
Post subject: 
Whoops. Caught with thine hand in our cookie jar miss?



"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

Kipling-
Author:  Thud [ 26 Apr 2004, 14:42 ]
Post subject: 
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
...I'd lay money on it that Boeing sells not another single new 767 to a commercial carrier. Airlines will either go with the A330-200 or wait for the 7e7...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Does Aeroflot count? They have an order for five 767-300ERs. They say the A330-200 is too big for the routes they are flying.

~Thud
Author:  Thud [ 27 Apr 2004, 23:26 ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, this article states that the orders were confirmed two years ago. Taken from the April 2004 issue of Air Transport World magazine.

~Thud
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/