Boeing Tanker Protest Sustained!!!!!

[davidbray]

That suggestion was just due to size and price. Believe me, all I did was fuel the things and I had enough of em. Waiting for fuel to transfer correctly so I could start fueling kinda turned me off of Airbus aircraft in general. Loved the Boeing system... plus the buses were too dang tall, I'm just under 6 feet tall, and still had to climb up on the guardrails on our trucks to get the panel open and set. The 767's were just the right height (until the wings got full, then I had to duck.)

p.s. I am not being racist, I'm being a whining ramp-rat... huge difference.

p.p.s. I would go back and deal with the 300's again in a heartbeat if my knee could handle climbing the ladder that many times a night. I really miss that ramp (when its not blowing snow and below zero.)

[cco23i]

That suggestion was just due to size and price. Believe me, all I did was fuel the things and I had enough of em. Waiting for fuel to transfer correctly so I could start fueling kinda turned me off of Airbus aircraft in general. Loved the Boeing system... plus the buses were too dang tall, I'm just under 6 feet tall, and still had to climb up on the guardrails on our trucks to get the panel open and set. The 767's were just the right height (until the wings got full, then I had to duck.)

p.s. I am not being racist, I'm being a whining ramp-rat... huge difference.

p.p.s. I would go back and deal with the 300's again in a heartbeat if my knee could handle climbing the ladder that many times a night. I really miss that ramp (when its not blowing snow and below zero.)

Amen brother, 27 years of crewing, I miss it. BUT we do ground crew WW2 reenacting so it's "kinda close".

Scott

[CAPFlyer]

Yeah, don't get me started on the fuel systems of the entire Airbus fleet (only one I've never touched is the A380 - thank God from what I've heard). The worst ones were the early 300's and the Lufthansa A340's. They had the fuel panel on the right A/C Pack fairing which meant you had to go up and hook up, then come back down and walk over to the pack, get on a short step ladder half the time (especially if the plane was light) to reach the panel (and I'm 6' 1") and then have to watch in case something bad happened to the hoses while trying to watch for the inevitable automatic fuel system failure which meant I had to manually shut off the fuel valve and stop fueling to ensure that the valve actually closed, which for a Denver-Frankfurt flight meant another 10 minutes added to the fueling time on some planes.

The "Baby 'Buses" (A32x family) were even worse. Can't "quick turn" those airplanes because the LARGEST fuel line on them is 1/2" in diameter. Even at 50 PSI, it doesn't fuel very fast. You can put 30,000 pounds + of fuel on a 737 in 15 minutes. It takes 45 to do the same on a "Baby Bus".

Look, the planes are basically sound designs, but it's kinda frustrating from the support side when you look at a fuel panel that shows 3 tanks and then you go to the cockpit and find that there's actually 5 tanks. It's also really stupid when you've got to go between 2 different positions separated by 50 feet laterally and 20-30 feet vertically just to do something as basic as fueling the plane. If they're that worried about the fuelers, then just do like Boeing and Douglas did with the 707 and DC-8 - make the FE/FO/Mechanic/Engineer do the fueling from upstairs and we'll just start and stop the flow of fuel on their command/beacon light flash.

[Hemiman]

Yeah, the 600R could bite you pretty quick with a fuel spill!! Seen more than a few in the hangar while topping off the tanks for doing leak checks. A baby doll to rig, engine and gear changes not too bad, but man the corrosion, and those stupid phenolic hat bushings UGH!!! Oh, and can't forget the krueger and notch flaps!!

Bill

[The Inspector]

Swastika screws!!!!! Hate them as much as TRI-WINGS!!-never got used to pulling the cargo door handle out and having the hydraulics turn on to open the door, makes you wonder what else may start operating off that pump--

[davidbray]

Yeah, don't get me started on the fuel systems of the entire Airbus fleet (only one I've never touched is the A380 - thank God from what I've heard). The worst ones were the early 300's and the Lufthansa A340's. They had the fuel panel on the right A/C Pack fairing which meant you had to go up and hook up, then come back down and walk over to the pack, get on a short step ladder half the time (especially if the plane was light) to reach the panel (and I'm 6' 1") and then have to watch in case something bad happened to the hoses while trying to watch for the inevitable automatic fuel system failure which meant I had to manually shut off the fuel valve and stop fueling to ensure that the valve actually closed, which for a Denver-Frankfurt flight meant another 10 minutes added to the fueling time on some planes.

