Spectre130Again, a repost especially for you, since you do not read the answers to your questions.
And Boeing has not been shut out of the competition. They were IN the competion, they just didn’t finish first in the competition.
New round (KC-Y), new chances for Boeing (and hopefully any other competitor).
Monopoly:
In economics, a monopoly is a persistent situation where there is only one provider of a product or service in a particular market. Monopolies are characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
The result of these conditions is that a company with a monopoly does not undergo price pressure from competitors.
According to standard economic theory, a monopoly will sell a lower quantity of goods at a higher price than firms would in a purely competitive market.
Ok, The USAF put out an RFP…stating what it REQUIRED for the replacement of its KC-135s.
The USAF shouldn’t give a crap about who can and who can not enter a competition…it should be worried about the mission. That original RFP was what the USAF wanted and needed. Nothing that Airbus had could have met that RFP, so they complained and threatened to never offer another plane to the US again…
so, should the USAF bend over backwards for any company? No!
If the Original RFP was written and it happened that Airbus was the only one that could have possibly won without a totally new design by Boeing…then so be it.
When you write the mission out of the requirements, and throw out of the picture where these thing will be parked…just so that the competition looked fair to the whole world, then that is just wrong.
I will say it again… I do not care that Airbus won. I really do not care, what I care about is the USAF letting companies dictate what they buy and from who with out the mission in mind to seem like they are fair.
Spectre130European tax Euros (& my tax pounds) won’t fund the KC-45, since it’ll make a profit for Airbus. Unlike the A380 or A400M it’s a modest, low-risk development, & Airbus has proved itself to be very good indeed at managing such developments & their costs. The existence of Airbus has reduced my tax bills, because over its lifetime it’s made a very healthy profit, & paid back more on the government loans that you mistake for gifts than the money would have got in standard commercial loans, or than the governments concerned would have paid to borrow it. :p
How could Airbus put in such a low bid for the plane if it was not funded other ways?
Spectre130It’s not a question of “building for the US“, it’s a question of products available for the USA to buy, i.e. products on the market, & firms with the technical & financial resources to get into the market. At the moment, there are two firms building long-range, large-load, efficient tankers, i.e. Boeing & Airbus, & nobody else currently able to bring a competing product to market* The fact that neither of those suppliers is currently building against a US military contract is no more relevant than the fact that until you buy a car or a tin of beans, nobody has sold you one: you’re still buying in a competitive market when you go out to choose one. Both are building against other contracts, both can provide aircraft to the USAF.
.
The simple fact that there were two planes offered…to provide a choice nullifies the monopoly argument.
Now, since Boeing was shut out from the comp. because the RFP…in your words, Airbus has a monopoly on the market?
Spectre130if this deal went to Boeing there is no way in hell that EAD’s would bid for anything in the US again. See what happened to South Korea’s recent fighter procurement as an example.
And that is why they changed the RFP to make Airbus the winner…with the original RFP..(That RFP being what was needed and what the USAF wanted) Airbus had no chance in hell to win…so both Airbus and NG flipped out and threatened exactly what you mentioned…to never offer another plane to the US again.
So then, was this a sympathy bid, Boeing not having a chance in hell because they were written out of the competition?
The A330 and the 777 are close enough in size for Boeing to stay in the competition if they wanted a large plane… the USAF wrote back and told them not to bid the 777 because they needed and wanted a medium (767) sized plane…
Bait and switch no matter how you look at it…
So, in the end, this deal is just as bad if not worse then the very bad original 767 tanker lease deal.
Don’t get me wrong…I honestly do not have anything against the A330 as a tanker…if it was bit and fairly won the competition on its own, on its own merits. But to have the RFP changed…if flat out bad business. Also if Boeing had demanded the RFP changed to fit its needs..then that would be bad too…I am not defending Boeing here, I am not slamming Airbus here… I am throwing all the blame and fault on the USAF procurement team.
Spectre130You’re rather out of touch. The DC-10 (including KC-10) went out of production in 1988, & its successor the MD-11 in 2000. That’s delivery date, not when production started closing down, which was 1998. The KDC-10s delivered to the Netherlands in the 1990s were secondhand DC-10s converted to tankers.
I’m astonished that someone who claims to be in touch with tanker matters thought the DC-10 was still in production.
Boeing has been the only manufacturer of airliners in the USA since 2000. Insisting that all US tanker aircraft are built & designed by US firms would grant Boeing a monopoly of mainstream tankers (& LM the comparatively small consolation of the KC-130J), with the consequences previously described. The entry cost is too great for anyone else to even think about setting up in competition, so you’d get what Boeing felt like providing, at whatever price Boeing felt like charging, to the detriment of both the US taxpayer & the USAF.
I am not out of touch because the argument was Boing is the only one with tankers…look at all the KC-135s…so we possibly can’t buy another Boing, that just wouldn’t be fair.
The KC-135 went out of production when?
