So that makes it a Boeing design.
And there has not been a single KC-767AT delivered because the KC-767AT doesn’t even exist yet.
Four delivered. And with a better boom than your guys.
Maintenance and support is not the same as BUILDING tankers.
But it is part of the RFP. And EADs blew it. Boeing didn't. Maybe those DECADES of experience do count for something.
No, Boeing has a problem with delivering aircraft on time.
News to everyon else. The delivery of satellites and other defense high tech products are not applicable to their aircraft division which has an amazingly good track record as per its U.S.-built planes. The 767AT was going to be made in ITALY. Italy's partner with Boeing couldn't do it...and hence Boeing pulled it back. Yet they still are on track on the revised schedule with their U.S. production.
Maybe if there wasn’t a 2+ year delay then they’d MAYBE have more than just 2 customers.
Maybe if EADs didn't have $20+ billions in European state subsidies...there wouldn't be an EADs.
Give Boeing that $20+ billion in subsidies and see how fast they could get planes produced.
SHEEESH.
The Boring KC-767A/J Tanker Transport is not the same as the KC-767AT Advanced Tanker
"it's advanced. It's derivative of something that doesn't exist yet" - Boeing tanker program spokesman.And how does only half the capacity (600gpm) translate to "better boom" C-5s, C-17s, B-52s, E-3s would be have to be coupled to that boom all day to get enough fuel