The "Baby 'Buses" (A32x family) were even worse. Can't "quick turn" those airplanes because the LARGEST fuel line on them is 1/2" in diameter. Even at 50 PSI, it doesn't fuel very fast. You can put 30,000 pounds + of fuel on a 737 in 15 minutes. It takes 45 to do the same on a "Baby Bus".

Look, the planes are basically sound designs, but it's kinda frustrating from the support side when you look at a fuel panel that shows 3 tanks and then you go to the cockpit and find that there's actually 5 tanks. It's also really stupid when you've got to go between 2 different positions separated by 50 feet laterally and 20-30 feet vertically just to do something as basic as fueling the plane. If they're that worried about the fuelers, then just do like Boeing and Douglas did with the 707 and DC-8 - make the FE/FO/Mechanic/Engineer do the fueling from upstairs and we'll just start and stop the flow of fuel on their command/beacon light flash.

I didn't mind DC-8s at all. Only problem was when the ice and snow showed up and you had to drag those nice hard hoses out. Once you were hooked up, go stand next to the exhaust on an engine and stay warm while staring at the beacon. Good to know though that it wasn't just our ramp that had problems with the 'buses fuel. Makes me thankful all I had to do was worry about a couple 300's.

[Hemiman]

Swastika screws!!!!! Hate them as much as TRI-WINGS!!-never got used to pulling the cargo door handle out and having the hydraulics turn on to open the door, makes you wonder what else may start operating off that pump--

TRI-WINGS!!! What a POS!!!! Hated them worse that your Swastika screws. Guy must have been related to somebody at McD's, considering how many were on the DC-10. Re: hyds for the bus Cargo doors ...Yeah, it would make you jump if you were in the MLG wheelwell and not expecting it!

Bill

[CAPFlyer]

I didn't mind DC-8s at all. Only problem was when the ice and snow showed up and you had to drag those nice hard hoses out. Once you were hooked up, go stand next to the exhaust on an engine and stay warm while staring at the beacon. Good to know though that it wasn't just our ramp that had problems with the 'buses fuel. Makes me thankful all I had to do was worry about a couple 300's.

Honestly, I loved the DC-8's which is why I said Airbus should've done it that way if they were that worried about fuelers (the reason I was told they put the fuel panel on the belly was because they didn't want fuelers to have a "fall risk" and be in a "compromising position" while fueling their airplanes, but enough airlines asked for wing panels they made them available). In fact, I quite liked the DC-8/707/KC-135/C-5/C-130/etc fueling method. If the fuel load was wrong or there was a spill, it wasn't my fault!

[The Inspector]

The ONLY thing Tri Wings are good for is to make sure the stereo and speakers in your car stay put while it's in a parking garage because you can be pretty sure the baggy pants peeking in your car doesn't have a pocket full of #2 and #3 tips.
A Chevy and a Peugeot are, basically automobiles but the approach and follow through are so far apart sometimes you find it hard to believe they both started from the same basic set of requirements. I had a friend who worked in a foreign car dealerships repair department and he always referred to Peugeots as 'job security'.

[bdk]

Interesting details coming out about how it came to be that the pundits were wrong:

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/03/the_story_behind_the_air_tanke.html

Road to Air Force tanker surprise began with defense analyst interview (Talbot)

It is the question that still burns in Mobile, nearly a month after the Pentagon jilted the city’s bid to build big airplanes.

How did everyone become so convinced that EADS would beat Boeing Co. for the Air Force refueling tanker contract?

The trail is long and winding but begins in a modest office building at 1600 Wilson Blvd. in Arlington, Va., where defense industry analyst Loren Thompson hangs his hat.

It was Thompson who, in early December, boldly predicted that Boeing would lose the competition. He first made that forecast in an interview published by the Press-Register on Dec. 6, startling observers who saw Boeing as a sure bet to capture the $35 billion prize.

The article ricocheted across the Internet and, in a competition with global ramifications, quickly became an international news story. Thompson, citing conversations with Boeing officials, repeated his prediction to numerous news outlets in the weeks leading up to the Air Force’s Feb. 24 announcement.

The coverage effectively turned consensus on its head: Suddenly Boeing, a political powerhouse and American icon, was viewed as the underdog against an upstart foreign rival.

Insider cachet

Thompson’s insider cachet helped give the story its legs. As chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, he has appeared as an expert witness before Congress, worked as an adviser to top industry executives and, at times, served as a backdoor channel between the Department of Defense and the news media.

It’s that last role that has made Thompson a go-to source for dozens of defense journalists who value his Pentagon access, sharp insight and knack for delivering punchy quotes.

