Petition the Air Force Tanker Contract

[Oh-ryan]

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.

Well, let's see- the A300 was the first widebody aircraft that EADS build. It was launched in 1972. I believe there are still a bunch of them flying around (mostly in Brown and Purple colors). I've double checked all of my fingers and toes, and by my math that's 36 years and going strong. 14 more to go.

 

[Steveair]

A lot can happen in 14 years. 14 years ago the CRJ-200 was a good airplane...

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Sounds like this more of national pride than of an understanding of the [MIL] global market place...

 

[414Flyer]

Well, let's see- the A300 was the first widebody aircraft that EADS build. It was launched in 1972. I believe there are still a bunch of them flying around (mostly in Brown and Purple colors). I've double checked all of my fingers and toes, and by my math that's 36 years and going strong. 14 more to go.

Well they are not all 36 years old, most of them are much newer, the most recent one is about 7 months old

The newest KC-135 is 43 years old.

 

[highsky]

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,

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

The Germans and Japanese made some pretty formiddable weaponry in WWII.

So, extending your logic, we should have spent much of our WWII defense dollars over there, to get the best product for our taxpayers, right?

WWII, to a great extent, lifted us from a depression, due to all of the domestic spending. In case you haven't noticed, we're staring a looming depression right in the face.

I say we ought to take care of the home team first. I don't care if its not the best product (arguably).

Perhaps you didn't hear...100,000 U.S. auto workers have been laid off in the last two years. That dwarfs U.S. airline pilot layoffs!!!

I buy American first. Are Jap or German electronics or cars better? Perhaps. Does it matter?

What if every American just watched out for himself, and bought the very best that his money could buy, regardless of the economic consequences of his own nation? What if every American tomorrow went out and bought a Honda or Toyota? And no one ever bought another Ford, GM, or Chrysler?

Obviously, this would destroy our economy. Everyone knows it. So why do some people continue to buy foreign? Because they are counting on their neighbors to support the local economy, while they themselves just look after themselves and what's best for THEM. Thank God we don't all feel like that, or we'd ALL be in trouble.

Who do you think is buying all the airline tickets to fly on your shiny jets? It's not the foreigners. Its the American people. It's the blue collar worker and his family. It's the white collar engineer and management professional. It's their families. It's all of the other Americans who live off of all of the money that these people spend...and so on...and so on...and so on...

Do you get it?

All of us Americans are in this together.

Rant over.

P.S. Perhaps Americans would feel much better about buying foreign if we considered the foreign country a true "you got my back ally."

I'd feel differently about buying the new tanker from the U.K. than I will ever feel about giving Germany and France all of this money.

That said, I'm hoping Merkel and, especially, Sarkozy usher in a new relationship for the future. A relationship where we feel more like brothers, and less like distant cousins from great-grandfathers past.

 

[414Flyer]

How come the 777 wasn't in the running?

Because Boeing didnt submit a 777 for the contract as far as I know. Not sure if that would have even fit into the contract specs. But Boeing does have a gripe, maybe legitimately, that the specs were changed in order to benefit Northrop/EADS.

 

[Bavarian Chef]

I say we ought to take care of the home team first. I don't care if its not the best product (arguably).

SAID BY THE GUY THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO FLY THE AIRPLANE. Are you serious?

I buy American first. Are Jap or German electronics or cars better? Perhaps. Does it matter?

What if every American just watched out for himself, and bought the very best that his money could buy, regardless of the economic consequences of his own nation? What if every American tomorrow went out and bought a Honda or Toyota? And no one ever bought another Ford, GM, or Chrysler?

Huh? You need to layoff the sauce. Are you typing your posts on an US-made computer? Do you watch TV on a US-made Zenith from 1974? Ever listen to an MP-3 player? Watch a DVD, VHS? Maybe even take digital pictures of those kids of yours?

Well if you do, you are a willing participant of the global economy. It is completely unavoidable. The answer is not for people to buy inferior products -- it's for the American companies to make better products.

BTW -- some Hondas and Toyotas are made in the US. Big Mercedes plant in Alabama even. Those are Americans building them. How does that fit into your Pre-League of Nations isolationist bizarro philosophy?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The Germans and Japanese made some pretty formiddable weaponry in WWII.

So, extending your logic, we should have spent much of our WWII defense dollars over there, to get the best product for our taxpayers, right?

WWII, to a great extent, lifted us from a depression, due to all of the domestic spending. In case you haven't noticed, we're staring a looming depression right in the face.

I say we ought to take care of the home team first. I don't care if its not the best product (arguably).

Perhaps you didn't hear...100,000 U.S. auto workers have been laid off in the last two years. That dwarfs U.S. airline pilot layoffs!!!

I buy American first. Are Jap or German electronics or cars better? Perhaps. Does it matter?

What if every American just watched out for himself, and bought the very best that his money could buy, regardless of the economic consequences of his own nation? What if every American tomorrow went out and bought a Honda or Toyota? And no one ever bought another Ford, GM, or Chrysler?

Obviously, this would destroy our economy. Everyone knows it. So why do some people continue to buy foreign? Because they are counting on their neighbors to support the local economy, while they themselves just look after themselves and what's best for THEM. Thank God we don't all feel like that, or we'd ALL be in trouble.

