Replies

In order to get this Aircraft built in Mobile anytime soon you need to get the facility built before Spring of next year. Good luck to you and McCain. The Air Forces schedule and the Governors site building schedule don’t blend well.
http://www.governorpress.alabama.gov/pr/pr-2008-01-14-01-airbus2.asp

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=comm&id=news/TANK03038.xml

Maybe you will get some jobs after the prototypes are tested. Of course you realize that this Airbus has never flown and has never been built for anyone...
http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_01_17_A330-200F_go_ahead.html

They are taking an existing airframe and putting a new larger wing on it. Many factors including stress to be worked out yet. The American War Fighter isn’t gettig the best but he might if the promises made by EADS turn out to be true. For me I think the extensive use of Composites including a larger vertical stabilizer will make this Aircraft a ten year wonder. Airbus has had some problems with Composites in the tail of all their Aircraft.

http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2001/AA587/tailcomp.htm

The Air Force changed some key requirements (RISK) such as the runway length which then required Boeing to add a larger wing (-400) to the 767. This then put them at a similar wing span to the Airbus. If the Air Force not changed this then the Boeing product was at an advantage. Now neither aircraft will fit into existing hangar space. Thats another shoe the Air Force will drop in the next few years with more Base closings in order to add adequate hangar space.

By the way the Boeing Proposal was $35 million cheaper than the Airbus deal even with subsidies. If Boeing decides then we will most likely get the truth of what this is about. I doubt we’ll get it anywhere else.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db2008037_973817.htm?campaign_id=yhoo

This should go over well:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/eads-mulls-changes-block-higher/story.aspx?guid=%7B37E0BCEF%2D1EC1%2D4738%2D9F62%2D0F3E640E4392%7D&dist=TQP_Mod_mktwN

See the comments section:
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7bA1285732-2C90-40C2-951F-4C62CB74B09B%7d&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo#comments

“Rumsfeld cancelled Boeing’s initial pact for 100 reconfigured planes after U.S. Sen. John McCain, D-Ariz., now the presumed Republican nominee for president, questioned the wisdom of leasing aircraft back in 2003.”

Let’s see, if all the Airlines lease Aircraft that must be a bad thing too... Wow I wonder why they lease.
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B2D6ED8C2%2DCB28%2D40CC%2D956B%2D5A6828DB6E15%7D&dist=WSJfeed&siteid=WSJ

“For EADS, the $35 billion order is a landmark victory that seals its efforts to expand in North America and grab a larger part of the U.S. defense budget... Overall Northrop said 60% of the plane will be built in the U.S. and the project would support 25,000 jobs. Boeing claims it would have created 44,000 had it won.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B40F030A1%2DC41C%2D4C20%2DBDEA%2D05D78D9D6F38%7D&dist=WSJfeed&siteid=WSJ

Maybe you will get some jobs after the prototypes are tested. Of course you realize that this Airbus has never flown and has never been built for anyone... http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre/pressreleases/pressreleases_items/07_01_17_A330-200F_go_ahead.html

So? The KC-45A is not based on the A330-200F, which is a A330-200 with improved container/pallet handling - while handy for commercial operators has less military application

The KC-45A is based on the A330-200, which has been flying since 1998.
The KC-30B tanker has been flying since June 2007
And KC-30-D1, the first aircraft for the USAF contract flew in September 2007.

All these variants are practically identical

OTOH the Boeing offer, the KC767AT, is a bitzer with subsemblies from various 767 versions, which not only hasn't flown, Boeing hasn't even started to see how the bits will fit together.