Petition the Air Force Tanker Contract

[Steveair]

http://murray.senate.gov/tankers/index.cfm

 

[guppygoshawk]

You know better....................why?

 

[AirBadger]

Why would you make a petition to buy an airplane that is from the USAF's perspective, inferior? By signing this petition, you throw away the factual basis for their decision in exchange for a political agenda.

 

[The_Russian]

Personally, I am concerned about the strategic interests of our country. Why rely on parts from a foreign land?

 

[pilotyip]

We do already

Personally, I am concerned about the strategic interests of our country. Why rely on parts from a foreign land?

767 parts are built in Japan, England, and France. The KC-45 will be a Grumman/Northrop (sp?) adventure built in the US with over 50% US content. 50% of the A-330 built in Europe is US Content. There are no boarders in manufacturing.

 

[Visceral]

I'll bet Boeing thought this was in the bag. When allowed to, the Air Force chooses what it needs better than politicians and special interest groups.

 

[stonewall]

I agree...sounds like the right choice was made.

 

[The_Russian]

767 parts are built in Japan, England, and France. The KC-45 will be a Grumman/Northrop (sp?) adventure built in the US with over 50% US content. 50% of the A-330 built in Europe is US Content. There are no boarders in manufacturing.

Wow, I had no idea! BTW, I did not petition.

What about the flight deck on the KC-45? Will it be Airbus style ergonomics, or will it be a real plane that our boys can fly?

 

[ekuflyer]

Just sent Senator Murray the e-mail bellow:

I was just as shocked as everyone else when the Air Force announced its decision. However, I believe your judgment may be clouded. The Air Force chose the aircraft that best fits its mission and is best suited to defend our country. So, please don't let politics try to sway a change. I would like to see Boeing get to build the tankers here in the US by union workers just like everyone else, but unless they can build the KC-45 under contract, then EADS, Northrop/Grumman must be chosen. The consumer (US Air Force) wants the best product. When you buy a car, you want the best product, whether that’s a Toyota Camry (built in KY) or a Ford Taurus (built in Chicago, IL).
Defense procurement should not be tied to job creation or job protection in any way. The best product should win, no questions asked.
So I ask you to support the Air Force leadership's decision, and not cost the taxpayers more money, by dragging this out any more.

Thank you for your service,

************************

 

[Steveair]

Airbus products are not built as well as Boeing. A friend of mine worked as Mechanic at America West and concurred. When I was based in Denver, Frontier was having a lot of mechanical problems. In the winter, the brakes often locked and didn't permit the tires from rotating. I'm not sure if the 330 has the same problem or not. You get what you pay for.

Despite where the product is built, the profits still go to the parent company. I'd like my tax dollars going to Boeing.

From what I've been reading, it sounds like the Air Force wanted something larger than the 767 but neglected to inform Boeing of this.

The KC-135 has operated & adapted diligently since it entered service in 1957. You can't honestly expect that an Airbus will last 50+ years... unless Airbus offered the USAF a deal like Jet Blue... Forget C checks and we'll give you a sweet deal on a new plane... Personally I buy things that last.

 

[The_Russian]

Airbus products are not built as well as Boeing. A friend of mine worked as Mechanic at America West and concurred. When I was based in Denver, Frontier was having a lot of mechanical problems. In the winter, the brakes often locked and didn't permit the tires from rotating. I'm not sure if the 330 has the same problem or not. You get what you pay for.

Despite where the product is built, the profits still go to the parent company. I'd like my tax dollars going to Boeing.

From what I've been reading, it sounds like the Air Force wanted something larger than the 767 but neglected to inform Boeing of this.

The KC-135 has operated & adapted diligently since it entered service in 1957. You can't honestly expect that an Airbus will last 50+ years... unless Airbus offered the USAF a deal like Jet Blue... Forget C checks and we'll give you a sweet deal on a new plane... Personally I buy things that last.

That's where I agree with you.

 

[ableone]

Airbus products are not built as well as Boeing. A friend of mine worked as Mechanic at America West and concurred. .

Another conclusion presented as fact based upon: "A friend of mine said....."

I have flown both and both have their virtues and failings.

An old fleet manager, who was having airliner quality problems and was fighting with the manufacturer, said it best; "Both Boeing and Airbus are trying to manufacture at the lowest possible unit cost and sometimes it shows."

 

[The_Russian]

Sure, but Boeing still considers usability and functionality to be far more important than limiting automation.

 

[Steveair]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY

I don't care how the autopilot is set up. An airplane should do as it's told. I hope that Airbus changes what their system allows / doesn't allow the pilots to do in a military aircraft.

Ableone,

The conversation was specifically about durability and quality of aircraft. My friend was an A&P for AW and said they had a nosewheel collapse on an A319 and they wrote the plane off. He had said that some 737's had suffered worse damage and were repaired.

 

[pilotyip]

How come the 777 wasn't in the running?

 

[AirBadger]

Doesn't the 777 compete with the A340? Perhaps the 777 would be too big, but the 767 too small and the A330 fit that niche. Boeing as far as I know doesn't have a 777 tanker plan anyway.

 

[erj-145mech]

From what I've been reading, it sounds like the Air Force wanted something larger than the 767 but neglected to inform Boeing of this.

They were, it was in the RFP, request for proposal. I guess that Boeing figured that the 76 airframe fit the bill, and that they didn't want to develop an aircraft that fulfilled all aspects of the RFP. The original RFP, the one that was cancelled, was taylor made to fit the 767's capabilities. The Government revised the RFP to expand the mission requirements, and the 777 is too large to operate at some of the airfields that the KC-45A will be at.

 

[popgoesbubble]

Boeing Could/Should have proposed the 767-300/400. I personally think Boeing thought that this contract was in the "Bag" and went cheap with the 767-200 series as it was already being built for the Air forces of Japan (6) and Italy (6) From what I have read and heard the 767 offers little improvements over the KC135R and KC10 in terms of cargo pallets it can carry while performing the tanker mission.

 

[AirBadger]

Do tankers get extra fuel tanks in the conversion, or does the fuel come directly out of the "stock" tanks?

 

[Bavarian Chef]

Personally, I am concerned about the strategic interests of our country. Why rely on parts from a foreign land?

You kidding right?

If you want to fly an airplane that is made in the US with 100% US parts, well then get out your MEAD trapper keeper, tear out a sheet and start folding.