Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-01-2020, 02:47 PM   #1  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,108
Default More KC-46 problems...

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...stem-problems/

it ought not to be this difficult or expensive to take a mature airframe (767) and modify it to replace 1950s era technology KC-135s.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-02-2020, 06:50 AM   #2  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...stem-problems/

it ought not to be this difficult or expensive to take a mature airframe (767) and modify it to replace 1950s era technology KC-135s.
I think it's probably BCA's corporate culture/philosophy... same folks that brought us the max.

Boeing Defense seems to do better, but obviously they can't build a tanker without BCA.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-02-2020, 06:57 AM   #3  
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 6,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
I think it's probably BCA's corporate culture/philosophy... same folks that brought us the max.

Boeing Defense seems to do better, but obviously they can't build a tanker without BCA.
But jeez, they’ve been the tanker guys throughout history. Not just the KC-135s but converting C-97s to KC-97s, and even B-29s to KB-50s before that. And in months, not years. And for a damn sight less than $40 billion even in constant year dollars. You’d think the company would die from the embarrassment alone.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-02-2020, 07:08 AM   #4  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
But jeez, they’ve been the tanker guys throughout history. Not just the KC-135s but converting C-97s to KC-97s, and even B-29s to KB-50s before that. And in months, not years. And for a damn sight less than $40 billion even in constant year dollars. You’d think the company would die from the embarrassment alone.
That was the old Boeing, which built airliners that their chief pilot could barrel-roll in the traffic pattern.

New Boeing is MD dba Boeing.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-02-2020, 09:56 AM   #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tnkrdrvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 511
Default

The KC 46 has been an extremely problematical program. I speak with Leanne Caret, the CEO of the defense side of Boeing, on a regular basis about it,” Lord said. “One issue is frankly the technical solution. That was the original design [and] is now being redesigned, but also we have had a myriad of manufacturing issues with [foreign object debris] and other issues.”

However, she said the root cause of the problems is the fixed-price firm contract used for the KC-46 program, which makes Boeing financially responsible for any costs beyond the $4.9 billion ceiling. So far, Boeing has spent more than $4.7 billion in company funds on the KC-46 program — almost equivalent to the Air Force’s own investment in the program.

So basically, the head of acquisitions for DOD sees the KC-46 as a poorly designed solution to the tanker mission. Then turns around and says it’s the AF’s fault for using a fixed-price firm contract, since Boeing couldn’t soak the taxpayers for wildly underbidding the true cost.
This sounds like AF acquisitions didn’t know how to draw up a proper competition that measured what actually matters and Boeing assumed that when it became evident how much they had underestimated costs Congress would bail them out. The ineptitude and corporate laziness is mind boggling. A clean sheet design would have better met the mission needs and would have avoided the contract contortions that trying to buy an American COTS airframe resulted in.
tnkrdrvr is offline  
Old 10-02-2020, 11:12 AM   #6  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,188
Default

BCA should know what they're doing by now. They should have know how to bid a FFP contract without losing their arse, and they should have known better than to intentionally bid (if that's what they did) something like this at a loss in hopes of a bailout.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-03-2020, 09:18 AM   #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
joepilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 707
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
BCA should know what they're doing by now. They should have know how to bid a FFP contract without losing their arse, and they should have known better than to intentionally bid (if that's what they did) something like this at a loss in hopes of a bailout.
I don't believe that they expect a bailout. I think that they expect additional orders beyond the initial order, and these additional orders would be profitable.

Joe
joepilot is offline  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:16 AM   #8  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,045
Default

Or, just like the new T-7A program: sell below cost, because you expect to make your profit in the long-term support contract.

No different than my new HP printer. Printer was $50.

Their replacement cartridges? $50 for Black, $75 for color....Wait...that means it’s cheaper to buy a new printer AND cartridge...than just a cartridge....

(Fortunately, there are aftermarket ones that work great for $32).

I’d bet Boeing is banking on the long haul for parts and services.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 10-03-2020, 10:48 AM   #9  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 29,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joepilot View Post
I don't believe that they expect a bailout. I think that they expect additional orders beyond the initial order, and these additional orders would be profitable.

Joe
That could work, many countries will tend to gravitate towards whatever military hardware the US buys, in pursuit of quality, interoperability, and prestige. Although I think that "gold standard" paradigm has ceded a lot of ground to Europe in recent years.

If you just want cheap, the soviet block is where to shop.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-03-2020, 11:10 AM   #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
badflaps's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,372
Default

Aren't there a few countries flying the tanker successfully?
badflaps is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Couple more problems in Chicago inky13 Major 0 12-24-2008 09:37 PM
Boeing Confirms More Nutplate Problems FBEDCOM Major 8 12-01-2008 10:11 PM
Anybody have problems with Eldee 2 arrival DCA ERJ135 Regional 26 01-24-2008 12:39 PM
Mesa and its staffing problems N2rotation Regional 20 11-07-2007 09:05 PM
Alaska Air problems.... Sir James Major 1 07-17-2005 08:47 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:18 AM.