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
|
|||
|
|||
NY Times OPEd article on Tanker Leasing
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28BROO.html
(quoting) U.S. Air Force would lease 100 refueling tankers, modified Boeing 767's, from an entity controlled by the Boeing Corporation. This whole mess started because the Air Force can't pay for new tankers up front, so it tried to push back the costs by leasing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will appreciate that the deal also involves the use of "special purpose entities," the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their glory days. Speaker Dennis Hastert's effort to ram through an Air Force tanker deal for the Boeing Corporation. This deal isn't just shady — it's the Encyclopaedia Britannica of shady. (end quotes) John Bailey http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The UK Advanced Tanker/Transport is going to be leased because we're going
through a competitive bidding process, and the end product 'should' cost less than buying outright over the product lifetime. Personally, I still think they should buy outright - if they extend the aircraft's flying life, like they've done with the VC-10 and Tristar, it gets expensive fast. Besides, we tried this with the C-17's - and because of the masses of extra time we've put on them through Afghanistan and Iraq, it's going to cost the UK taxpayer a ton of cash. The US tanker program, whilst very nessesary, is really just a sop to Boeing because they didn't win the JSF program - and it's going to cost more than buying outright even if they stick to the projections. Come on, no competitive bidding process? As far as I know, the USAF is howling that they should buy the tankers, not lease them - why, with that extra $5.6 billion, they could buy one, maybe two extra F/A-22's! Matt "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... (John Bailey) wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28BROO.html (quoting) U.S. Air Force would lease 100 refueling tankers, modified Boeing 767's, from an entity controlled by the Boeing Corporation. This whole mess started because the Air Force can't pay for new tankers up front, so it tried to push back the costs by leasing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will appreciate that the deal also involves the use of "special purpose entities," the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their glory days. Speaker Dennis Hastert's effort to ram through an Air Force tanker deal for the Boeing Corporation. This deal isn't just shady ? it's the Encyclopaedia Britannica of shady. (end quotes) John Bailey http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html Gee, who'd have thunk the NYT would oppose something thet the USAF and DoD want? What is Hastert's big gain in this? This all looks a bit one-sided to me; maybe the NYT should go investigate why the RAF is also pursuing a tanker lease program... Brooks |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt" wrote in message ... The UK Advanced Tanker/Transport is going to be leased because we're going through a competitive bidding process, and the end product 'should' cost less than buying outright over the product lifetime. Personally, I still think they should buy outright - if they extend the aircraft's flying life, like they've done with the VC-10 and Tristar, it gets expensive fast. Besides, we tried this with the C-17's - and because of the masses of extra time we've put on them through Afghanistan and Iraq, it's going to cost the UK taxpayer a ton of cash. The US tanker program, whilst very nessesary, is really just a sop to Boeing because they didn't win the JSF program - and it's going to cost more than buying outright even if they stick to the projections. Come on, no competitive bidding process? As far as I know, the USAF is howling that they should buy the tankers, not lease them - why, with that extra $5.6 billion, they could buy one, maybe two extra F/A-22's! No the extra $5.6 billion would be used to keep the KC-135s flying. The USAF is saying that if they buy them they will be delivered 2009-2016. If they lease them they will be delivered 2006-2011. As far as a sop to Boeing. The 767 is the only aircraft in the running. The only way the USAF can get new tankers in the next five years is to use this aircraft. Period. Since the lease has a most-favored-customer and a return-on-sales cap for all of Boeing commercial and military aircraft sales I don't see how the USAF is going to get them any cheaper. Since the leased aircraft will not be owned by The Boeing Company but the KC-767A USAF Tanker Statutory Trust which will sell bonds to raise the capital, feel free to buy a bond if you think this is such a gold mine. It is also the only airframe the USAF could buy if they need any more AWACS in the next five years. Anyone that thinks the USG will assume the risk and cost to have Airbus develop a competing product in light of Airbus' stated objective to drive Boeing out of the commerical aircraft market is brain damaged. The USAF, unlike some in Congress, understands the long term strategic damage to US interests of buying Scarebus. Perhaps people should read the report to Congress rather than an OpEd piece from a source that has had a few making-it-up problems of late. Matt "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message om... (John Bailey) wrote in message ... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/opinion/28BROO.html (quoting) U.S. Air Force would lease 100 refueling tankers, modified Boeing 767's, from an entity controlled by the Boeing Corporation. This whole mess started because the Air Force can't pay for new tankers up front, so it tried to push back the costs by leasing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the leasing option will cost taxpayers an extra $5.6 billion, though scandal connoisseurs will appreciate that the deal also involves the use of "special purpose entities," the accounting mechanisms used by Enron executives in their glory days. Speaker Dennis Hastert's effort to ram through an Air Force tanker deal for the Boeing Corporation. This deal isn't just shady ? it's the Encyclopaedia Britannica of shady. (end quotes) John Bailey http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html Gee, who'd have thunk the NYT would oppose something thet the USAF and DoD want? What is Hastert's big gain in this? This all looks a bit one-sided to me; maybe the NYT should go investigate why the RAF is also pursuing a tanker lease program... Brooks |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On or about Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:35:14 GMT, "William Wright"
allegedly uttered: It is also the only airframe the USAF could buy if they need any more AWACS in the next five years. Why, when AWACS solutions are currently being built on 767, 737, Il-76, P3, and the Embraer version which Brazil is taking? And since the USAF has no need for an AWACS replacement, the point is moot, although the 767 has been selected for the M2C2A (If I got that one right). Anyone that thinks the USG will assume the risk and cost to have Airbus develop a competing product in light of Airbus' stated objective to drive Boeing out of the commerical aircraft market is brain damaged. Indeed, since Airbus has already developed said product, with both the Luftwaffe and the Canadian Forces signed up to have some of their A310-300s converted to tanker transport config, and the A330 version being bid for the RAF FSTA program. So the risk to the USAF would be minimal. As for the stated aim - is it a surprise that a company wants to puts it's competitor out of business? What doing you think Boeing would like to happen to Airbus now that Airbus has taken over as the larger company in civil aviation? --- Peter Kemp Life is short - Drink Faster |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message ... On or about Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:35:14 GMT, "William Wright" allegedly uttered: It is also the only airframe the USAF could buy if they need any more AWACS in the next five years. Why, when AWACS solutions are currently being built on 767, 737, Il-76, P3, and the Embraer version which Brazil is taking? And since the USAF has no need for an AWACS replacement, the point is moot, although the 767 has been selected for the M2C2A (If I got that one right). Close. It's the MC2A or the E-10, whichever you prefer. And the basic idea is a one airframe replacement for the E-3 AWACS, E-8 JointSTARS, and the EC-135 Rivet Joint. My personal opinion is "good friggin' luck". (M)Sgt Peter Vierps 116th AMXS |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:54:25 -0500, Vee-One wrote:
and the EC-135 Rivet Joint. Nit: The RJ is an RC-135. -Jeff B. (who spent 10 years in ESC/AFIC/AIA) yeff at erols dot com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Yeff" wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:54:25 -0500, Vee-One wrote: and the EC-135 Rivet Joint. Nit: The RJ is an RC-135. -Jeff B. (who spent 10 years in ESC/AFIC/AIA) yeff at erols dot com Thanks. 2 out of 3 ain't bad, tho. Pete (guess which 2 I have worked) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:59:50 -0500, Vee-One wrote:
Thanks. 2 out of 3 ain't bad, tho. g Pete (guess which 2 I have worked) Security Service and ESC? ;- -Jeff B. (who decided to make you older than the hills for no reason) yeff at erols dot com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Yeff" wrote in message ... On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:59:50 -0500, Vee-One wrote: Thanks. 2 out of 3 ain't bad, tho. g Pete (guess which 2 I have worked) Security Service and ESC? ;- -Jeff B. (who decided to make you older than the hills for no reason) yeff at erols dot com Sorry, I was referring to the airframes (and since I don't know my RC from my EC.........) :- Pete |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
EADS aims at USAF tanker market | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 0 | September 20th 03 05:54 PM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |