If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Boeing Set For Huge Profits From Tanker Deal
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 ~$1.08 Billion savings in aircrew alone. 136 vs 100. I'm very out of date on KC-135's, but in my time, there were 4 crew members and it took 6 crews to hold down and aircraft. In more recent times, there were 2 or 3 crew on a B-767 and if you add a boomer, you are back up to 4, but it still takes 6 crews to hold down an aircraft. But, that's also why Boeing is going down the tubes. Since nobody but Boeing or the Military understand the words "Standby". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"ZZBunker" wrote in message om... Ron Parsons wrote in message ... In article nk.net, "Robert A. Fowler" wrote: What is the offset expense of maintaining and operating the 136 aging Boeing KC-135E aircraft ? - Fewer aircrews (5 people x 100k/year x10 years + 5m training cost + 2 crews per airframe) = 30 Million$ for each kc-135 eliminated ~$1.08 Billion savings in aircrew alone. 136 vs 100. I'm very out of date on KC-135's, but in my time, there were 4 crew members and it took 6 crews to hold down and aircraft. In more recent times, there were 2 or 3 crew on a B-767 and if you add a boomer, you are back up to 4, but it still takes 6 crews to hold down an aircraft. But, that's also why Boeing is going down the tubes. What are you gibbering about? Since nobody but Boeing or the Military understand the words "Standby". You might want to contact some fire fighters. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"ZZBunker" wrote in message om... "Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ... "ZZBunker" wrote in message om... Ron Parsons wrote in message ... In article nk.net, "Robert A. Fowler" wrote: What is the offset expense of maintaining and operating the 136 aging Boeing KC-135E aircraft ? - Fewer aircrews (5 people x 100k/year x10 years + 5m training cost + 2 crews per airframe) = 30 Million$ 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |