John, I never knew that you were a fan of ex-TWA JT3d powered KC-135s. Sweet it was to dispose of those surplus engines. If only I could have found someone to take the Convair 880's! On the 767 issue. have you seen any meaningful analysis that supports (or contradicts) the claim that the lease program will cost "billions" more than a staright purchase. Clearly a lease will cost more than a pure purchase - see a neighbourly car dealer- reflecting the time value of money, but what I have not seen is any analysis that shows whether the Boeing lease deal gives them an outrageous ROI. Only if the ROI of the proposed deal is above the market ROI for similar deals with comparable credit, will it be costing "we the people". Given the desirability of keeping the 767 line running, it would have been foolish of Boeing to set the ROI much above market. Robin -----Original Message----- From: John Kelly <jckelly1011@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Jan 24, 2004 7:57 PM To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Aircraft Replacement Baha, Nothing questionable about it, seriously. THIS particular deal occurred after the Boeing acquisition of McD, obviously. However, if I remember correctly, Boeing had a proof of concept demonstration for the B-767 as a KC type aircraft for the USAF in the early 1990s. Alton might be able to confirm that date range. The DC-10 production line long since closed and the MD-11 is not compatible with the KC-10 Extender fleet. USAF philosophy is to standardize as much as possible for aircraft acquisition due to operational, maintenance, training, and logistics synergies. Obviously, the KC-135Es need to be replaced with an off the shelf aircraft. The questions are which one, how many, and when? Regards to all, JCK Fan of ex-TWA JT3D powered KC-135s (can you say "Dynafan" boys and girls?) ---- >From: Bahadir Acuner <bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx> >Reply-To: The Airline List <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >Bahadir Acuner <bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx> >To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Aircraft Replacement >Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:17:49 -0500 > >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 _________________________________________________________________ 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