I am not disputing that the 330 “provides better offload per fuel used compared to the KC-767.” A bigger airplane with roughly even technology will have that advantage. I am asking where the USAF said that was a goal for their acquisition program. Perhaps I am mistaken but I don’t recall that being a key parameter, at least not until the flawed analysis/decision that was overturned by the GAO

Yes, air refueling capability and fuel offload was one of the main, if not the main criteria of the evaluation. I mean, the USAF evaluates two tankers to figure out which one will best meet its needs, and which one is the most efficient will not be a key criteria??:confused::confused:

And, by the way, the 330 and the 767 do not have roughly the same technology. The 330 is more recent and technologically advanced than the 767. As the 787 will be more recent and advanced than the 330.

I contacted some airline industry sources for rough gouges on 767 and A330 fuel burn data. I know there will be differences on the tanker version, but I felt that looking at the commercial airliner version provided a good baseline. These sources said the burn per hour on an average long haul flight for a 767 was about 11,700 lb/hr and for an A330 was about 13,300lb/hr. Here is the data I worked up based upon flying 160 airplanes 1,000 hours a year.

Fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy. The 330 is bigger than a 767 so yes it will burn more fuel. But as stressed by the USAF report, it is more efficient per pound of fuel delivered. I mean, sure a piper uses up less fuel than the 330, but certainly not less fuel per lb of fuel possibbly delivered.

And once again, the USAF worked up a formula as to the requirements in terms of fuel delivered (i.e. most likely mission requirements for tankers) and found out that the 330 was way more efficient than the 767 for all foreseeable scenari/missions. You can go and read it if you are interested. And this has not been challenged by the GAO.

Boeing’s engineering is second to none, as I think their history and their sales and safety records will more than amply demonstrate. Do things go wrong on Boeing airplanes? Of course they do. They’re designed and made by humans. But things go wrong on Airbus, McDD, Tupolev, Ilyushin, ATR, and every other kind of airplane. Are they deficient and faulty too? The perfect machine has yet to be made, nor will it ever be.

Boeing has a decent safety record, and things went wrong with products from other manufacturers indeed. But to turn Boeing into some type of saint company and place it above all other manufacturers in this domain is both far fetched and groundless. I mean, we had issues not only with the 747 but also 737.

You make it sound like UA811 and this QF bird went down in a fireball!
Now who’s slanting the truth?

ElAl 1862 was a very bad set of circumstances I don’t recall ANY investigation results blaming that soley on Boeing. One engine left the wing due to fatigued pylon bolts and unfortunately took its neighbouring engine with it alone with some forward slats and wing surface (as No4 engine was ripped off). In the right conditions this could have happened to any 4 engines aircraft, be it Boeing, Airbus, McD, Illyushin or Tupolev.

TWA800, well again, like any air disaster, it was a bad set of circumstances. But that bird was old, with 1960s wiring. Should have been overhauled.

No one said that the QF flight went down in a fireball but that some 747 had issues because of design.

Elal 1862 due to bad circumstances only? The Netherland safety board disagree with you: “The design and certification of the B-747 pylon was found to be inadequate to provide the required level of safety.”

TWA800? Same thing, not only bad circusmtances, but also due to design as found by the inquiry. The fact that air conditioning system was placed underneath the central tank and heats up fuel was one of them. And there were other such findings.

Steve, that was not the same as this situation.

UA811 suffered a blown cargo door because some nitwit on the ground didn’t do their job properly and check the door was sealed shut. It was left only partially closed. The door opened and was torn of with the airflow, taking a lot of fuselage skin with it!

This is at best a very slanted view of the matter, that Boeing itself tried to peddle following the event. The issue was one of faulty design and was uncovered not because of the NTSB but because of the efforts of the family of one of the deceased. If any one is interested in the matter, the issue is exposed in one of the episode of “air crash investigation”.

Below, the summary of the event as found on wikipedia:

“The accident was most likely caused by improper wiring and deficiencies in the door’s design. Unlike a plug-door which opens inwards and essentially jams against its frame as the pressure outside drops, the B-747 uses an outward hinging door which, while increasing capacity, requires a locking-mechanism to keep the door closed: The Boeing 747’s cargo-door utilized a series of electrically-operated latch cams which the latch pin locks in with, the cam then rotating into the closed-position. A series of L-shaped arms called locking-sectors, actuated by the moving of a lever to close the door are designed to reinforce the latch-cams and prevent them from rotating into the un-locked position. The locking-sectors were made out of aluminum, and of too thin a gauge to actually be able to keep the latch-cams from moving into the un-locked position. The S-2 Master Lock switch which was designed to cut electrical power to the doors when the outer-handle closed was faulty and could operate in flight. It would appear in this case that a short-circuit in the aging plane caused an uncommanded rotation of the latch-cams, which forced the weak locking-sectors open during the opening sequence. The pressure-differential and aerodynamic forces did the rest.”

“In 1987 a Pan American flight departing London Heathrow Airport encountered pressurization problems at 20,000 feet. After conducting a descent, the problem subsided at approximately 15,000 feet with the crew attempting to climb again. As the plane passed through 20,000 feet for the second time, the problems resurfaced again. The crew returned to Heathrow, landing safely. However the cargo-door was hanging open by about an 1.5 inches at the bottom with all the latch-cams open. When the plane was taken back to the maintenance base, it was discovered all the locking-sectors were either bent or broken. Boeing initially attributed this to mishandling by ground crew, however worries were expressed about the electrical system. As a result, Boeing instructed the airlines to conduct a simple test: Close the outer handle, then press the switch to open the door. Unexpectedly, it actually worked.

Boeing issued a directive ordering customers to replace the aluminum locking-sectors with steel locking-sectors, and carry out various inspections. The FAA gave the airlines 18-months to comply with the directive. After Flight 811, the FAA shortened the time to 30-days.

In 1991, an incident occurred at New York’s JFK airport involving the malfunction of a United Airlines Boeing 747 cargo door.[3] At the time, United Airlines’ maintenance staff were investigating the cause of a circuit breaker trip. In the process of diagnosing the cause, an inadvertent operation of the electric door latch mechanism caused the cargo door to open spontaneously. This incident led to latch damage similar to that observed on the flight 811 cargo door.”

I have to say that I am a bit surprised by some of your comments.

There are in fact many ticket machines where you can buy your RER ticket at CDG. Buy them regularly there. Hey both sncf and ratp try to get rid of as manny manned booth as possible.

Security is far less of an hassle on Eurostar than at any airport. I never lost 45 minutes for security at Eurostar as I recently have at Gatwick.

Straighten up the rails in France? No, I think they are pretty much straight. It’s just that the train rides at 300+ km/h. It jolts a bit but this is normal. If I am not mistaken, on the British side, even on the new section, it rides slower.

As far as I can recall (but I could be mistaken here), Eurotunnel is the money losing venture. I dont think that Eurostar does that bad.

Where I agree with you though is that there should be Eurostar that stop at the TGV train station at CDG. You shouldn’t have to go into Paris to pick up one.

As for the machines: –
They are both in the 8,000nm+ and 260-300+ pax market. They are indeed up agin each other. The 787 has a few years up it’s sleeve on market penetration though. This will give Airbus the advantage of seeing what happens and changing (If they can) to suit.
.

Well, in that case I am misinformed, I was under the impression they were not similar aircraft and were not set to replace the same aircrafts. That is at least what you get if you check on wikipedia (see the difference in terms of capacity).

The 787-8 is the base model of the 787 family with a length of 186 feet (57 m) and a wingspan of 197 feet (60 m) and a range of 7,650 to 8,200 nautical miles (14,200 to 15,200 km) depending on seating configuration. The 787-8 seats 210 passengers in a three class configuration.

The A350-900 is the first to enter service (EIS) in 2013 and seats 314 passengers in a 3-class cabin 9-abreast layout. The aeroplane will have a range of 8,100 nmi (15,000 km).

What explains that there are no new orders for the 787?? That the production lines are all booked for the next ten years?

I suppose that the good news for Airbus is that they at last record a new order for the A380, although with only 10 new orders, they are not about to cover the development costs. Same for the 747-8, good news for Boeing for a second order, but then it is only for four units.

A350 seems to attract quite a number of new order.

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.) .

J’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_France

No time now to address your other ridiculous comments though…sorry. I will say I would have thought you could have done better.

Chickening 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).

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, well then I guess we just have to agree to disagree. BTW, the Chinese are funding U.S. debt, not the French!

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? Things won’t “even out” till the protectionists in Europe adopt a more market driven approach IMHO.

Free trade with regard to the French means trade which benefits the French. Count the Toyotas and Hondas on the Champs Elysee and get back to me please, that is the protectionism to which I refer.

I doubt a French owned U.S. airline would have participated in CRAF in Iraq, since they had their hand in the cookie jar in Iraq.

Dear 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.

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.

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.

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.