Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Yo-Yo
I simply call the author's attention to two items in the following chart: Global airfield availability with a 200,000 lb fuel load, and fuel load from a 7,000 ft runway.

In other words, mission effectiveness. You would think that if the choice were such a disaster pilots would be crawling out of the woodwork to criticize the choice. It mostly sounds like sour grapes from Boeing emplyees.

73 posted on 06/22/2008 5:45:34 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: AndyJackson

Just a quick post then gotta run. . . .weekend, you know.

First off, pilots love to fly. Anything. Period.

Second, the pilots are not allowed to speak publicly about any policy/source-section issue. They must remain mute. Though, having spent much time over the past three years in the Pentagon, there WAS a lot of grumbling.

Third, and most importantly, pilots would be in a heck of a lot of trouble if they critically spoke openly about the source section, especially this source selection. Moseley would have had them in a vice for becoming entangled in media and McCain wars.

Serving pilots/officers/any military can’t speak about the new uniform unless approved by the Public Affairs guys, let alone on something like the tanker.

Simple truth is, the RFP was the defining document for the source selection and it was not adhered to by the Air Force. There are other issues that affected this poor selection, not the least of which is the role McCain played.

Have a nice weekend.


74 posted on 06/22/2008 7:21:54 AM PDT by Hulka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson