Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Military Military Aviation
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-25-2010, 06:17 AM   #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 339
Default

[QUOTE=KC10 FATboy;906573

Our bigger problem is the KC-135 is old, but the newer KC-10 has hours. While the KC-135 spent decades on the ramp sitting alert, the KC-10 has always been flying. As much as we need a replacement for the KC-135, we need to start looking to replace Big Sexy (KC-10). Her maintenance reliable since I've left the fleet has gone down a lot and she's showing her age. The KC-10 also has a legacy cockpit, the KC-135 does not. The USAF failed to upgrade the KC-10 and everyone is ignoring the big snafu that is coming with the new navigational requirements. To think that ICAO is going to give our tankers a waiver is very naive.[/QUOTE]

I've been pretty involved in the 135 CWG and can say this is one area the tanker is probably very well funded, relative to other platforms. In the next 5-10 yrs we will probably have an all glass cockpit with autothrottles and maybe even an autopilot that can level off by iteself! Downside is we are basically reverse engineering a modern glass cockpit, sometimes resulting in a very bastardized interface with little cultural understanding in how to operate it (hello long ass SAC checklists!). Sometimes I think we would have been better to just save the money and start over.

So she is basically getting new makeup and some new jewelry, but the bones are the same.

KC
kc135driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 09:29 AM   #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
blastoff's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 1,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash View Post
You realize of course that the government DOES handle the health care of every one in the military, right?
And you do realize that the quality of Military care stinks, right? This is the reason many are electing to pay more in copays for Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime to avoid sending their wives and kids to the "hobby shop" for healthcare. Go in for Gall Bladder surgery and come out with no legs...this is the kind of buffoonery going on in our USAF Hospitals/clinics.
blastoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 02:15 PM   #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastoff View Post
And you do realize that the quality of Military care stinks, right? This is the reason many are electing to pay more in copays for Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime to avoid sending their wives and kids to the "hobby shop" for healthcare. Go in for Gall Bladder surgery and come out with no legs...this is the kind of buffoonery going on in our USAF Hospitals/clinics.

Gotta echo the above. I have a choice of Tricare and a FedEx health plan. It cost $3,000 a year more to use the FedEx plan, but I gladly pay it to not have to deal with the "government tricare".
MD10PLT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2010, 04:06 PM   #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CAFB 04-12's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Various
Posts: 9
Default

At least with whichever tanker wins this competition, you won't have KC-135s flying around with drogues on the boom saying, "sorry bro" to the F-16s at bingo.

Booms in the air don't matter much when that boom is stuck with a drogue on it.

Tankers need to go both ways.
CAFB 04-12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 04:04 AM   #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Marvin's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: B-737 Right
Posts: 169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MD10PLT View Post
Gotta echo the above. I have a choice of Tricare and a FedEx health plan. It cost $3,000 a year more to use the FedEx plan, but I gladly pay it to not have to deal with the "government tricare".
Huh ... I do Tricare Prime and have never had any issues at all.

My wife is fine now (7 yrs cancer free!), but when she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease she got great care, and she was even assigned a nurse case manager who we could call anytime. The case manager was particularly helpful when we got bills from the hospital for tens of thousands of dollars -- my phone calls to the hospital accomplished nothing, but the problem quickly went away when I involved the nurse case manager.

No issues here so far with Tricare. YMMV.
Marvin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2010, 06:57 AM   #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Texandrvr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastoff View Post
And you do realize that the quality of Military care stinks, right? This is the reason many are electing to pay more in copays for Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime to avoid sending their wives and kids to the "hobby shop" for healthcare. Go in for Gall Bladder surgery and come out with no legs...this is the kind of buffoonery going on in our USAF Hospitals/clinics.
Agreed, I won't send my family to the military clinics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MD10PLT View Post
Gotta echo the above. I have a choice of Tricare and a FedEx health plan. It cost $3,000 a year more to use the FedEx plan, but I gladly pay it to not have to deal with the "government tricare".
However, "Tricare" is not military health care, it is military health insurance. Tricare standard is excellent and low cost health insurance. I save thousands of dollars per year in premiums, co-pays, and deductibles by sticking with tricare standard instead of my company's health insurance. Those savings are with a generally healthy family. If someone gets really sick the savings would be much greater. Tricare's catastrophic cap is below most company's annual deductible.

The one caveat to my savings is that I'm not willing to put my family in an HMO. Of course you can save more money in an HMO. But the ability to send my family to any doctor without referrals is worth sticking with a PPO.
Texandrvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 03:31 AM   #37  
Line Holder
 
KennHC130's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: HC-130P Instructor Pilot
Posts: 14
Default

I realize we are getting off the subject here, but I have to say, my family and I have been with Tricare Prime for years and have never had any problems or paid a penny. Our son has a mild case of Cerebral Palsey and we've been to more doctors/specialists than I care to count, and never a problem. They've taken great care of us.
KennHC130 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010, 08:32 AM   #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,732
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blastoff View Post
And you do realize that the quality of Military care stinks, right? This is the reason many are electing to pay more in copays for Tricare Standard instead of Tricare Prime to avoid sending their wives and kids to the "hobby shop" for healthcare. Go in for Gall Bladder surgery and come out with no legs...this is the kind of buffoonery going on in our USAF Hospitals/clinics.
Interesting comparison. I had my gall bladder removed and was back in the cockpit in two weeks. My experience with Tricare and military medicine for me and my family has been nothing but outstanding.

When doing my research prior to my going in, I found more than a few instances like the one you linked above, all outside of military health care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAFB 04-12 View Post

Tankers need to go both ways.
Just like Eagle guys.
Grumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 03:02 PM   #39  
Line Holder
 
GasPasser's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: KC-135 IP
Posts: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Fatboy has a great point with the number of booms. It's 1's and 0's, a loss of .4 is a 1. From the fighter perspective both on the recieving end and working on the floor in the 'Died, size isn't the end all be all answer. The rows of of 135's there would be severly limited if replaced with something bigger. Real estate is a huge planning factor along with sheer numbers. I think I can count on one hand the number of times my tanker plan over Iraq or the 'stan went as planned. Everything else was dictated by how froggy the gomers were that day, and where our support was needed. It was inevitable that a cry for help to get a tanker over head would go out so that we could support the guys on the ground, and even then we'd be yo-yo'ing during someone else's cycle and have to wait for our turn on the teet. With fewer numbers, the tanker guys would be even more handcuffed and I can't tell you how many times I've plugged at or below bingo after they raced over at max blast to support. They're already working a complex puzzle with what they have (and do a phenominal job of it), if you cut down the number of booms in the air, regardless of how much gas the platform holds, you severely cut down the combat effectiveness of the end user. Today that end user are the guys on the ground 90% of the time.
To get this thread back on track, I invite all my tanker bros to join me on another board. I seem to be the only guy/gal with tanker experience there (along with one former boom and a tanker wife). The latest rumor is that Boeing (haven been given EADS IFARA score) thinks they have lost the bid. Come join me in the fray.


EADS will likely win tanker, says Boeing consultant Leeham News and Comment
GasPasser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2010, 04:58 PM   #40  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
Just like Eagle guys.

Ouch!!!!
ERJF15 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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

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



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:41 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright 2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1