But the exposure has also made him a target. Thompson’s critics claim that he is a mouthpiece for the defense industry, selling his opinions to the highest bidder.

Thompson acknowledged that the Lexington Institute receives funding from companies including Chicago-based Boeing, but defends his views as his own.

The fact that he was paid by Boeing, he told me in December, should only add to the credibility of his tanker prediction: An assertion that EADS would prevail, he said, was the last thing that Boeing would want him to say.

Thompson was hardly alone in naming EADS — which proposed to assemble its planes at the Brookley Aeroplex — as the favorite. Analysts, industry officials and politicians on both sides of the competition bought into the view that the European parent of Airbus was poised to prevail.

Some of that confidence was based on EADS’ upset win over Boeing in 2008, in a decision that was later overturned by the Pentagon.

The company itself expressed supreme confidence in its KC-45 tanker throughout the competition and, as decision day neared, was working closely with Alabama leaders on a strategy to sustain its victory.

Optimism was so high that EADS North America chairman Ralph Crosby spent the weekend prior to the announcement hunting game birds in South Carolina, hosting guests including former Alabama Gov. Bob Riley.

Boeing, meanwhile, appeared to most observers to be resigned to defeat and was reported to be laying the groundwork for a protest.

“The consensus is EADS has the upper hand this time,” aerospace analyst Scott Hamilton said on Feb. 20. “Boeing executives think they will lose, and EADS is optimistic.”

A punch in the gut

A few days later, when the Air Force selected Boeing, the surprise was evident in the reactions from the two rival camps.

In Mobile, the award came like a punch in the gut to business leaders who’d gathered to watch the announcement at the Arthur R. Outlaw Mobile Convention Center.

In a snap, the air went from electric to funereal, and politicians scattered as the news cameras rolled. A visibly stunned Gov. Robert Bentley searched for words of consolation; a chastened David Oliver, an EADS veteran who was instrumental in the 2005 decision to come to Mobile, took responsibility for the loss.

Boeing and its supporters, by contrast, admitted that they’d been prepared for the worst.

Jim Albaugh, head of the company’s commercial airplanes division, said he heard the news as he stepped onto a plane in Dallas, en route to Seattle.

“I wasn’t as certain we were going to win as I was last time, when we lost,” Albaugh told the Seattle Times in an interview soon after he touched down at Boeing Field. “But I knew we had a good shot.”

A month later, the shock has faded. Local officials now say they let their hopes get the better of their heads. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, chalked up the defeat to “Chicago politics” — contending that Boeing’s win had more to do with its ties to President Barack Obama than the quality of its bid.

“I was hopeful but never exuberant,” Shelby said Monday in Fairhope. “I always believed EADS had the better proposal — I still do — but a funny thing happened along the way. Elections have consequences; politics got involved.”

Thompson said Tuesday that his mistake was that he assumed EADS would slash the price of its larger-sized KC-45 in an all-out effort to underbid Boeing. That assumption, he said, was based on conversations with Boeing officials following a mix-up in which the Air Force sent details of each company’s bid to the other.

Something in those confidential details, Thompson said, had convinced Boeing that it was beat. He dismissed speculation that his prediction was a ploy to get EADS to relax, saying only EADS could answer why it did not submit a more aggressive bid.

“Clearly I overestimated the amount of money Ralph Crosby had” to subsidize the EADS bid, Thompson said, adding that he never doubted that Boeing’s 767 jet was a more cost-effective option for the Air Force.

“In hindsight, we were all kind of foolish to believe that Airbus could overcome the substantial added costs of a bigger airframe — particularly in a competition that was mainly about price,” he said. “This is one time I’m real happy to be wrong.”

[The Inspector]

'Loren Thompson, expert' I've always subscribed to O'Tooles Commentary which states, 'Murphy is a friggin' optomist' and fully understand that 'EXPERT' is a two part word. An EX is a has been , and a SPERT is a drip under pressure.

[Invader26]

the real question is has Boeing underbid to get the job and can they deliver this hybrid on-time. [don't mention the 787 or 747-8]

[bdk]

Well, there are 767 tankers already flying. Much of the equipment for the US version will be different though. Boeing is already straining to find resources for the work they already have, so there is some risk. Maybe they can sub out the work to Airbus and double up on their schedule misery?

[bdk]

Here is the latest spiffy presentation from Boeing on the WTO ruling:

http://www.boeing.com/WTO/

And...

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1685

[The Inspector]

Hasn't that premise run through this thread page after page?