KC-X Tanker Competition: Thompson Hits Target
November 11th, 2009
While deliberations on the draft RFP for the KC-X tanker contract are still continuing, Arizona Senator and former Presidential candidate John McCain bizarrely questioned the US Air Force focus in this contest favours a smaller airplane.
The single most critical component of the KC-X competition that may ultimately decide whether the 767 or A330 wins the deal is that of infrastructure. Quite why a Republican politician supports a foreign entity for a strategic military procurement is as bizarre as the very short-lived Airbus “E-Squared” concept (quietly born and brushed aside) during the limelight of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser days.
Adding to the complexity of this new RFP is the issue of the preliminary WTO ruling against Europe and Airbus, and in particularly the aspect of retrospective penalties for all Airbus airplanes from the A300 to A380 that received state launch aid that the US Air Force may well have to factor in.
Image courtesy of UnitedStatesTanker.com
Amidst the melee of the arguments and counter-arguments, Dr. L. Thompson from the Lexington Institute summed up the crux of the political matter thus and hit the nail on the head:
“It is important to recognize that the argument over illegal subsidies is really between Boeing and Airbus (or between the United States government and the European Union), and that Northrop Grumman is a bystander that has been dragged in because Airbus made the plane it wants to use for its tanker. But once the controversy is seen for what it is — a trade dispute — it becomes obvious that Boeing is right and Airbus is wrong. European governments have violated free-trade rules by subsidizing Airbus for decades, providing benefits that an impartial panel of trade experts has determined to be illegal, and as a result of those benefits U.S. companies have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in sales.“
Dr. Thompson’s comments echo those of Boeing’s legal counsel team whom I spoke with at length on the subject and the central issue surrounding the KC-X contest is one that far from being swept aside, is gaining more momentum.
“We’ve had a finding that its against international rules to have given these subsidies and with those subsidies obtained market share that one shouldn’t have been able to obtain otherwise and be able to use those very same subsidies to do it all over again [in the KC-X competition] and that’s the part that’s an economic matter and a trade policy matter which is offensive,” said Bob Novick, a member of Boeing’s legal team dealing with the WTO ruling.
With unemployment in the United States running at high of 10.2%, both Northrop Grumman/EADS and Boeing will argue that they are the best choice for securing future jobs in this much specialised arena.
Thompson ends by saying:
“…how can the Pentagon simply ignore the position of the U.S. Trade Representative, when trade deficits are destroying the value of the dollar and the military is planning to conduct many more competitions for weapons systems based on commercial products available from overseas sources? “
He has a point. Several in fact.
The real issue is just how far all sides will go to force the WTO edict onto the US Air Force and factor that into the final RFP.
Northrop Grumman may well be thinking about an exit strategy if the A330 subsidies come into play, because it and EADS would have a hard time proving the same charges for the 767, particularly when infrastructure costs of the eventual procurement will factor in cost of production. There is no tanker facility for the A330 in the US. The 767 does.
On the bright side, EADS will no doubt be pleased that the A330MRTT successfully transferred fuel through the boom during night time refuelling tests - although again the image leaves a lot to be desired.
As much as the press and supporters of a tanker line in Alabama may want to avoid it, on the face of it, the costs the A330 incurs may just be one the US Air Force may not be willing to bear - but let’s be fair, the 767 and A330 both have much to play for on Capitol Hill.
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A330, Airbus A330-200, Boeing, Boeing 767, Boeing 777, EADS, Northrop Grumman, US Air Force, WTO
61 Comments Add your own
1. Boeing Investor | November 11th, 2009 at 18:52
John McCain just adds more heat to a growing political fire.
The Air Force was supposed to draw up a bullet proof RFP which would make the selection clear and incontrovertible. But lobbyists and home grown Senators smell to much money and try to intrude into the actual RFP. This is all obnoxious and interferring..but who else pays for their Campaigns.
This will play itself out in some slow grinding process and we will all suffer as a result of its potential delays or smear campaign.
The whole thing is getting uglier and reveals how corrupt in a different sense the military acquisition process is.
2. Jacobin777 | November 11th, 2009 at 19:39
From what I’ve recently read, it seems as if the WTO ruling for some reason won’t come into play here..though I think it should.
3. 787Fan | November 11th, 2009 at 19:43
I am still puzzled why the US AirForce led Boeing to believe that the KC-767 was exactly the size aircraft they wanted and then suddenly chose the Airbus entry on the last contest. Sounds like they intentionally wanted Boeing to loose. I beleive that if the AF chooses Airbus again there will a LOUD cry from congress in light of the WTO ruling. And they will have a good foundation. I am wondering if this ruling will make it a SLAM DUNK for Boeing on the next round. Thoughts Saj..
4. Don Shuper | November 11th, 2009 at 20:10
Lets keep it simple re GATT92-WTO and improper subsidies re A330-XXX aircraft versusm 767-XXX aircraft.
