Posted on 07/08/2010 8:43:21 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Demonstrably proud of their bid on the KC-X tanker, EADS NA officials turned it in one day early and the company’s chairman slammed Boeing for “wasting a lot of time trying to derail” the competition “because someone thinks their plane is inferior.” Boeing’s attacks amounted, said company chairman Ralph Crosby, to a lot of “crap.”
EADS flew five paper (and one CD) copies of its 8.800-page bid to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base on a chartered prop plane, expecting them to arrive at 2:40 p.m. The company filmed the copies being loaded aboard and the takeoff for employees to watch later. One copy traveled by land just in case.
Crosby opened this afternoon’s press conference with a none-too subtle dig at Boeing. As a video played of the Australian tanker built by parent EADS executing a refueling, Crosby said: “I’m transfixed by the video. I love watching real tankers doing real tanking.”
Crosby offered a staunch defense of the company’s bid, which many observers feel faces an uphill struggle given that the Air Force’s RFP basically calls for a replacement of KC-135s, a much smaller plane than the modified Airbus 330 which EADS will offer. “I feel good about the intersection of value and price,” in the KC-X bid, Crosby told reporters. He dismissed the idea that EADS may not have a good shot, saying they bid “for one single reason — to win.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dodbuzz.com ...
330 is the better plane, but politics will chose Boeing.
I disagree. Boeing has proven itself to be a very reliable plane for many decades.
Boeing is a great company, but in this case, the 330 is much better than the 767. Better range and more payload.
I am looking at the amount of jobs the proposed KC-767 will create. Nationally it is supposed to create 50,000 jobs here in America. I want those jobs here.
You cannot trust the unions at Boeing, not the machinist union in Everett, WA, anyway.
After Boeing announced the move to South Carolina, they were testing the new plane that is built in Everett. They had to cut the first trial short and bring the plane back. Later it was announced that metal shavings had been left in the fuel tank. That wasn’t an accident.
I know many people who work in Everett they are dedicated patriots. We already know the conclusion of this fight.
Maybe real competition will force Boeing to improve
If that is the case, then that is all I really need to hear.
.
I agree with you
If that's the issue, why isn't Boeing using the 777?
Because Boeing submitted the 767.
Because the RFP calls for a tanker the size of a KC-135 NOT a KC-10. And it is true More Pilots and Ground crews prefer BOEING
The 767 and A330 are about the same size, and neither is the same size of the KC135.
More GTOW and better range make A330 the better plane.
“330 is the better plane,”
Ask those people on the one that fell apart over the altantic last spring flying from Rio to France.
Or those other satisfied airbus customers on the flight out of Newark where the tail fell off.
Airbus isn’t better.
THE A330 takes up more space than a 767 a 767 fits in all current HANGARS and KC-135 Parking ramps the A330 DOES NOT.
Better range does mean squat its BOOMS IN THE AIR.
Because Boeing still has a very profitable commercial market for the 777.
Naturally, Boeing wants to wring every bit of profit from the old (1981) 767 model without chewing into newer (1994) 777 production.
But if Boeing can't get the Air Force to buy the 767 for tanker service, that aircraft is done for. Kaput, End-of-Life (EOL).
Additionally, unit costs for the 767 are 150-170 million range with the EADS A330 running around 170-200 mil a copy.
With the 777 hitting @ 250-280 million per plane, it's not even in the ballpark for the KC-45 tanker bid.
(Unit costs from Wikipedia, and will most certainly be different from bid costs.)
There are a lot of idled jumbo jets in mothballs out there. Would Boeing also get to recycle those? (Not that it would be a bad idea.)
Except the only market for the 767 is conversion from pax to freight service. Not a whole lot of money (read margins) for either Boeing or the customers in that.
And old aircraft are just that: old.
At one time we used to be happy with a flip-down tray to eat a sandwich or read a book or correct some papers on.
But now there's the flip-down tray, and an individual TV, and an individual radio, and Internet access for your laptop.
Who gonna settle for just a flip-down tray anymore?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.