Herc -- the point of my posting was to show that newer as well as older cargo designs strategically move cargo more efficient than a C-17 and that no civilian company in their right mind should buy it to fly cargo in this sense. As Moose said, it simply burns too much fuel because it was designed to do the short field landings / tactical stuff.

A majority of our cargo that is moved strategically is moved using the CRAF (747s MD11s). The fuel cost would be substantially less if we used the CRAF more than the C17s. Therefore, we wouldn't need the Northeast Tanker Task Force with KC-10s and KC-135s sitting Bravo 24/7/365 since Sept 11th just to get the C-17 across the pond. Of course, what would the reservists / guard do? They have to eat too.

We're all friends here right? Yes!

The major problem is, AMC never really learned how to use the KC-10 in the cargo sense -- it never will. We fly 90% of our missions empty -- which one could argue the KC-10 is the real gas hog. AFSO21 that! But our mobility system doesn't have that type of flexibility to move cargo destined for a T-tailer to a KC-10 (747 / MD11) readily. Only when our boomers start to go non-current does it seem that we get cargo runs. The "Tanker and Airlift Control Center" might as well have a 50 foot concrete wall between the tankers and airlifters -- the two entities don't talk unless an airlifter needs a tanker.

The KC-10 will always be the red-headed step child of the airlift / tanker world. These days, everybody needs a tanker and we are simply over tasked. KC-10s have more flying time than KC-135s! It will always be a slave to the fighter / bomber/ navy commander.

I resent the "Gucci" remark -- we deploy too!

-FATTY