Comments on: How Boeing Doth Protest

By: http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk

http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:29:24 +0000

Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings

By: Todd R.

Todd R. — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:27:26 +0000

I honestly do not thing that the United States government should be awarding a 100 billion dollar stimulus package to France. Regardless of mild performance differences between the two companies, I think it’s time to reconsider the number of jobs that would be generated in the United States as a result of our government investing in Boeing. I do not work for Boeing, I do not work in the aviation industry. I work in healthcare. It seems incredibly short sighted. How can they EVER encourage us to “Buy American” after something like this? It smacks of hypocrisy.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:09:56 +0000

RE: Would you sign (another) contract with these folks ?
if they had the best product at the best price, absolutely
they’ve served their time (paid their fine), it’s time to move on
they bring too much to the table to simply ignore
that said, i would scrutinize any dealings very carefully ;)
Well said although the best product & price is of no value without delivery !
With regards
Dave

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:43:30 +0000

irtusk,
Ha, ha, ha.
That is the problem with only getting your infomation from the internet…
Note how nearly all the “data” on the KC-767AT on the internet is rather vague. ;)
Take a wild guess where the “8,000ft” figure comes from. I would tell you but you obviously don’t believe FACTS others present that disagree with your misconceptions.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:56:05 +0000

> The KC-767AT IS NOT a 767-200ER nor is it a “basic” KC-767
> sold to Italy & Japan.
no kidding, let us compare the specs
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/usaf/KC_767/performance.html
“The ability to take off at NEAR maximum gross weights from an 8,000-foot runway“
in other words, it is limited from an 8000 ft runway and who knows what ‘near’ means
now let us compare to the KC-45
http://www.northropgrumman.com/kc45/performance/deploying.html
“The aircraft’s excellent takeoff performance allows it to depart from a 7,000-ft. runway fully loaded.“
so there we have it:
KC-767AT — 8000′ at LESS THAN MTOW
KC-45 — 7000′ at MTOW

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:22:36 +0000

irtusk,
You lack of understanding of real life is pathetic.
There are NO airfields or runways which the KC-30 can operate from where the KC-767AT can not. But there ARE runways & airfields which the KC-767AT can operate from where the KC-30 can not.
The KC-767AT IS NOT a 767-200ER nor is it a “basic” KC-767 sold to Italy & Japan.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:08:45 +0000

> Would you sign (another) contract with these folks ?
if they had the best product at the best price, absolutely
they’ve served their time (paid their fine), it’s time to move on
they bring too much to the table to simply ignore
that said, i would scrutinize any dealings very carefully ;)

By: irtusk

irtusk — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 01:18:17 +0000

an interesting quote from the comments here:
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2008/03/10/boeing-experiences-drag/
who knows how credible it is, but interesting nonetheless …
> My spouse worked on the original tanker proposal (the one that
> was awarded to Boeing, then taken away). When the government/Air
> Force first came to Boeing about the tanker idea, Boeing shoved
> the 767 platform down their throats about as calmly as a car
> salesman will sell you the lot-lemon. The Air Force asked for a
> quote on a 777 platform, and Boeing countered that

By: irtusk

irtusk — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:58:37 +0000

> The “competition” that has done the most to reduce demand for the 767–200 are stretched versions of Boeing’s own 757.
the 757 hasn’t been in production for 4 years and the 767–200 still isn’t selling …
> KC-30 being too big &/or heavy can not operate from said airfield
except in real life that just doesn’t happen
> KC-30 operating from an airfield ~500 miles from designated refuelling point
> can only do so at a significantly reduced take-off weight thus negating (or
> even reversing) it fuel offload advantage.
again not going to happen
here’s a hypothetical:
the runway at some podunk field (like say MILDENHALL) is too short for the KC-767AT so it has to takeoff with a reduced fuel load
except, it’s not a hypothetical
> There are also areas where there are NO “large” airfields & even the
> largest airfields around can only operate aircraft up to a certain
> size &/or weight limit.
sure there are weight limited airports
it’s just that generally if they’re strong enough to support a 767 they’re also strong enough to support an A330
you are simply going to find more fields where the KC-767 is limited by runway length than the KC-30 is limited by weight restrictions
you can’t deny it
and another thing to consider is that it’s not just weight, it’s weight distribution (ie weight per tire)
both have 2 double twin main landing gear and a twin nose gear BUT the KC-30 is also fitted with the center-line twin gear from the A340 family
the extra tires help distribute more of the weight and allow it to use runways you would otherwise think it couldn’t
> while others are limited by hanger
1. you can operate without a hangar
2. lots of the KC-135 hangars don’t accomodate the KC-767 either, so they will have to be redone whatever the case
> ramp space (which a A330/KC-30 could only operate from after improvements to the infrastruture)
ramp space isn’t nearly as big an issue as you think plus since the KC-30 can put more booms in the air, there will be fewer planes sitting at the base (as opposed to the more more-booms-on-the-ground KC-767)

By: Ken

Ken — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:46:35 +0000

The manufacturing guys over at Evolving Excellence have also been taking Boeing to task, first in terms of the hypocrisy of whining about losing the tanker deal to NG/Airbus at:
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/boeing-whiner-e.html
Then the even greater hypocrisy of the politicians that are siding with Boeing:
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/so-whos-more-pa.html
Ken