"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
In article
nk.net,
"Robert A. Fowler" wrote:

What is the offset expense of maintaining and operating the 136
aging
Boeing
KC-135E aircraft ?

- Fewer aircrews (5 people x 100k/year x10 years + 5m training cost
+ 2
crews per airframe) = 30 Million$ for each kc-135 eliminated ~$1.08
Billion
savings in aircrew alone. 136 vs 100.

I'm very out of date on KC-135's, but in my time, there were 4 crew
members and it took 6 crews to hold down and aircraft.

In more recent times, there were 2 or 3 crew on a B-767 and if you
add a
boomer, you are back up to 4, but it still takes 6 crews to hold
down an
aircraft.

But, that's also why Boeing is going down the tubes.

What are you gibbering about?

Nothing a NASA contractor would understand.

That wouldn't include me, but your post came on the same day Boeing sold
another 100 airplanes. I fail to see how Boeing is going down the tubes.

Since nobody but Boeing or the Military understand
the words "Standby".

You might want to contact some fire fighters.

I already have, since fire fighters don't anything
but standby the valve. Which is why most of them
aren't paid as much as pumpers.

Standby for BLM firmen pays about 1/3 as much on standby.