Who do you think is buying all the airline tickets to fly on your shiny jets? It's not the foreigners. Its the American people. It's the blue collar worker and his family. It's the white collar engineer and management professional. It's their families. It's all of the other Americans who live off of all of the money that these people spend...and so on...and so on...and so on...

Do you get it?

All of us Americans are in this together.

Rant over.

P.S. Perhaps Americans would feel much better about buying foreign if we considered the foreign country a true "you got my back ally."

I'd feel differently about buying the new tanker from the U.K. than I will ever feel about giving Germany and France all of this money.

That said, I'm hoping Merkel and, especially, Sarkozy usher in a new relationship for the future. A relationship where we feel more like brothers, and less like distant cousins from great-grandfathers past.

Sounds like you were drinking PBR with [great] grandpa!

Welcome to the global economy.... If we all bought American then parts of the world would be quite economically depressed... and when people have no money they get pissed and join hate groups and start wars..... oh wait that is the middle east! That is a differentr story..

Why should I buy an American car, when US auto workers are building Toyota's in the CA? BMW's in SC? And The Big Three are building cars in Mexico and Canada....?

 

[TWA]

When you look at which airplane is more durable, has a longer service life, and is more controllable by our pilots, Boeing wins. I will take a Boeing over an airbus any day, I don't want some computer telling me it can do my job better than I can. The level of automation that airbus uses is just plain dangerous in a military environment.

Yes, the A300 did start production in 1972, but ended production less than a year ago. How many are still flying around from 1972?

 

[Schwanker]

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

They add extra tanks. Both the KC-10 and KC-135 have 3 body tanks in addition to the wing tanks. Also, the 135 has an upper deck tank in the aft portion of the fuselage.

Another interesting tidbit is the KC-10s body tanks (which reside in the lower body) required extra framing support structures which resulted in a greater floor load capability than the standard DC-10-30Fs.

Schwanker

 

[ableone]

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

Actually you have it backward. The airbus has more "usability and functionality" because of its FBW control system.

The airplane can be flown right to its limits immediately and held there indefinitely. The Boeing's can not.

 

[ableone]

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.

Again, basing your opinion on what one guy said and presenting it as a fact does not make you look intelligent.

Yes an AWA A-320 suffered a nosewheel collapse and the aircraft was written off. You just left out everything else that happened between these two events.

You seem to believe that the aircraft was parked out on the ramp, its nosewheel collapsed and the airframe shattered.

Actually the airplane departed the runway at a high speed and an engine dug into the dirt, twisting the wing spar. This accident also happened to rip off the nose gear but that has little to do with why the aircraft was totaled.

With respect to "how the autopilot is set up". I think what you meant to say was how the flight control laws are set up.

The airbus does exactly what the pilot tells it to do. In a conventional airplane the pilot commands attitude in order to achieve a desired flight path. In the airbus the pilot simply commands flight path and the control laws command the attitude required to achieve that flight path.

The flight control logic allows the airplane to be safely flown right to its aerodynamic limits and to be held there.

An Airbus can outperform a Boeing because the pilot can immediately command maximum performance by moving the controls to the stops and holding them there.

Maybe you missed it but the F-16, F-22 etc utilize the same type of flight control logic.

 

[ableone]

When you look at which airplane is more durable, has a longer service life, and is more controllable by our pilots, Boeing wins. I will take a Boeing over an airbus any day, I don't want some computer telling me it can do my job better than I can. The level of automation that airbus uses is just plain dangerous in a military environment.

Yes, the A300 did start production in 1972, but ended production less than a year ago. How many are still flying around from 1972?

Oh airline expert please explain to the uninformed how you reached these factual conclusions.

The Boeing is more controllable? Really? Please explain.

It is more durable? Has a longer service life? Really? Back that one up.

"That level of automation is dangerous in a military environment"

Really? You better tell the Air Force to get rid of all their F-16s, F-22s and cancel that dangerous JSF as well.

 

[Oh-ryan]

A lot can happen in 14 years. 14 years ago the CRJ-200 was a good airplane...

You're right. Let's forget all about the first 36 years and focus on the next 14. See you in 2022!

 

[Oh-ryan]

Well they are not all 36 years old, most of them are much newer, the most recent one is about 7 months old

The newest KC-135 is 43 years old.

Agreed. I am sure there are plenty 20 somethings and 30 somethings still around. The point is that the company only started cranking out airplanes in 1972. It's hard to say if any of their planes will be flying for 50+ years. So far so good though (as proven with the A300 design).

 

[bagasticks]

Many of you naysayers and "buy American" folks are forgetting that we would already be operating the 767 if the uppers in Boeing hadnt f'ed the football in '03. 2 went to prison and CEO resigned. . . . . Now they cry Foul about unfair comepetition ? ? ? ?IF this contract gets suspended. . . .yet again. . . . we'll be flying the mighty 135 another 43 years. . . I feel sorry for the hardworkers on the line at Boeing but not one bit for the upper management/goevernmaent officials that corrupted and stunk this deal up back at it's inception. . .