1) GATT92-WTO was the first serious- defined - signed agreement regarding the amount and kind of allowable subsidy for LCA ( large **commercial **aircraft ) . It later morphed into what is now called WTO. Military aircraft are excluded
2) GATT92 is/was not retroactive - nor can it be
3) The 767 first flew in 1982, and was in service for nearly a decade by the time GATT92 was signed.
The first A330 flight was in 1992 - with program launch in 1987-88
4) While they may be some question as to the amount of EXCESS-IMPROPER SUBSIDIES pertaining to the A330-200 - ( tanker version ) airframe - it is also true that a good part of the airbus 300-340 series does come under GATT92-WTO constraints.
5)The 767- and variants for the most part do NOT come under WTO constraints - and I have yet to hear of any claims that it received govt (U.S) subsidies for the civilian versions.
6) GATT92 allows about 33 percent of R&D to be subsidized by preferential loans.
arguments about 7e7, A380, etc simply do not apply for this issue ( tankers ) for a variety of reasons not really pertinent- since WTO has found that Airbus DID receive improper-excessive subsidies- we just dont know how much
But we do know SOME versions of A330 ARE included. Sooner or later, those $$ will be sorted out. Its the Industry and workers in the U.S that have been damaged - including of course JOBS JOBS JOBS
5. Falcon | November 12th, 2009 at 01:16
Why is it bizarre that a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee asks questions? Especially since he was instrumental in stopping the lease fiasco and exposing the domestic company’s shady business practices for which only the CFO was offered as a scapegoat? Guess it has more to do with that you fear he will not agree with what you think is best for USAF, or should that be best for Boeing in your case?
Maybe the Republican politician understands that the domestic supplier may take things for granted and provide what is good for them and not what is good for the country. Maybe the politician understands that having a foreign OEM opening a US based production line will bring in much more money than goes out and thus add more value than the domestic supplier. Maybe the politician wants to support a company that brings jobs to USA instead of slowly moving them abroad? Maybe the politician’s interest is the country he serves and not just one of its companies and the lobbyists said company employs.
Why is it that some people (or should that be one company, its lobbyists and the peons they manage to convince) is trying to make a big deal about a still in the works WTO case? Do they really have so little trust in their bellowed Boeings product that they think breaking WTO rules is the only way they can get their inferior product to win?
What a surprise Boeing’s lawyers try to convince you that they are all good and the competition is bad? Almost as bizarre as the hundreds of design studies of slight modifications to outdated product lines that somehow should make them new. Cleverly most of them were buried without public announcement but plenty enough saw the light of day only to crash and burn. Even the 787 required the customers to push Boeing to make a 180 degree turn from where it saw the future.
Why is it that Boeing and its lobbyists now are trying to make the subsidy case to be only about direct subsidies to the models that are expected to be used for the RFP and ignore what the organizations received through all other sources? Probably the same reason as why they try to claim a few points lowered interest rate on a loan that continues to be repaid well after normal interest and principal is worse that getting paid by the government to do your own R&D and all other no risk money and highly profitable no risk contracts Boeing receives.
Why is Boeing’s lobbyist bizarrely trying to use a picture to cast doubts over the Airbus boom? Probably because even GAO stated Airbus boom is not only better than the current Boeing boom but also Boeing’s paper only next generation boom?
Maybe all the FUD coming out of Boeing and its lobbyists (be that official, blogs or politicians) is an attempt to hide that the “half century tanker experts” are almost half a decade late on delivering what they called a simple tanker modification and the customer is now so desperate they nicknamed the first plane “I have a dream”.
How am I doing at imitating your writing style?
6. keesje | November 12th, 2009 at 01:17
Dang. I thought Thompson would rip apart the KC767 proposal / team because of its 4 yr delay, inferior performance, untested boom and lack of global appeal. Shaj also can be extremely critical on Boeing when the situation demands..
7. M. Albert Nissim | November 12th, 2009 at 01:26
Why don’t we just face the fact that, for whatever reason, John Mcain is”bigoted” against Boeing. It is more than a simple prejudice and has tainted the whole acquisition arena. The potential presidency of McCain weighed highly in the initial chocie of Airbus as one could envisage a selection of Boeing being overturned in a McCain presidency. The “leasing” excuse is lame at this point. In fact, if this option was taken at the time, billions of dollars may have been saved and we would have a very satisfactory program by now.
8. Get real | November 12th, 2009 at 03:46
I don’t get it.
Everybody knows that no country is required to open competition to foreign suppliers of military equipment. In other words, the US Government could have said from the start “hey Boeing, build me a tanker” and everybody would have been happy.
Just like most European countries build their own fighter aircraft (Typhoon for UK, Italy, and Germany; Rafale for France; Gripen for Sweden, etc…), the US had the right to just pick up a domestic product.
So, why open a competition (knowing that there are only TWO large aircraft manufacturers), if you do NOT want to give the contract to one of them? So that you can get Boeing to lower their price?
Boeing was going solo the first time, they thought that they could screw the government, bribed an official, offered a lease that NOBODY with an IQ over 20 would have accepted, and though they would go away with murder. They screwed themselves up!
