The better tanker didn't win

#1 A330 is heavy! it has machined bulkheads and other critical parts which cause more weight . burns more gas (cost) 2) Boeing planes need less maintinance and fly longer before C and D checks (reliability) 3) the residual value of Boeing planes higher than Airbus planes (reliability and value) 4) the on time performance is better with Boeing Airplanes (reliability and value) and to top it off you get more american workers paying taxes than with an Airbut Plane (savings)

rjbkirkland @ 8:37 PM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

A few questions Dan: When will the 767 go out of production? There are no new orders because the 787 is right around the corner and carries the same amount of passengers, but does so with higher comfort and less fuel burn than the 767. Is the Airforce not being offered a 27 year old aircraft by Boeing, that is soon to go out of production and then leave the American Airforce with exactly the same problem they are having with the KC-135 today?

Dave @ 10:26 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

Of course Boeing also doesn't make reference to its Italian tanker which the company promised to deliver nearly four years ago but hasn't been capable of doing so yet. While Boeing is still designing its plane on paper, the first two tanker aircraft to be offered by Northrop Grumman have been built, tested and flown and the KC-45 refueling boom has undergone in excess of 100 flight tests.

dec789 @ 8:42 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

This Boeing missive tries to suggest that Boeing is the company with a tanker and refueling boom ready to go. The fact is the plane Boeing has proposed for the Air Force has never been built and the refueling boom contained in its proposal is also merely a design on paper.

dec789 @ 8:39 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

The A330 at same weight flying is 10% more efficient than the B767, this are facts!The A330-200 is around 18% larger than a B767, as tanker it can load 30% fuel than the boeing beast, doing this it is 14% more fuel gazzler, being over 30% weighty, but 30% fuel! what this mean ? it means that in each operation involving 4 B767, only 3 a330 will be needed for the same refuelling capacity, and gazzling 66% less fuel! over 40 years the Airbus A330 will economise 55 billions dollars for US taxepayers!

BSinmass @ 8:07 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

More Comments by Dan Beck from June 10, 2003 / topic is leasing 767 Tankers / Sounds a lot like the same B/S ''Boeing still believes that the tanker deal is the right thing to do for our Air Force customer, as well as for our national defense program,'' said Dan Beck, a Boeing spokesman. ''And it's the right deal for the taxpayer. We'll engage in a dialogue with members of Congress"

Brassdrawer @ 7:27 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

My father flew KC 135's for many years in the USAF. Unless refueling missions have changed, most involve going out and meeting planes returning to base or going on to another base. The missions only carry cargo and/or passengers when flying to another base for temporary assignment. Why do we need a bigger cargo/passenger plane when its primary mission is to refuel?

Proud Boeing Employee @ 6:43 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

Written by a Boeing spokesman and full of manipulation, this article is pure propaganda. If Boeing builds the aircraft we might get to see it up and flying in another 15 years. Theres enough failures on Boeing's plate without adding another one.

Brandon T @ 6:36 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

Ah yes, the ignorance of the masses! How many of you have any idea of what you're talking about? I'm a retired KC-135 instructor pilot, with tours as an Acquisition Program Manager and HQ AMC Tanker War Planner. The GAO got it right. Boeing got it right. NG/EADS threatened to withdraw from the competition making it sole source so the AF violated the "rules" by changing requirements midstream to keep them in the game. All factual. A330 will cost billions more in hidden infrastructure costs (rwy, ramp, hanger, cargo pallets, etc.)

Tanker Driver @ 6:32 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

Is my understanding that the real concern of Boeing is the Airbus landing in the US making a Final Assembling Line (FAL) for the A330 Commercial Transport Version at Mobile. Why not to think in a future growth of this FAL to produce also the new A350, direct competitor of the Boeing 787? Is this really the real concern of Boeing?

Fernando @ 2:19 AM PDT, Jul 31, 2008

Next