How Boeing steered tanker bid

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

In article , Henry J Cobb
wrote:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

-HJC

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

--
Ron

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message Henry J Cobb
wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

-HJC

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.
--
Ron

Plus nothing like having a foreign power having that kind of power on what
we do as a country by withholding spares. and as a side note if the airbus
tanker(istr doesn't exist yet) was such a good product why did Italy go with
boeing?

Ron Parsons wrote in message ...

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?
Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
767-200. Any more than that at those stage lengths and it gets a bit
tough if there is any weather at the destination. The -400 can be a
real headache.
So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
will either likely fly then?

In article ,
(sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?

Yes, the point was the efficiency of the wing. Which for the 767 is
designed to carry 500,000.

Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
767-200.

767-300.

Any more than that at those stage lengths and it gets a bit
tough if there is any weather at the destination. The -400 can be a
real headache.

So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
will either likely fly then?

I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?

--
Ron

David Hartung wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

But if you had to choose, you'd rather buy military equipment from
France instead of China, no?

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/h...0403291311.htm
Mullaly noted that the essential parts of approximately 3,400 Boeing
aircraft in service worldwide today were assembled in China, occupying
one-third of the whole Boeing fleet.

-HJC

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

-HJC

The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left
wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard schrieb:

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

So? Boeing had to start once at scratch, too. And Airbus is currently
working on it for the RAF.

Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster