Ship 741Surely a comparison between the aircraft on fuel burn is a bit of a red herring. The larger airbus could work out to be more than $35 Billion more useful over the 40 year period, by way of its cargo/multi mission capability. In other words less C17 flights for example into and out of theatre as the A330 could take cargo during transit as well as refueling duties.
Not as easy to calculate but likewise not as easy to discredit either.
Somewhere I seem to remember reading a quote from some general or perhaps just an observer who said the ability to carry cargo is a red-herring itself. The fact is the USAF is buying tankers and the tankers are high demand items that drive the operating tempo…..”nobody kicks ass without tanker gas.” To think that they are just going to be routed willy/nilly to facilitate airlift needs is unrealistic (at least that is the argument). Picture a SEAL team about to be over-run by taliban that needs JDAMs on target NOW, and the F-15 overhead is unable because he is out of fuel because the tanker is off doing airlift….”and all for the want of a horseshoe nail….”
The fuel savings argument is valid because the 767 is just smaller. It just is. A big part of it being smaller is that it is also narrower, it has a very unique fuselage cross section. The USAF has said from the beginning they want more booms in the air, the smaller airplane puts more booms in the air for free, because the smaller airplanes burn less fuel the fuel savings effectively pay for the additional airplanes (over time). No I can’t quote numbers but this difference is exacerbated with high fuel prices.
Ship 741But why “socialist”? They aren’t. Their economies are overwhelmingly capitalist. The UK, which would make a large proportion of the KC-45 if the Airbus option is selected, is certainly not socialist. Less so in some ways than the USA, with (e.g.) its state-dominated mortgage sector. And in US terms, I generally hear “Socialist” used as a term of abuse. Why use a false term, with (to you, I know, & many other Americans) negative connotations?
State run health care, the so-called “floor” of social benefits, companies that receive direct aid like Airbus….etc, the flag carriers that still essentially arms of the gov’t.
Please lets not get off track. You may perceive it as false, many others do not. Isn’t it enough that I point out that many on the right wing in the U.S. believe it to be true? Besides, they are not in control in this situation, liberal democrats in congress are, and they are even more “state-ist” (i made up a word) than old europe.
Ship 741Not much chance of that. You want to pay taxes straight into the pockets of crooks, back this proposal.
I seriously doubt that the proposal will succeed or fail on the basis of my support.
BTW, what is this fictional place, “socialist old Europe”?
You know what I mean. I believe Rummy coined the term “old europe.” I added the socialist part….:)
It’s western continental Europe…the so called “socialist democracies” led by France and Germany. As opposed to “new europe,” former iron curtain countries that are embracing economic freedom enthusiastically….Poland, the Czech republic, etc….
Ship 741Boeing? The firm that recently won a contract to
Hmm. If they decide that regardless of the contest, Boeing gets the contract, won’t NG & EADS have grounds to sue for compensation, on the grounds that they were induced to enter a competition on false pretences, & as a result they have lost the millions of dollars they’ve spent?
The guys who are driving this in congress may be despicable politicians of the worst sort, but they’re not stupid. They’ll write the requirements in a way that has the appearance of propriety, but in reality, the fix is in (wink, wink). Of course, the losers can always sue, you can always sue, but doing so would not be to win the contract, only to try to expose the graft. A lot of money would be spent on lawyers and the process would drag on for another year or two and they would still lose in the end. It would be a strategic decision for NG/EADS whether or not to stand on principle.
IMHO, I would think the A400 would have a better shot for U.S. procurement than tankers.
Ship 741US lawmakers are trying to lock the KC-X program for Boeing:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008082815_tanker310.html
No surprise since it comes out of Murtha’s committee and was sponsored by a congressman from Bremerton.
Murtha is one of the most currupt members of Congress, was actually taped receiving bribes/discussing bribes many years ago, only got off cause he fingered other people. He is a member of the Democrat machine, which is protectionist and in the pocket of big labor.
Between the minority right wingers who despise socialist old europe and the left wingers in the majority, I’d say the new contract will be a lock for Boeing. Hopefully the taxpayers won’t get fleeced too badly.
Ship 741Perhaps I am not stating it correctly. Try this:
If you run side by side comparison of a ship with winglets and one without with the exact same climb/cruise/descent profile, the difference is negligible. This is what I was trying to say when I said this: “The burn at any particular flight level is almost the same with or without.” The savings comes from being able to climb earlier and/or higher, as old shape argued.
There are other benefits that might be less obvious to some observers. For example, altitude changes on the North Atlantic track system are not routinely done, in fact they are rarely done. A 767-300ER might want to step climb on the the econ profile, say from FL330 to 350 to 370, but is unable to because he is generally locked into whatever FL he entered the track at. Thus he crosses the NA at the uneconomic FL330 while the 757ER equipped with winglets will climb right to 370 straight out of JFK at a very high percentage of his MTOW. There is also less traffic at the higher FL*s on the tracks because the heavies can’t get up there (generally). Thus the 757 is also less likely to get a track change.
