From: "John Kelly" <jckelly1011@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 4:42 PM <snip> > Air Force officials have begun briefing congressional staffers on their plan > for retiring 68 of the oldest KC-135 tankers. Staff members on the Senate > Armed Services Committee were told Jan. 16 that in fiscal 2004, the Air > Force will retire 12 KC-135Es. In 2005 and 2006, the service will retire 41 > and 8 tankers, respectively, according to the Congressional Tanker Roadmap > Update briefing dated Jan. 15. > <snip> > Officials had hoped Congress would have approved the controversial Boeing > 767 tanker lease by now so the Air Force could begin receiving KC-135E > replacements by 2006. > Lest anyone forget, in addition to the scandalous employment by Boeing of the procurement officer responsible for the 767 tanker deal, the deal itself was highly questionable. It was said that purchase rather than lease of these aircraft would save some billions of dollars. It sounded as if the lease deal was to accelerate the acquisition beyond the rate considered necessary by the Air Force to boost Boeing's short term profits and employment. I don't know who else would have profited from the expenditure, which many people considered unnecessary. I think there is general agreement that the oldest KC135's should be replaced soon, but not at the rate called for by the cancelled ( or postponed?) lease deal. Gerry http://www.pbase.com/gfoley9999/ http://foley.ultinet.net/~gerry/aerial/aerial.html http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263/egypt/egypt.html