What amazes me even more is that Boeing, after being found guilty, was invited to bid again. Hey, as far as I’m concerned, and for all the money that has been spent so far re-engineering the KC-135 and keeping them alive, asking Lockheed to build the new tankers would have been a viable alternative.
Thompson is on Boeing’s payroll and he doesn’t even know his subject, or can’t get the facts straight.
1) A WTO case is NOT between two companies. It is between two nations (or groups of nations). It’s not a Boeing vs. Airbus case, but as US vs. Europe case.
2) So, the EU has been found guilty just like the US was found guilty of DISC/FSC/ETI, etc… But why don’t I see ANYTHING about the counter-case (Europe vs. US)? Selective memory?
3) What happens when Boeing … sorry … the US is found guilty of indirect subsidies in favor of Boeing? Is Boeing also disqualified?
4) The night refueling is real… On the other hand, ask the Italians what they think about their tanker? Boeing had to pay for the Italian participation in Red Flag because the Italian tanker can NOT refuel. Not from the wings, not from the center line. That’s the aircraft you want the USAF to use?
In summary, Thompson hits nothing (as usual). He’s a one-sided monkey who listens to his Boeing overlords.
9. JmBee | November 12th, 2009 at 04:32
It looks like the Pentagon has two critical political decisions to make in the next month that could largely determine how the KC-X contest plays out.
1) Should the AF modiify the draft RFP to allow for more credit for additional capabilities as Northrop wants; and
2) Should the AF incorporate a price adjustment for RLI issue withing the RFP (similar to the fuel burn, MILCON and IFARA).
It should be noted that the Air Force was considering including an RLI adjustment in the draft RFP for the second tanker round until they received a letter from none other than Sen. John McCain saying that it would ruin any chances of a fair competion if they did.
My take on both these issues is that from the Air Forces perspective they will take no significant action on either issue, or that rather they will in essence cancel each other out. If the Air Force made any significant modifications to the RFP to make it more favorable to NG/EADS bid, it is difficult to see how they could avoid incorporting the RLI issue once the bid was reopened, and for several reasons I think the US Government would really like to sidestep the entire RLI issue. Difficulties include what portion of the RLI do you count? From the A300 to A310 to A330 (afterall, they are all the same family), only that RLI in excess of GATT 92 and so on, and do you count other WTO issues? Opposition from NG/EADS supporters in congress and the fact that incorporting the WTO decision may invite other countries to incorporate such decision making in their contests also make this a difficult issue to deal with.
I don’t think they really want to touch the RLI issue with a 10 foot pole, which should in the end make Boeing happy since the current draft RFP appears to favor Boeing enough so that their main goal will be to avoid making any significant changes to it as opposed to NG/EADS who would like to toss the whole draft RFP out and go with final RFP from the last round.
In the end I think the AF has pretty much thrown it’s dice already and will go with some moderate changes to the current draft RFP mandatory requirements. They might say for example reduce the mandatory 18 year fixed aircraft price guarantee that NG seems to dislike so much to 10 years and in return reduce the required boom flow rate from 1,200 gal/min to 1,000 gal/min which would be more favorable to Boeing.
10. Mike M | November 12th, 2009 at 05:14
Keesje, the Boeing boom works period.
Show us proof that is DOES NOT please.
And instead of having potshot at Saj (I assume thats who you mean with the badly spelt name?) for not being critical of Boeing, when was the last time YOU were critical of Airbus in the tanker contest?
Let he without sin cast the first stone?
11. Edd | November 12th, 2009 at 10:40
Mike, the Boeing boom for the USAF is the MkVI boom, the Japanese and Italian booms are MkV. Personally I doubt that Boeing will have problems producing the new boom.
Either way, its not the booms that Boeing has problems with, its the ’simple’ hose and drogues.
The Italian 767 tanker has STILL not been delivered, and is now set for delivery in Jan 2010 (originally set for 2005).
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4366294
Apparently the Italian Airforce has nicknamed their first tanker ‘I have a dream’, with the fourth nicknames ‘yes we can’!!
12. Curious | November 12th, 2009 at 13:56
Can anybody sort out the truth or the relativities or the disinformation from all these comments.
It is an ongoing shrill debate with old saws being dragged in and new saws being invented with each day.
This diialogue will continue to create headaches until it is determined and , even then, it could become a migraine.
13. Ed | November 12th, 2009 at 14:57
Keesje wrote in reply # 6
“Dang. I thought Thompson would rip apart the KC767 proposal / team because of its 4 yr delay, inferior performance, untested boom and lack of global appeal.”
Why would Dr. Thompson do that? The ITAF KC-767A works, and works well. It just finished the USAF MUO and will begin the USN MUO soon. Boeing’s Boom works, unlike the EADS Boom. What inferior performance does the KC-767 have compared to the A-330MRTT? It can refuel all the receivers the USAF wants it to, the A-330MRTT cannot. It is faster than the A-330MRTT, and more manuverable. It is capable of self defense, that A-330MRTT is not. It has refueled more receivers, different types of receivers and offloaded more fuel than the A-330MRTT by 100s of times.
