Pilots helping pilots
View over 100 airline profilesAdd to Google



Welcome to the Airline Pilot Central Forums forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. If you're a working pilot, please join our free community and you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you don't want to register (or not a working pilot), you can still use the Google search box in the upper left of this screen to search all forum posts!

Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums > Career Builder > Military
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read


Military Career | Transition to airline pilot

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-18-2008, 11:06 AM   #1 (permalink)
Medieval Warrior
 
HoursHore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: MD11FO
Posts: 378
Default GAO tells AF to reopen Tanker Contract.

CNBC reports at 1pm.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/bu...l?ref=business
HoursHore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 11:34 AM   #2 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 39
Default

At this rate the AF will get a new tanker by 2050 if they're lucky. I guess it's really up to whose lobbyists have the deepest pockets at this point.
planeview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 01:45 PM   #3 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
faipsrule's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Uboat F/O
Posts: 35
Default

This war is gonna end fast once we lose a 135 crew due to air frame disentigration and they ground the fleet.
faipsrule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 03:08 PM   #4 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 65
Default

The contract should have been awarded several years ago to Boeing after the leasing fiasco of acquiring KC-767 tankers. As always politics, lobbyists and people trying to stuff their pockets with jobs and money prevented the awarding of that contract.

Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
SEGATAKI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 03:35 PM   #5 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
DustoffVT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: UH-60, AS-350, C-550
Posts: 94
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by faipsrule View Post
This war is gonna end fast once we lose a 135 crew due to air frame disentigration and they ground the fleet.

No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement.


NOT that I want a 135 to come apart, though. I know you guys work hard.
__________________
"When I have your wounded"
DustoffVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 04:19 PM   #6 (permalink)
Prime Minister
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: CRJ
Posts: 6,424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SEGATAKI View Post
The contract should have been awarded several years ago to Boeing after the leasing fiasco of acquiring KC-767 tankers. As always politics, lobbyists and people trying to stuff their pockets with jobs and money prevented the awarding of that contract.

Boeing has already proved that the KC-767 is an effective tanker....Japan and Italy are currently deploying that aircraft. Who knows what kind of product EADS will produce. Airbus has readily admitted that the service life of it's aircraft is around 15 years. The Boeing built KC-135 has been around since the Eisenhower era. The 767 line is still up and running and if the contract is reopened Boeing will provide the USAF with a more effective tanker.
Boeing screwed up (I'd use the f bomb if it was permitted here) by rigging the original lease deal...boeing and federal employees went to jail, remember?

I think they lost their high ground and entitlement to the contract at that point. I'm not wild about airbus getting all the work, but if it convinces boeing that they can't get away with cheating it might be worth it in the long term.
rickair7777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 04:46 PM   #7 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
FlyFastLiveSlow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: G-V Left
Posts: 83
Default

"No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement."

No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s. Nothing against Blackhawks (you guys get a front row seat to the war) but tankers touch a big part of the air war.
__________________
Fly fast, live slow...
FlyFastLiveSlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 06:20 PM   #8 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFastLiveSlow View Post
"No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement."

No, but they do enhance the capabilities of F-15s, F-16s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, B-52s, RC-135s, AWACS, JSTARS, C-130s (non-slick), F-14s, F-18s, EA-6s, GR-4s, Jaguars, VC-10s, C-17s, C-5s, and KC-10s.
There ain't a single Stinkbug that benefits from the tanker toads anymore; that airframe was retired from the USAF inventory.

Besides, the -10 fills in just fine.

Tho I agree, the government should buy American whenever possible. EADS gets enough subsidies from the euro governments, it shouldn't get any from ours.
Blackwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 06:31 PM   #9 (permalink)
Line Holder
 
wingnutC-17's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: C-17, B-737...Both seats
Posts: 94
Default

I wonder how much of the Air Force's mistakes on this latest round of bidding, contributed to the departure of the top two last week? I wonder if once the facts started to come out, inside the Pentagon, that might have been the straw that broke the camels back? It will be interesting to read the full detailed report from the GAO.

Anyone know if it's on the web yet? I couldn't find it. (Did not look that hard, either)

I think this whole tanker fiasco should be under that other thread in this forum of "Air Force Waste"!

I can hear EADS now...."Merde! Merde! Merde!"
wingnutC-17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 07:20 PM   #10 (permalink)
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DustoffVT View Post
No offense dude, but until 135s start refueling Blackhawks, that's quite an overstatement.


NOT that I want a 135 to come apart, though. I know you guys work hard.
Beat me to it...the Marine KC-130s can take care of our own jets...thank you very much!
reddog25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ALPA Officers Salary Scale old gasser Union Talk 28 06-08-2008 01:31 PM
jobs, for those looking for one jet320 Foreign 4 05-27-2008 02:38 PM
Boeing loses $40B Air Force tanker contract daytonaflyer Military 14 03-02-2008 11:46 AM
SKYWEST to Vote on ALPA Ellen Regional 193 09-21-2007 07:11 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Copyright ©2000 - 2007 DreamLaunch Media Ltd

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC7