Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Petition the Air Force Tanker Contract

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Typo. I guess, their pay rates aren't on apc anymore.

BTW -- How long have you been serving your country in the military?

I haven't served but I am a supporter of the military and making sure that is has the best equipment. I'm also a supporter of American jobs and American profit. There is absolutely no possible way that this deal with Airbus results in a greater amount of either.
 
I haven't served but I am a supporter of the military and making sure that is has the best equipment. I'm also a supporter of American jobs and American profit. There is absolutely no possible way that this deal with Airbus results in a greater amount of either.

That's the biggest problem with this argument. The KC-45 is not a jobs program or some kind of "New Deal" for the economy. It's about replacing a fleet of aircraft with the best option available to ensure our military can meet present a future needs.
 
That's the biggest problem with this argument. The KC-45 is not a jobs program or some kind of "New Deal" for the economy. It's about replacing a fleet of aircraft with the best option available to ensure our military can meet present a future needs.


Amen. . .politicians and most civilians appear to be forgetting the critical fact that this is NOT suppose to be an economic stimulus package. . but a deal that ensures our ability to defend the US globally for the next 60yrs. .
 
This is just the first of the tankers to be ordered. From what I remember reading a few years ago, the AF wants to replace all 500 or so KC-135 tankers in the next 10-15 years. They have also indicated that one single company could not produce that many aircraft in the alloted time. So you will most likely see a mixed fleet of Scarebus and Boeing. But then again you never know....
 
Boeing Vs. Airbus

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.

You are exactly right!!!!The US Gov't forgot to talk to the mx people that work on both types,they would have found out that Boeing has the BETTER PRODUCT!!!!!
 
Does this guy need to have served in the military to be qualified to state an opinion regarding how his tax dollars are spent?

No -- you're missing my point (but I do love it when people that have never served, or are currently serving, offer their opinions on this stuff). The only dog he has in this fight is that he's a US taxpayer.

Not once have I even advocated one airplane over the other -- YA KNOW WHY?

Becauser I DON"T FLY TANKERS. Neither does Steve-O. But his holier than thou attitude about all his red-blooded American consumption practices sets me off.

Bottom line -- if the AF gets the best plane, Steve-O needs to let it go.
 
politicians and most civilians appear to be forgetting the critical fact that this is NOT suppose to be an economic stimulus package. . but a deal that ensures our ability to defend the US globally for the next 60yrs

To most politicians it is an economic stimulus package. If a politician can ensure that the copilot seat's left rail or the 2nd tacan antenna is built in his district then it brings in X # of jobs, translating to 2.5X # of votes, etc. The avg politician is woefully out of touch with the military and isn't nearly as concerned with having the best equipment as he is with procuring the most jobs for his district. Excuse, unless a camera is on him and then he (imagine a somber, serious tone) "couldn't be more concerned with equipping our fighting men and women with the very best equipment available."

I realize I just made a broad generalization and there are many fine folks who DO care; I'm just talking about the average politician who is trying to stay in office.
 
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.

Maybe, just maybe, you should read the report on that accident as opposed to just conjecturing while looking at pictures. When you have done so, and understand what happened, then let's talk.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top