The A330 will be capable and I trust the Generals make the decisions, that share my uniform far more than any agenda by a union/political party. . .

 

[Bavarian Chef]

Many of you naysayers and "buy American" folks are forgetting that we would already be operating the 767 if the uppers in Boeing hadnt f'ed the football in '03. 2 went to prison and CEO resigned. . . . . Now they cry Foul about unfair comepetition ? ? ? ?IF this contract gets suspended. . . .yet again. . . . we'll be flying the mighty 135 another 43 years. . . I feel sorry for the hardworkers on the line at Boeing but not one bit for the upper management/goevernmaent officials that corrupted and stunk this deal up back at it's inception. . .

The A330 will be capable and I trust the Generals make the decisions, that share my uniform far more than any agenda by a union/political party. . .

Only in the Air Force is "sharing uniforms with Generals" NOT fraternization.

 

[jke406]

It's hard to say if any of their planes will be flying for 50+ years.

I don't think current aiframes have been engineered to last for 50 years.

As anyone who has flown one will tell you, planes like the B-52 and KC-135 were ridiculously over-engineered, and their long service life is a byproduct of that over-engineering. a 50-year lifespan was not a design requirement when they were built.

Computerized design has made it possible to engineer and build an airplane that will last "x" flying hours or "y" cycles...without excessive "slop," which would only cost more money.

I doubt if the military today would spend money on an airplane designed to last 50 years, no matter who it was built by.

 

[highsky]

SAID BY THE GUY THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO FLY THE AIRPLANE. Are you serious?

No, I haven't flown tankers. I see you haven't either. I have spent 12 years in the Air Force refueling behind them, and as such have developed an impression of their capabilities and limitations.

Huh? You need to layoff the sauce. Are you typing your posts on an US-made computer? Do you watch TV on a US-made Zenith from 1974? Ever listen to an MP-3 player? Watch a DVD, VHS? Maybe even take digital pictures of those kids of yours?

Yes, I do all of those things. Believe me, if I had a choice, which I don't anymore, I wouldn't.

Well if you do, you are a willing participant of the global economy. It is completely unavoidable. The answer is not for people to buy inferior products -- it's for the American companies to make better products.

Good for you. You teach those pesky and foolish union American workers a lesson and don't buy their "inferior" products. Tell the 100,000 UAW Americans that have been laid off in the last year that you're not about going to buy their crap and support their inflated wages when you can get something foreign that's better. Tell that to their families too. Tell that to all of the vendors and lenders who depend on those people for a living. Have you heard of the "Trickledown Theory?"

Then, don't cry foul when all of those people don't feel like supporting your union and high wages. Don't be surprised when they have no sympathy for your working conditions or compensation. As in, "F___ all you high priced primadonna pilots. Bring on the low cost carriers. Go Skybus!" Seriously dude, you're in the wrong business to be making those assertions.

Unfortunately today, we don't have a choice to support American workers with many things, such as "computers, TVs, MP3s, DVDs, and VHSs."

However, with cars and airplanes, we do have a choice. How does it do America a favor to watch these two stalwart industries fade like the aformentioned?

BTW -- some Hondas and Toyotas are made in the US. Big Mercedes plant in Alabama even. Those are Americans building them. How does that fit into your Pre-League of Nations isolationist bizarro philosophy?

The real profits are going overseas, where all the executives, engineers, and major shareholders live and pay taxes.

They place their plants in the U.S. simply to avoid U.S. import tariffs and create the illusion to Americans that we are buying American. Just check out their advertising. They make a big deal about that. They aren't fooling me.

Look, for this argument, the most important point is our national security. If the crap really hits the fan in this world, in the end, the only people we can totally count on is ourselves. It's foolish to hamstring ourselves by supplying our national defense with foreign products. Especially for a program as enormous and important as our air-refueling capabilities. What if we need replacement parts, etc. in the future, but the supplying country is at odds with our foreign policy objectives; then what happens?

Take for example Iran. They bought a lot of F-14s from us back when we were friends. Now we don't sell them any parts, rendering their aging F-14s impotent. Would you like the same thing to happen to us in reverse? Do you really think we can count on the Germans and French to "watch our six" and support us on ALL of our foreign policies in the future? Have they done it so far???

 

[highsky]

Many of you naysayers and "buy American" folks are forgetting that we would already be operating the 767 if the uppers in Boeing hadnt f'ed the football in '03. 2 went to prison and CEO resigned. . . . . Now they cry Foul about unfair comepetition ? ? ? ?IF this contract gets suspended. . . .yet again. . . . we'll be flying the mighty 135 another 43 years. . . I feel sorry for the hardworkers on the line at Boeing but not one bit for the upper management/goevernmaent officials that corrupted and stunk this deal up back at it's inception. . .

That's the sad thing about it. Boeing had it in the bag. They didn't need the coercion, bribery, or whatever. A FEW people there f_____ up. That shouldn't reflect the ethics and values of the rest of the company.

The A330 will be capable and I trust the Generals make the decisions, that share my uniform far more than any agenda by a union/political party. . .

Just like the C-17? Politics and generals, unfortunately, aren't mutually exclusive.