Global appeal is your funniest statement. The KC-767 has sold 8 tankers internationally. The A-330MRTT has only sold 14 tankers outside the EU.
get real wrote in reply #8
“Thompson is on Boeing’s payroll and he doesn’t even know his subject, or can’t get the facts straight.
1) A WTO case is NOT between two companies. It is between two nations (or groups of nations). It’s not a Boeing vs. Airbus case, but as US vs. Europe case.
2) So, the EU has been found guilty just like the US was found guilty of DISC/FSC/ETI, etc… But why don’t I see ANYTHING about the counter-case (Europe vs. US)? Selective memory?
3) What happens when Boeing … sorry … the US is found guilty of indirect subsidies in favor of Boeing? Is Boeing also disqualified?
4) The night refueling is real… On the other hand, ask the Italians what they think about their tanker? Boeing had to pay for the Italian participation in Red Flag because the Italian tanker can NOT refuel. Not from the wings, not from the center line. That’s the aircraft you want the USAF to use?
In summary, Thompson hits nothing (as usual). He’s a one-sided monkey who listens to his Boeing overlords.”
Ahhh, Dr. Thompson works for the Lexington Institute, not Boeing, nor is Lexington any way related to Boeing.
as to your questions/answers;
1. Wrong, this WTO case is Boeing vs. Airbus on illegal subsidies. The WTO has ruled that Airbus has received them and has an unfair advantage because of it.
2. The cases you pointed to are apples and oranges, one has nothing to do with the opther. The counter case in the WTO has yet to be ruled on, and probibly will not be for another year.
3. Are you jumping the gun on the next ruling, or do you have inside information it will rule against the US?
4. You are talking two different things, Boom refueling at night and probe and drogue refueling (which, BTW, the KC-30 cannot do either for the same reasons). How do you know the KC-30 did that night refueling? There are no pictures released from the chase planes showing the F-16 actually on the KC-30 Boom, with the KC-30 also in the picture. Why is the RAAF so unhappy with EADS? They have no A-400M order with EADS, so it must be the A-330MRTT.
Why haven’t you, or Keesje mentioned that McCain has at least 7 NG paid staff members on his staff, and those same people were also on his presidential election staff. Why is McCain trying to minimize the MilCon costs for the A-330MRTT for new ramps/taxiways/runways because of the low PCN numbers, and hanger requirements, but not for the KC-767?
How much did EADS-NA and NG pay to buy McCain?
14. Leelaw | November 12th, 2009 at 15:01
Senator McCain would have a lot more credibility on this issue if he had focused exclusively on what was fishiest about the original lease deal, i.e. whether there was actually a compelling underlying need for purchasing new tankers to begin with:
…McCain contends the tanker deal itself was an attempt to profit from the sense of crisis after the 9/11 attacks, and that the underlying need for new tankers to replace the Air Force’s KC-135s has still never been proved.
“Prior to 9/11, they said that they didn’t need to start replacing tankers until 2040,” he said.
He points to a Sept. 25, 2001, memo describing a meeting in Druyun’s office. Just two weeks after 9/11, Druyun, Boeing lobbyists and Air Force officers came together, paused for a moment of silence for the victims of the Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and then began drawing up a strategy for the tanker deal.
Last year, the Air Force accidentally gave McCain a new ally in Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, when it was discovered that Air Force officials had erased key data on slides they sent to Warner’s committee showing that problems with the aging KC-135s were fairly rare
The fallout is that McCain won’t OK a new tanker contract until it is studied more. But he doesn’t trust the latest Air Force analysis being done by the RAND Corp., because of RAND’s dependence on the Pentagon.
“It’s become so incestuous that it’s hard to find an objective organization to make this evaluation of the need for the tankers,” he said…
(-Seattle Times, December 26, 2004-) http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2009/11/11/loren-thompson/#comments
15. Leelaw | November 12th, 2009 at 15:03
Sorry, link s/b: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002130791_mccain26m.html
16. Erik Bloodaxe | November 12th, 2009 at 17:34
@ M. Albert Nissim | November 12th, 2009 at 01:26
It’s especially poignant when you examine Johnny Mc’s history with EADS. EADS supported his candidacy giving him key, strategic campaign contributions when nobody else would. In the dark days of the Republican nomination race there was a time when McCain was on his butt, looked all but likely to close up shop because of lack of funds. Guess who gave, and gave big. Yup, EADS.
Additionally, when you look closely at Johnny’s staff, you find… EADS lobbiests. Coincidence? Hmm… I don’t belive in coincidence.
McCain absolutely despises Boeing. I don’t know why, but it’s plainly evident that he is in EADS’ pocket. Fortunately he’s considerably weakened politically. Hell, his own party doesn’t like him.
17. Boeing Investor | November 12th, 2009 at 17:44
Leelaw (above) refers to an article that was written back in 2004. I guess its relevance is to remind everyone of the roots that go back a long way.
Will this matter ever be finished. Didn’t people get fired and some even go to jail. Will this remain an unfinished chapter that Senator McCain will chew on for the length of his career.
Does he think that Northrop will be additional punishment for Boeing because there hasn’t been enough meted out yet.
The Military Industrial Complex remains with us just as it did during Gen. Eisenhauer’s time. It is subtle yet pervasive and is integrated into the economy and politics. McCain knows there is no way to completely eliminate it and, in essence, his presence and participation is just another example of the same behaviour.
Is it any coincidence that several of his staff worked for Northrop. Is that more virtuous?
18. Edd | November 12th, 2009 at 18:13
“Boom refueling at night and probe and drogue refueling (which, BTW, the KC-30 cannot do either for the same reasons).”
Better tell this F-18 pilot:
http://www.deagel.com/library/Airbus-A330-MRTT-makes-contact-with-Spanish-Air-Force-FA-18A-aircraft-with-new-generation-Cobham-905E-hose-and-drogue-refuelling-pod_m02009060100001.aspx
As for denying the boom refueling (day and night incidentally) because you have not seen the pictures? Is’nt that the argument that 5 year olds bring up?
19. Sal | November 12th, 2009 at 19:03
And the F-18 pilot (Or backseater) didn’t have a camera?
If the argument is so specious, why is it that EADS and its supporters, are having such a difficult time producing a picture from the chase aircraft or any of the receiver aircraft? Or the RAAF? Why? Seems to me that this alone would quiet the suspicions that many of us have, no?
20. Sal | November 12th, 2009 at 19:07
Ah yes, the hose and drone refueling… Try again Edd.
The boom is what everyone wants to see in action, as *all* U.S. Air Force aircraft use the boom for refueling and when all this nonsensical bather is done, the bottom line is the boom and its operation
21. don shuper | November 12th, 2009 at 20:25
UHH Ah yes, the hose and drone refueling… Try again Edd.
The boom is what everyone wants to see in action, as *all* U.S. Air Force aircraft ..
You mean the AF has no helicopters ?
And BTW several navy types muse probe and drougue
A-6 for example
But maybe the AF will not refuel the Navy ?
The only real issue with the Italian 767 tanker is the centerline drougue
22. Edd | November 12th, 2009 at 21:41
The F-18 backseater did have a camera:
http://www.deagel.com/library/A330-making-contact-with-FA-18A-aircraft-with-new-generation-Cobham-905E-hose-and-drogue-refuelling-pods_m02009060100002.aspx
You may wish to see the boom refueling, but the italians would like the drogues to work too! (I have yet to see any pictures of THAT in use!). Either way, those IN the defence industry seem perfectly willing to believe that the A330 has succesfully made 250+ wet contacts, including at night.
And am sure the USAF got a good looks at the tanker when it stopped off last week!
As for the boom work, done with a Portugeuese single seat F16, i’ve yet to see an F16 pilot take a picture of his own refueling from any tanker.
Either way, the A330 was supposed to enter service in early 2008, and now due 2010.
The 767 tanker due 2005, delivered…2010.
23. Rocketman | November 12th, 2009 at 21:43
While the lease option deal with Druyun and crew was mared ethically it was a reasonable financial deal and what ever we end up with will likely cost significantly more, everything considered. McCain should be ashamed of himself.
24. Buster | November 12th, 2009 at 22:02
Just because you don’t want it to be true, doesn’t mean it isn’t.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Eads-North-America-1075644.html
QUOTE:The A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), an Airbus Military program, has performed the first fuel transfers with its all-digital hose-and-drogue system, confirming the aircraft’s aerial refueling capabilities for a full range of U.S., NATO and allied nation military aircraft.
The hose-and-drogue “wet contacts” occurred November 10 during a mission that utilized both the A330 MRTT left and right under-wing pods, with more than 9,200 lbs of fuel transferred to a NATO F/A-18 fighter aircraft.
The latest refueling milestone was performed by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) A330 MRTT and followed recent daytime and nighttime refueling operations utilizing the aircraft’s advanced Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS). As a result, both refueling systems on the A330 MRTT have now been demonstrated through flight tests, confirming the aircraft’s maturity in preparation for the startup of deliveries to international customers beginning in 2010.
I’m sure they only did this as a result of the tremendous pressure from this very site.
25. Sal | November 12th, 2009 at 23:49
Don,
I don’t recall mentioning Naval avaiation in my comments, as you are quite right. But I have yet to see a picture of the A330 MRTT refueling an aircraft with its boom, in flight from the vantage point of a third aircraft like a chase plane. Why is is so difficult for Airbus to share with us that photo?
And Edd, Airbus claims the KC-30 fueled two F-16s at night. One couldn’t take a snap shot of the other?
Thanks for the attempt to distort my words.
When I was in the Air Force we always has a camera handy and took quite a few pictures of aircraft waiting in line to tank up from a -135… Some of the best photos I have.
26. don shuper | November 13th, 2009 at 00:24
re #
23. Rocketman | November 12th, 2009 at 21:43
While the lease option deal with Druyun and crew was mared ethically it was a reasonable financial deal and what ever we end up with will likely cost significantly more, everything considered. McCain should be ashamed of himself.
+++++
Correction- AS initially proposed to Senator Ted Stevens right after 911 by a Boeing engineer and my good friend ( Dan Hartley ( deceased in 2004 ) along with other issues to help the airlines, the lease deal WAS reasonable. The overriding issue at that time was JOBS and to keep the 767 line open.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040401111615/http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/159134
. . .Hartley dove into issues and made himself an expert in such complicated matters as international trade and tariff law. Lentz said Hartley followed the careers of politicians and bureaucrats and established working relationships with them.
President Richard Nixon appointed Hartley to a position as citizen adviser to Secretary of Defense David Packard, a role he didn’t resign from until the Reagan administration.
“When I first met Dan, I couldn’t believe he knew all these people,” Lentz said. “But he’d show me e-mails he sent and received from these guys and I realized `By golly, he really knows about these things.”’
Indeed, Hartley may have planted the seeds of the idea that the Air Force might lease Boeing 767s for use as aerial refueling tankers if the service couldn’t buy them. Lentz said he thinks that subject came up when Alaska Senator Ted Stevens called Hartley after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
. . . .
from minutes of a meeting on Monday FEB 25th, 2002
. . . Rudy focus if we do file the CVD Petition will be on 767 tankers and FSC tax so he hopes he does not have to deal with the petition. Discussion on what this means and how we might be of more help then began. Mr. DeLeon presented two ideas on how people might help:
1. SPEEA could work the hill (Congress) on 767 tankers and FSC taxes.
2. Help find some mechanism to level the plaguing field being American and EU.
Charles made a couple of comments some of what was said:
1. IF Boeing has plan to maintain jobs – we don’t see it? No answer provided.
2. We want to help Boeing to preserve jobs
Dan made a couple of comments some of what was said:
1. Need to sell airplanes to airlines
2. Need to build up defense from downturn during last 10 years.
3. Need insurance to fly airplanes and maybe government needs to help with it.
Boeing is trying to fill trough in 767 line by building tankers.
. . .
But Boeing mis-management, specifically the McDummy types used to hosing the government worked overtime to screw up the whole deal- a fact unknown to those of us at that meeting at that time.
While the price that BA wanted at that time WAS ” inflated” - it still would have been a good deal in light of what happened later.
BTW- in my opinion- the last person that should have anything at all to do with the current tanker proposal is Albaugh .. he managed to slide by the Dryun- SEARS affair. ” his posiiton was/is see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil ” since Ive got my fingers in my ears, my blindfold on … and nobody sent me a traceable email . . .
27. keesje | November 13th, 2009 at 00:35
The Australian A330 MRTT had performed more the 70 dry and wet contacts, transferring 40 klbs.
On the KC310 an addition 180 dry and wet contactwere made with the boom.
First wet boom A330 MRTT contact two weeks ago
http://www.easybourse.com/bourse/actualite/airbusfirst-a-0-million-mrtt-wet-contact-via-airbus–NL0000235190-748857
A330 MRTT night wet boom contact last week
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/184525.asp?from=blog_last3
Everybody is free to stick to denial if it makes them more comfortable.
28. NH | November 13th, 2009 at 00:48
If we can take any good points from what has been said, maybe this is it:
Irrespective of whichever tanker option the USAF goes for, it should at least find itself in a position to take full advantage of the hard work being done now by both EADS and Boeing to create these tankers for other, earlier customers. The 767-based drogue issues are affecting Italy’s schedule and the A330-based flying boom issues are affecting Australia’s schedule. (Hopefully) These issues should be well ironed out before any USAF program gets towards a similar stage in it’s schedule, and that the resolutions to the problems we see today on both tankers will mean smoother sailing for the USAF tanker development program. (Though I’m sure that won’t be much conciliation for Italy and Australia!)
It isn’t often the USAF would find itself in such a position, as a non-new program customer; and as I have said before, this will be a difficult enough contract to get through politically without added technical problems.
29. Falcon | November 13th, 2009 at 10:55
@Sal,
What Airbus has released is more than enough for any reasonable person to believe it has happened.
I don’t understand what you hope to achieve by essentially claiming it hasn’t happened unless you see certain pictures. I think that is little different from sticking your head in the sand.
If you have so much problems accepting that other than Boeing can create a boom take temporary relief in that there is a lot of testing left so they may find something that will add to the delay. Maybe it will delay them even more that the Italian 767 tankers.
30. Leelaw | November 13th, 2009 at 10:55
“I guess its relevance is to remind everyone of the roots that go back a long way.”
Not exactly, the relevance of the article is to point out that “tanker mania” was initially ginned-up by the OEMs mostly as a means to profitably revive their own increasingly moribund commercial programs (767 & A310), not by an actual compelling requirement by the USAF for new tankers.
31. Sal | November 13th, 2009 at 14:52
Falcon,
I never said the KC-30 never tanked with its boom. I just want to see the pictures. Why does that simple request irk you and your fellow Airbus affeciados so much?
32. Sal | November 13th, 2009 at 15:13
Here Falcon is an example for those of you who do not have their “heads in the sand::
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/photorelease/q1/MSF07-1714-003-450.jpg
33. JmBee | November 13th, 2009 at 15:26
“Not exactly, the relevance of the article is to point out that “tanker mania” was initially ginned-up by the OEMs mostly as a means to profitably revive their own increasingly moribund commercial programs (767 & A310), not by an actual compelling requirement by the USAF for new tankers.”
There is a good case to be made that in 2001 when the original lease deal was dreamed this was true. In 2006 when Donal Rumsfeld cancelled the original tanker deal he stated that, this move will in no way impair the Air Force’s ability to deliver the mission of the KC-767A which will be accomplished by continuing upgrades to the KC-135 and KC-10 fleets.
And again when the Air Force cancelled the 2008 contract with NG/EADS they essentially said the same thing, that we have enough existing capability with the current KC-135 fleet and KC-10 fleet that we don’t need to proceed immediately with current bid to replace that capacity.
Since the 2002 lease deal though we’ve had eight more years of wear and tear on the KC-135 and KC-10 without a significant upgrade program. We failed to upgrade the KC-135Es to KC-135Rs, which during the earlier part of this decade was far more cost effective than buying new 767s, A310s, or A330s. If common sense had prevailed we would have plenty of upgraded KC-135Rs and could have easily put this decision off until 2020. Given the retirement of the KC-135Es and the lack of plans for a significant upgrade program for the KC-135Rs I think the AF can finally make the case that yes, we need to start getting new tankers by the middle of the next decade.
34. Vero Venia | November 13th, 2009 at 15:51
30. Leelaw | November 13th, 2009 at 10:55
This may be the first time a defense procurement process is debated by Joe and Jack. I don’t recall any other defense procurement that has been discussed widely in public like this one.
I am quite sure the USAF and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States will do the work properly.
So let’s wait and see.
35. Leelaw | November 13th, 2009 at 23:22
“the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States will do the work properly”
Be aware that the current POTUS is a veteran member of the “Illinois Combine,” they all possess special talents in the art of procurement which would make the eyes of good government types spin like pinwheels.
36. Edd | November 13th, 2009 at 23:48
Sal,
can you provide a picture of the 767 refueling off the wing pods? I ‘dont believe that they have them working….
Is that a wet or a dry contact…
etc
etc
37. Paulo M | November 14th, 2009 at 22:54
Well in yet another summary of the mess that is the aircraft engineering, politics (BIG business, politicians, Pentagon, associated think tanks, etc.), and questions about impotent aircraft booms and drogues, the following is quiet true:
Nationalism is back.
US manufacturing looks like crap now - broadly. The reality is that making goods, designed locally is good for the country. Also, moves to build abroad will not escape upward wage pressure in countries such as China, India, Russia and Brazil indefinitely. And, despite the presence of lean pro manufacturers such as Toyota on US soil, local companies have yet to learn anything about lean - and tellingly, only the true pioneer of the seven-day week, mass-manufacturing, economies-of-scale Ford has survived. Well, barely - and largely by luck - thanks to loan agreements gained, by the father of the 777, with the big blue logo up as collateral.
This is going end up being a choice the US must make of whether or not to give up technical expertise in tanker systems design and integration - or not. Take note Boeing - this is exactly what your compatriot is doing.
By choosing the ‘foreign’, you deal a general blow to an established local manufacturing outfit - yet, on the upside, improve relations with your only current equal on the world stage - in Europe. I do doubt that the foreign firm would do enough in the US to cover the industrial loss and jobs loss suffered by Boeing - a large portion of the KC-30 will be built in Europe. I do think that a large economy such as the US should maintain a dynamic indigenous manufacturing base. Very interesting dynamic to this competition.
Now, if the USAF could get down to the point where it can say which is technically better. That’s what counts after all.
38. Buster | November 15th, 2009 at 15:08
Well, further news - the A330 just had its ETOPS certification extended.
And, in case anyone missed it, Ethiopian Airlines just firmed their A350 order at the Dubai Air Show. Says a lot for all those who were laughing at the earlier announcement in August.
39. Vero Venia | November 15th, 2009 at 17:05
37. Paulo M | November 14th, 2009 at 22:54 says “Now, if the USAF could get down to the point where it can say which is technically better. That’s what counts after all.”
The big question is what “technically better” means.
Let’s take the case of my mobile phone.
I made my choice on a certain model of mobile. In reality, there are many-many mobile phones out there that are “technically good”. But, I didn’t spend many hours by making stupid point to point detailed “technical” comparison on the possible alternatives. I didn’t want to waste time for that.
I had some clear mandatory requirements, one of which is that my mobile phone should be able to make and receive calls. From that set of mandatory requirements, I put some non-mandatory requirements like the nice-to-have GPS or the possibility to put Tcl/tk (that’s a scripting language) on it.
There are many phones that fulfill those mandatory and non-mandatory requirements. At this point, I chose an HTC diamond touch 2. Why?