And was stated that Boeing is the only one who provides tankers…that is why I listed the McD, and Lockmart planes…true…ALL are out of production.
on a side note,
So, how does Europe feel about it’s tax euros funding a US warplanes?
Spectre130Well, if you want to buy the other can of beans because you suddenly realise that you need that exact type for your recipe but the manager of the store tells you that you are in effect not allowed to because they are not national beans, there is indeed a monopoly. 😀 😀
Are these lines of argumentation stupid or not
They are stupid… I fully agree, I dumbed it down on propose.
Spectre130What are you talking about? That perfectly proves my point, its a Boeing product and it went out of production years ago.:rolleyes:
Ok, when you go to the store, and there are two cans of beans from two different companies… and you choose one over the other, the one you chose does not have a monopoly over the other. If you go back and buy other products from that same company over the other company, that does not mean that that company had a monopoly over the other….because there was still the choice.
Boeing does not have a Monopoly with any of its aircraft…in any market.
Spectre130And when were they designed, produced and then production stopped?:rolleyes:
When was the production of the KC-135 stopped…where the heck is this monopoly you talk about?
Spectre130So how is a company that no longer builds airliners going to prevent a company that does from getting a monopoly? I would love to see the moment when you try to tell the USAF that they can scrap their airliner airframes for Herkules.:rolleyes:
Ok, by this logic, no one builds tankers for the US right now except for Lockheed…Boeing and McD had stopped a long time ago and airbus has not started building the KC-45A yet… so then, no one builds them for the US.
So, how do you have a monopoly when no one builds a airliner style tanker for the US
I was just pointing out that the monopoly statement was unfounded and does not fit the model of a monopoly.
I was not suggesting scrapping a tanker for a KC-130..you said that no one builts tankers in the US….Lockmart currently builds the KC-130J
Spectre130Wrong, only Boeing designs and builds airliners in the US.
KC-10, KDC-10
Spectre130What airliners does Lockheed build? Last I heard, it had pulled out of the business in 1985. :p
You didn’t say currently build 🙂
LockMart had the L1011 tanker and well KC-130 (and can be fitted with a comfort pallet w/ seats ….not comfortable, but yet neither are RJs
Spectre130So which other US company is it that builds tankers/airliners?;)
😉 Lockheed 😉 And old McD (Now Boeing…)
We only need so many tankers, even if they only ever came from one company the rest of the time we are a country…. So you’d give it to Airbus because you are sick of seeing a Boeing Tanker?
It was carried out for the purposes of USAF and the DoD, they wanted a particular aircraft and they went out and got it. They may have started out wanting the Boeing offer and then changed their mind either way the right plane won.
If they have already made a selection…then it is wrong to have a fake competition…and if that is in fact what they did where Boeing was basically written out of the competition, then lawsuits will be thrown , and rightfully so, because weather anyone like to believe it or not, a lot of money was spent on both sides for marketing and research, plus development costs… and if it came down to then not having a chance….well, I do not see Airbus holding the reigns too long without a long court battle.
So you plan on giving every US tanker pilot for the next 40 years a chance to fly each plane before the decision is made? The pilots will fly whatever they are trained to fly, given that this is based on an airliner I can not imagine anything to challenging cropping up.
Is that what I said? You read way too deep into that one…
No, do what Lockheed forgot to do with the J…
Ask the crews who currently fly those missions what they need? And the MX who fix them, what would make turn times faster..
As the tactics folks what would make their lives easier…
Logistics folks… you get the point.
Hang out at the Airlift/Tanker Association and pick the brains of the people who actually matter…
Spectre130The AF might have shot themselves in the foot by waiting so long on this competition. Waiting til last week, with election year politics, and congress getting into a protectionist mood……..it is a real possibility (especialy when the Dems win the election) that this deal will be axed and the 767 foisted on the AF. They should have finished this deal last year.
They have both Dems and Repubs for and against this. So I think it will depend on where they campaign as to if they are for or against it… got it? 🙂
Politics as usual…
Spectre130We all know that but can you imagine what would happen without a competition. People are missing a very important point here, long term procurement. If Boeing won this they would be o the brink of monopoly which in the long term causes cost inflation. This worked out perfectly for the DoD, they got the best plane for the Job at a a good price and got to keep Boeing on its toes in the process.
Monopoly on what? They do not have anything close to a monopoly on anything…
What I am saying is, if they made up their minds and selected the plane they wanted and the competition was a sham… then it wasn’t done the right way…
Plus, has anyone asked who is actually going to fly them what they wanted?
Spectre130Not at all. Strikes me that the USAF knew which plane they wanted (for reasons explained multiple times already in this thread by others) and did their best to get it. All this is is Boeings revenge, and please dont paint them as whiter and white………pork all the way.
Then its wrong to have a competition, and if this is the case, its either spark a huge lawsuit, get shot down by congress or drag out the competition for years…
Sign In
