|
Posted on 05/09/2003 1:10:17 PM PDT by aShepard
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to buy them up & convert them to KC-10's or KDC-10's than it is going to be to lease (then give back, according to the original terms of the lease) a bunch of 767 T-T's?
Fact- American Airlines -Linda Daschle's client, American Airlines has lobbied for years to water down safety and security that might have aided in foiling the World Trade Center Attacks. With the support of Tommy and Linda Daschle, American Airlines received a $583 million taxpayer bailout after the 9/11 attack.
Fact- FAA- CBS -60 Minutes - Tom Daschle charged with inappropriately intervening to reduce safety inspections of an air charter company owned by a "friend of the family" after one of the planes crashed and killed four in 1994. While Linda Daschle was at the FAA she acted to exempt their friends airline from intensified safety inspections.
Fact- Boeing- Another client of Linda Daschle is lobbying for a deal to lease 100 Boeing Aircraft to the U.S. Military at a cost of $37 Billion. If the planes were bought outright the cost would be $25 Billion ...or $12 Billion Less. Tom Daschle is responsible for scheduling a vote on the bill. Will it be mentioned on CNN or in The New York Times? Don't hold your breath!
Fact- L-3 International- According to the 2000 Transportation Budget, the FAA was forced to buy baggage scanners from another client of Linda Daschle's- L-3 International, despite the fact that the Department of Transportation found the equipment to be substandard, some even leaking radiation. The Inspector General told Congress that the FAA's requirement to buy the scanners is one reason airports will not be able to meet the new mandate to screen all luggage for bombs or guns... for many years. He added that Americans have been put further into serious risk.
Fact- Northwest Airlines- More than $100,000 was donated to Tom Daschle's campaign in the last election by the Air Transportation Industry. Northwest Airlines was the second largest contributor to Tommy's campaign in 1998. Northwest is a client of Linda's.
???Is that enough???
|
I don't know the answer to that one, I simply wonder if anyone who can answer it has bothered to do the analysis?
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to buy them up & convert them to KC-10's or KDC-10's than it is going to be to lease (then give back, according to the original terms of the lease) a bunch of 767 T-T's?
Especially when you consider tankers sit on the ground much more than commercial aircraft. The Air Force will be buying the last 767s off the line while at the rate of use they have, they should last at least 50-60 years. The Air Force will have the same problem they have with the KC-135. Lots of the companies that make spare parts will be out of business. It will be more expensive over time to maintain them because the industrial base that built them has become obsolete. Good used DC-10s and MD-11s with quite a number of flying hours left can be bought for a lot less, and there is not the risk of outliving the industrial base that maintains the commercial fleet.
Perhaps you should pull your head out of your rear. I was responding to a previous post. Have you ever heard of the KC-10? It is a tanker built on the DC-10 airframe. The Air Force bough 60 of them in the early 1980s. Perhaps you should visit Boeing's website or the Air Force's website. "Fixit" pointed out that there were lots of DC-10s grounded (as a result of September 11). He was suggesting the Air Force could convert them to tankers with similar characteristics to the previous KC-10s much cheaper than buying brand new 767s. Boeing still supports the DC-10 and MD-11 even though they are out of production. In fact they even Repace the old 3-man cockpits of DC-10s and replace them with a 2-man digital cockpit used in the MD-11 and redesignate it as the MD-10. Fedex and other freight airlines fly quite a few of these former passenger airliners that have been upgraded.
My point is that the Air Force could spend a lot less bying used DC-10s and converting them to KC-10s than bying brand new 767s. At the rate the Air Force flys its tankers, they would still be around for quite a while. You should consider that the KC-135 which was built in the 50s and 60s is expected to be around till 2040; thats over 80 years. According to one study I read (use a search engine to find it) only a few KC-135s will have reached the maximum numbers of hours on on their airframes.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kdc-10.htm
An engineer is someone who can, for a dollar, do what any fool could do for two.
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.
The government is always doing this, and it pisses me off. The government can already go onto the market and borrow at lower rates than anyone else. Why would they ever lease anything, unless the imputed interest rate was no higher than it is on T-bills? And I don't know how it could be, because Boeing can't borrow at that rate.