Ship 741the most important element:
(4) The price of fuel.
With fuel prices so high every small percentage of savings adds up a lot quicker when fuel is $4+ per gallon vs. <$1 years ago.
Concur. And this is precisely why these airlines are doing this now as opposed to 10 years ago.
FYI, I have it on very good authority from a very large 757 operator that the 757 with winglets save about 3% on the trip burn versus a 757 without. When you are at limit (normally structural), this savings goes right back into additional payload, meaning additional weight and burn, thus confusing the comparison.
The winglets don’t save fuel per se, as in reduced burn. The burn at any particular flight level is almost the same with or without. They cause the wing to produce more lift (or to lose less), thereby allowing higher flight levels earlier in the flight, and generally (normal winds) the aircraft burns less fuel at the higher flight level.
Ship 741That was the problem with it. The cargo bay was no wider than a C-130 cargo bay. It was later considered to have been a mistake. The C-17 has a nice fat cargo bay, like a good transport should.
I used to work with a guy who had been a loadmaster on the 141 hated the c-17 because it did away with his position. He used to complain: “they (c-17) can’t even cross the atlantic without aerial refueling.” and I would respond, “yeah but thats cause they’re carrying stuff that won’t even fit in your airplane, like at 150,000 pound Abrams tank!”
Ship 741Here is some good info on our “ally” france:
“Many in France believe a one-superpower world is a dangerous world, even when the superpower is benign. So they talk of balancing American “hyperpower”–and for them “balancing” is a euphemism for “opposing.” This is what Francois Mitterand spoke about shortly before his death: “We are at war with America,” he said. “A permanent war … a war without death. They are very hard, the Americans–they are voracious. They want undivided power over the world.” This hardcore anti-American outlook makes it possible for French leaders to say some pretty outrageous things. Just a couple of weeks ago, French prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced, “The Iraqi insurgents are our best allies.” What kind of friend or ally talks like that?”
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=25C00AFD-9B23-471F-869E-ADEEDEC48D82
lots of good stuff here, especially at the bottom of the list “further reading”:
http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/france-immigration.html
Ship 741J’comprends (that’s I understand for you). I am dealing either with a kid or some r*tard whose only source of information is Fox news or right wing talk radio. Well, let me educate you. Muslim population in France hovers at around 8 % to 10 %. The muslim population reproduces at a higher rate than the locals, but the difference is decreasing. Sorry to have to bother you with basic facts. They kind of matters when you are trying to make a point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_FranceChickening out, boy am I surprised. I am still challenging you to come up with sound arguments and data/sources to disprove my points that:
– the same trade rules apply to France as to all other EU countries and that France is bound by WTO rules
– that it cannot therefore legally discriminate against Japanese cars or products
– that European countries contribute more to the UN budget on a per capita basis than the US
– that muslim population isn France is 8/10 % and not 25 %
– that Iraq are now suing and whole set of companies that alledgely defrauded them under the oil for food programme, and that more US companies than French ones are being sued.You can either put or you can hush up. I am not holding my breath, kind of assume that your name is Forest (you know, run, …, run).
I’m not running anywhere….it doesn’t take a genius to know that france hasn’t abrogated all her rights to the EU any more than the potato farmers in Idaho have to the U.S. (they still have great interest in agricultural aid).
I confess the 25% was bloated. Does it really matter? The truth is their riots last year influenced (dictated) the Sarkozy election (backlash).
As for being offended, my youngest has Trisomy 21. I really appreciate the retard comment. Very convincing, as convincing as your other “evidence.”
On second thought, I am out…..you win. I hereby formally admit that France is a bastion of free trade and capitalism. The French love the U.S. There is no muslim problem in Europe. The EU countries keep the UN afloat and have never engaged in any hanky panky with middle eastern dictators. The French and German presidents do not lobby open with the U.S. President for industrial giants to gain U.S. defense projects, but the U.S. President does vice-versa. The A330 is the perfect airplane for the job. The democrat Congress will approve it. You win.
Ship 741Yep we refused to submit to your bullying on iraq.And we refused more generally speaking to be one of your puppets. I know it hurts.
Doesn’t hurt at all. Free people of the world have hardly needed French help the last 80 years or so, we have become accustomed to getting by without French help……what hurts is seeing France 25% Muslim (who are mostly unemployed and reproducing at a prodigious rate, and traditional French culture disappearing because of the elitist, leftist, jerks in control the last 80 years or so.)
