Read the forum code of contact
By: - 3rd August 2010 at 17:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why? Unless they win the tanker bid then the 767 line is as good as dead. And even if they win the tanker bid, the amount of deliveries will probably not be that much (1 or 2 a month?), so why invest loads of money into making the line more efficient?
By: - 3rd August 2010 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm guessing they know something we don't
By: - 3rd August 2010 at 19:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm guessing they know something we don't
I was thinking just the same. :rolleyes:
By: - 3rd August 2010 at 20:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing are bound to win the tanker competition, I have more or less accepted that fact now - they've played dirty from the very start and will probably continue to spit their dummy out until they are officially awarded the contract and start building the first aircraft - despite the fact the A330 is considered the better aircraft.
By: - 3rd August 2010 at 20:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IIRC, it was one exec that was caught doing the dirty.
Boeing was told to re-submit their bid afterward.
I do not think the USAF, USAAF, etc, would survive the political backlash of ordering A330s!
Harsh, but true.
There would be similar scene if the RAF, Luftwaffe, FAF, etc, were to select the 767.
When it comes to military orders it seems politics play a big part.
By: - 3rd August 2010 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But even if they win the competition, and the odds are very much in their favour, then that still won't make much change to the 767 output. The tanker contract is a long term contract. It's not as if Boeing is suddently expected to roll out a tanker every week. A tanker a month at best, and probably not even that.
By: - 3rd August 2010 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To be fair, we are not privy to the exact details.
Boeing could just be trying to stream line their manufacturing methods to reduce costs and additionaly allow an increase in production if needed. Makes sound sense in my books.
Who knows, maybe to get the tanker deal they need to prove they can produce enough tankers a month/ year to satisfy a quick retirement and replacement program for the current USAF tankers?
By: - 4th August 2010 at 08:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But even if they win the competition, and the odds are very much in their favour, then that still won't make much change to the 767 output. The tanker contract is a long term contract. It's not as if Boeing is suddently expected to roll out a tanker every week. A tanker a month at best, and probably not even that.
Whilst admittedly they will only produce a small number per month (179 deliveries over 13 years = 1.14/month, though I'm not sure its at an even rate, i.e. I suspect they will slow production towards the end of the period), there is a long term need to replace around 450 tankers in the US forces, which is likely to lead to follow on orders for the contract winner. Also don't forget that 179 aircraft is roughly equal to the 25% of the total 767's built over the last 28 years, so this is still not insignificant. Furthermore, the re-engineering being done on the aircraft probably means Boeing will hope to sell it elsewhere too.
By: - 4th August 2010 at 08:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whilst admittedly they will only produce a small number per month (179 deliveries over 13 years = 1.14/month, though I'm not sure its at an even rate, i.e. I suspect they will slow production towards the end of the period), there is a long term need to replace around 450 tankers in the US forces, which is likely to lead to follow on orders for the contract winner. Also don't forget that 179 aircraft is roughly equal to the 25% of the total 767's built over the last 28 years, so this is still not insignificant. Furthermore, the re-engineering being done on the aircraft probably means Boeing will hope to sell it elsewhere too.
If they streamline the process, presumably they will be reducing the space of the line, giving them more room for the B747/B787/B787. If the output will decrease on the B767 line, they can reduce man power and assign it to other aircraft lines. The aircraft could also been constructed at a commercial rate, and then stored before being converted into the tanker configuration.
By: - 4th August 2010 at 08:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
All makes sense to me.
I think the biggest reason for this move is to reduce costs.
By: - 4th August 2010 at 11:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The aircraft could also been constructed at a commercial rate, and then stored before being converted into the tanker configuration.
Completely agree with your view that it may be as much about space and efficiency. Not sure about the above as such because, as I understand it, the KC-767 will feature 787 cockpits etc, so will be unique, so may as well be built as and when.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 3rd August 2010 at 17:10
Clicky for video
Boeing is re-jigging the 767 production line into a moving line, like they did with the 737 and 777 lines.