John, What I find questionable is the 767 being used as a fueling aircraft. Correct me if I am wrong but this deal was put together after B gulped MDD. Considering that USAF has DC10s as refueling tankers also, I think MD11 would be a better choice due to increased payload and commonality. If you ask me I think this 767-USAF deal stinks worse than a dead rat. :) BAHA Fan of Md11s. -----Original Message----- From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Kelly Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 1:15 PM To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Aircraft Replacement Gerry, Boeing's post 9/11 proposal to the Air Force for the "KC-767" was unsolicited. Nothing wrong or even questionable as these types of proposals are submitted by contarctors all of the time. The B-767 was proprosed as a tanker numerous times in the past but KC-135s were performing well and air refueling activities were humming aloing just fine. However, the timing by Boeing was "fortuitous" due to several reasons: 1) Post 9/11 2001 aircraft orders for the B-767 all but evaporated. Pre 9/11 orders were already dwinding but the terrorist attacks acceralated the decline in orders. 2) KC-135 corrosion was more advanced than many people thought/realized. Depot level maintenance wasn in excess of 400 days per aircraft. The depot maintenance decreased to under 180 days but the aircraft's aging cannot be ignored for much longer. The "E" model bears the brunt of the aging concern. 3) I can'r recall exactly why the 100 tanker number was picked. But, the number corresponds tothe quantity of tankers being removed from service and using that attrition quantity to compute air mobility requirements i.e. "x" pounds of fuel that can be transferred, "x" lbs of cargo for expeditonary force needs, "x" aircraft needed for expeditionary force requirements; "x" air refueling support for USN and USMC aircraft along with allied air refueling support needs. The quantity of 100 tankers is a place holder or a stake in the ground. 4) The Quadrennial Defense Review did not plan for KC-135 replacements and a new way to finance acquisition of a tanker repalcement was needed. 5) The lease agreement is novel for U. S. Air Force procurement and received intense scrutiny because of its size, suddeness, and timing with a slow commercial aircraft economy. The oversight was Rightfully so, and Boeing was forced to sharpen its pencil by the Pentagon and USAF officials. The result was a $4 Billion reduction (at least) in program acquisition cost I believe Dragyn Traynor may be able to shed more light on this area, but that's what I recall from my contacts and readings over the last two years. The fact still remains that a KC-135 replacement is needed in the very near future. And, don't foget the KC-10s are entering their third decade of air refueling and cargo/pax service. All the best, JCK --- >From: Gerard M Foley <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Reply-To: The Airline List <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Gerard >M Foley <gfoley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Airvraft Replacement >Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:33:04 -0500 > > > > 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. > > > >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 _________________________________________________________________ Let the new MSN Premium Internet Software make the most of your high-speed experience. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1