Boeing to offer 767 in KC-X competition

[SYDCBRWOD]

I was reasonably sure that Boeing would re-enter with the 777. The fact they've simple offered the 767 means they must have been very confident the new tendering process would be "fairer" ...

Yeah, sad aint it? With Boeing knowing their competitors cost price, they have done a bit of number crunching and realised the only airframe that would have come in under that was the 767. So, they decided to go for that, standardise the cockpit with the 787 instrumentation (does this give any clues to cross training for their competitor in the KC-Y competition? I'd say it does - a HGW version of the 787 to replace the KC10's later in the decade). And the USAF gets the smaller older design.

[Eaglefan68]

Yeah, sad aint it? With Boeing knowing their competitors cost price, they have done a bit of number crunching and realised the only airframe that would have come in under that was the 767. So, they decided to go for that, standardise the cockpit with the 787 instrumentation (does this give any clues to cross training for their competitor in the KC-Y competition? I'd say it does - a HGW version of the 787 to replace the KC10's later in the decade). And the USAF gets the smaller older design.

Boeing was planning to bid either the 777 or the 767 based on the requirements of the new RFP. Just because the 767 design is "older" and "smaller" does not mean it won't fit what USAF needs.

The latest is that Airbus is looking to make a bid, but they are 1) requesting that the time-table for submitting a bid be extended, and 2) that the RFP be changed to take into consideration "extra capabilities".

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/03/19/339694/eads-considers-re-entering-kc-x-bidding-as-prime-contractor.html

Airbus' gripe is that the current RFP favors the Boeing product, which is essentially the same gripe they made in the last RFP that instigated a change in that RFP that favored the Airbus product. Hopefully, USAF isn't so hell-bent on having a competition that they accede to Airbus' demands because it will only lead to a protest down the road and USAF will never get the tankers, unless of course they cancel the competition and re-engine the KC-135Es.

[Eaglefan68]

Solved? We are talking about airframes that are up to 70 years old. That is not to say they are useless or clapped out, but with anticipated service life of another 30-40 years, they'd be 100 years old before being retired! Think about that 100 year old wiring etc... There comes a point where obsolescence IS an issue (spare parts availability, the need to service parts of the aircraft that were originally probably designed to be for a 30 year life etc.).

So what? Age isn't as important as hours on the airframe, and they have plenty of that left and even more so if they are upgraded since an upgrade would require different engine pylons.

The spare parts argument is a red herring since USAF plans to keep its fleet of KC-135Rs (KC-X is supposed to replace the KC-135Es not the KC-135Rs) in service for the next twenty to thirty years, and it's highly likely that a supply of spare parts is available either through the OEM or from the hundreds of KC-135s parked in the desert.

[Eaglefan68]

Really? A330 is a jigsaw of parts from all over the planet, just like the B767. Difference is if
final assembly should be in Georgia or Washington.
Another difference is that the B767 is on itīs final leg, A330 isnīt, so a factory in Georgia can provide future sales of A330 both passenger and freight, while the B767 isnīt.

Whether the 767 is on its final leg is a matter of perception and, it won't be on its "final leg" if Boeing gets the contract.

Also, by the time a factory for the A330 gets up and running in Georgia (if ever) Boeing will be far along in pumping out 787s both in Washington and South Carolina.

[Alessandro]

Whether the 767 is on its final leg is a matter of perception and, it won't be on its "final leg" if Boeing gets the contract.

Also, by the time a factory for the A330 gets up and running in Georgia (if ever) Boeing will be far along in pumping out 787s both in Washington and South Carolina.

Well, Airbus understand that US government are broke so no factory in Georgia.
As for future of B767 and B787, well, B767 is on itīs last leg, B787 on itīs first, I think the first B787 in traffic will fly sometime in 2012, so pumping out 787s is at least 2-3 years down the road.

[Alessandro]

Solved? We are talking about airframes that are up to 70 years old. That is not to say they are useless or clapped out, but with anticipated service life of another 30-40 years, they'd be 100 years old before being retired! Think about that 100 year old wiring etc... There comes a point where obsolescence IS an issue (spare parts availability, the need to service parts of the aircraft that were originally probably designed to be for a 30 year life etc.).

2010-1956=54 years, the oldest KC135.

[BoeingKing77]

So what? Age isn't as important as hours on the airframe, and they have plenty of that left and even more so if they are upgraded since an upgrade would require different engine pylons.

The spare parts argument is a red herring since USAF plans to keep its fleet of KC-135Rs (KC-X is supposed to replace the KC-135Es not the KC-135Rs) in service for the next twenty to thirty years, and it's highly likely that a supply of spare parts is available either through the OEM or from the hundreds of KC-135s parked in the desert.

[HalcyonDays]

The spare parts argument is a red herring since USAF plans to keep its fleet of KC-135Rs (KC-X is supposed to replace the KC-135Es not the KC-135Rs) in service for the next twenty to thirty years,.....

So why not re-engine all of the KC-135s into R models ?

[Curtis Malone]

So why not re-engine all of the KC-135s into R models ?

That was considered quite seriously, as far as I understand.

[Eaglefan68]

So why not re-engine all of the KC-135s into R models ?

Because right now USAF only has a need for 179 tankers (to replace the KC-135Es). If USAF went the route of re-engining the Es, it would like take it's best examples for the upgrade. The primary reason that the KC-135Es were sent out to the boneyard was because of corrosion of the engine pylons, which would be solved if they were re-engined, since the new engines are not compatible with the pylons on the Es.

[Eaglefan68]

2010-1956=54 years, the oldest KC135.

And some of those are KC-135As.

[Eaglefan68]

Well, Airbus understand that US government are broke so no factory in Georgia.
As for future of B767 and B787, well, B767 is on itīs last leg, B787 on itīs first, I think the first B787 in traffic will fly sometime in 2012, so pumping out 787s is at least 2-3 years down the road.

And after EADS gets done fleecing the EU with the A400, it [the EU] will be just as broke.

Pumping out 787s may be a 2-3 years down the road, but do you expect EADS to build a factory overnight in Georgia and start pumping out A330s? That's at least 2-3 years down the road as well.