You are either forgetful or spineless, so I will refresh your memory. You argued and stressed that the decision granted a contract to a French company, that this fact was unnaceptable and should overturned. Your statements: “Now the U.S. is expected to sacrifice it’s one remaining leadership industry, Aerospace, in the name of fairness when the balance for the remainder is already negative??? Fairness for the French?” “
Free trade with regard to the French means trade which benefits the French.” “If you think that protectionist Democrat politicians (that control the House and soon the Senate) funded by unions are going to stand by aimlessly and let what is widely seen as a French run consortium put more American workers out of work”I suppose that being French is what you call an irregularity.
Surely you are aware of the irregularities delineated in the GAO report?
Thanks for taking the time to quote my words. They must have hit a sore spot with you.
No time now to address your other ridiculous comments though…sorry. I will say I would have thought you could have done better.
Ship 741Language such as “the bloated & flawed Eurosocialist system” does not come well from a country in which over 50% of mortgages are held by parastatal organisations (note that over here, such things are done by the private sector), in which the state spends more, per head, on health than any European country except Luxembourg – and still provides less than 50% of health care, etc., etc.
Perhaps you do not mean to be rude, and speak from honest ignorance, but if so, you should seek to improve your knowledge.
My being factually incorrect (a premise which I do not accept BTW) is the same as being rude? No wonder you are offended, apparently anyone who disagree’s with liberal orthodoxy is rude. No one can say Barack is a smoker, or make fun of his big ears, or mention that he is a smoker, or mention his middle name, or that he was raised by his white grandparents because to mention those things would be “mean.”
I thought this was an internet message board……I am accustomed to being able to disagree without being attacked personally or labeled. I would encourage you to open your mind to opposing points of view, away from the state sponsored European media, or even worse, CNN International.
BTW 85% of all the medical research IN THE WORLD is done in the U.S. I recall a “miracle drug” from France, RU486, that became the morning after pill. It was actually a cancer drug and during research a side affect became apparent: miscarrage. Voila! A new form of birth control brought to the world by the French medical system……hey, we’ll just prescribe it for birth control instead of cancer!
Ship 741Polite to anyone who is polite. 😀
Please indicate where I was less than polite.
Perhaps you just don’t like hearing the truth? I found that when that happens, people generally attack the messenger, which is what you have done to me.
Ship 741Have you ever looked at the arms trade balance? The biggest winners from the two-way (but more one way than the other) trans-Atlantic arms trade are US firms, but you’d never believe it from what Americans on this forum, & others, write.
Have you ever looked at the TOTAL trade balance? Please tell us who the biggest winners are from that. Who has been the beneficiary of the negative balances the U.S. has been running for the last 20 years? Certainly not the U.S.! Let me make sure I understand, the U.S. already runs a HUGE trade imbalance in all the other industries COMBINED, now it is supposed to farm out it’s national security also? In a time of war when some U.S. “allies” don’t support U.S. security?
Ship 741Dear Ship,
Like many of your anglo-saxon comrade, you seem pretty gung-ho on frog bashing. Now, I couldn’t care less as it simply shows that we have thus far resisted to giving in to your bullying as so many other countries have.
Like the bullying on June 6, 1944? Or the bullying in the Marshall plan? Or the billions and billions the U.S. has thrown into the obscenely corrupt UN for the last 50 years? How bout the U.S. turning a blind eye to billions and billions of copyright violations on Microsoft products? To name just a few. Please.
Yet, there is one thing that I do mind, and that is your hypocrisy. If, as you say, the US should not and will not award a military contract to a partly owned French company, why then do you invite this very company to submit a tender? I understand fully that a military contract be granted to a national company, but to pretend that a process is open to all and then to ask that the result be rejected on the ground that the national champion did not win and the froggies could benefit, well this is beyond dishonest.
The result was rejected because of the irregularities delineated in the GAO report. Nice Try (sic). The invite was included for capitalistic reasons, something you apparently know little about. The invite was solicited in the interest of free and open competition.
Would it not be then simpler and more straightfoward on your part to add to the requirements put forward by the USAF that French companies shall not apply? Frankly, such an approach would be profitable to all. We would not lose our time and you would not lose yours. Incidentally, it would also make it easier for me to petition my government not to get too close to NATO and not to cooperate on such useless endeavours as NATO’s mission in Afghanistan.
You’re really blathering now….blah blah blah. How about some co-op in Iraq, or was French involvement in the corrupt oil for food program so blatant that you think if you stay away it will all just go away?
Now, since your Francophobia does not entitle you to peddle disinformation, allow me to correct one of your statements. – As far as international trade goes, the Commission of the European Union negociates and signs international agreements on behalf of all of its members, which then applies equally to all of them. This is to say that the same trade rules apply to France, the UK, Germany, Spain…. And the EU has signed up to all free trade rules adopted by WTO. So your spin on embargoed Japanese cars imposed single-handedly by the French to protect its market is, here again, beyond ludicrous.
If you are truly that naive, I have some ocean front property in Iowa I am trying to sell, let me know if you are interested.
Sign In