Because it was on promotional offer at the time I made the choice. It was simply the least expensive.
Is that specific phone “technically better” than an iPhone or another? I don’t know and I don’t care. I have my phone and it fulfills (and exceeds) all my requirements at a much less cost than an iPhone or another phone.
Another important thing is that my phone is smaller than an iPhone and thus I can put it in my pocket during my roller skating sessions in order to log the track using the GPS.
Oh, I almost forget that the monthly subscription with the iPhone is a little bit more expensive if I want similar service as the one offered with my current phone. So you must think about the day-to-day operational aspects as well.
The above story illustrates the non-relevance of the notion of “technically better” in many cases. The real question is whether the stuff you choose is the one that fits your needs at lower acquisition cost and also at lower operation cost.
Last but not least, if ever I break the less-expensive phone because of an unfortunate roller-skate accident, I will have less regret than losing an expensive one.
40. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | November 15th, 2009 at 20:21
38. Vero Venia | November 15th, 2009 at 17:05
Fair enough. Technically best is a minor concern because they so evenly matched. Then cost is the bottom line - especially with the US budget in its current state. Great analogy!
For what it’s worth, Nokia’s Ovi store for their Symbian phones closes the gap with Apple and their store. I’m sure this would be the same HTC’s range and its dedicated after market support. Cost. Cost.
41. Vero Venia | November 16th, 2009 at 09:06
39. Paulo M (Johannesburg, RSA) | November 15th, 2009 at 20:21
By the way, I’ve just posted an entry on my blog http://verovenia.wordpress.com about my smart phone and a scripting language called Tcl/Tk.
42. Dougloid | November 16th, 2009 at 17:17
Verovenia sez :The above story illustrates the non-relevance of the notion of “technically better” in many cases. The real question is whether the stuff you choose is the one that fits your needs at lower acquisition cost and also at lower operation cost.”
I couldn’t disagree with you more, my good fellow. A tanker aircraft is not a $200 telephone. You buy aircraft for the same reasons you buy trucks-you buy the best vehicle for the mission you have in mind. In the case of an aerial tanker I’d say that that would be a combination of range, payload, performance, economy, and maintainability. That of course would also apply to the specialized needs of a flying gas station.
43. Falcon | November 17th, 2009 at 00:32
@Sal,
I’m extremely disappointed in your posts here and the PM’s you sent me.
It is true you never stated the KC-30 never tanked with its boom. What you said in post 19, the one I responded to, was “Seems to me that this alone would quiet the suspicions that many of us have, no?”
Suspicious, i.e. you have doubts about the claims Airbus made in their press releases.
I call that head in the sand because companies are held liable for statements they make in press releases so if they say they did something, past tense, then you can bet they did it. This should not be confused with things they predict will happen, future tense, as it is accepted that you can’t predict the future with 100% accuracy. The lack of a picture does not give you any reason to be suspicious.
So yes I do think your statement was fundamentally wrong and yes I was irked enough to respond to you. I do think I have a solid base for calling your “suspicious” statement head in the sand and perfectly appropriate under the circumstances.
I do not think you have any stand for your fanboi argument and much less making threats about the “resources still available” to you as a “former US Air Force officer”… “that might surprise you” and the “you’ll have me waiting for you in front of your office.”
I have no intention to fold over because you can’t argue for your statements. I will use head in the sand for any future similarly claim.
I did give you times when I was prepared to meet you. That offer is withdrawn.
My apologize to everyone else for taking this off topic but I think it is good for you to see the extremes some people go to when they run out of arguments. I can be contacted at headinthesand@live.com if anyone has comments or questions.
44. Vero Venia | November 17th, 2009 at 09:36
41. Dougloid | November 16th, 2009 at 17:17
Absolutely right.
Be it a procurement for 200$ object or for a fleet of tanker, the rationale is always the same.
Buy the stuff that fulfills all of the mandatory requirements, make a good balance among the nice-to-have features, the acquisition cost and the operating costs.
45. tommytoyz | November 18th, 2009 at 08:47
New tankers are going to cost a pretty penny, compared to keeping what we already have:
179 KC-X will cost at least $108 billion over 25 years
340 KC-135s will cost $53 billion over 25 years (USAF numbers)
Same capabilities in both fleets. New tankers carry a large acquisition cost, while the KC-135 is already paid for as are all the training and installations.
What the heck are we doing even thinking about new tankers when what we have can still go on much cheaper for a long time? No wonder the US is broke.
The GAO has looked into the longevity and viability of the KC-135 and it is not a problem. Matter of fact the KC-135 has the highest mission readiness of all USAF aircraft.
Those deleted files given to Senator Warren were deleted, I assume, because the pushers of the new tankers didn’t want others to know how cheap the KC-135 was going to be and are still viable for a very long time yet.
I guess Boeing was desperate to keep the 767 line humming.
46. Vero Venia | November 18th, 2009 at 12:00
44. tommytoyz | November 18th, 2009 at 08:47 asks “What the heck are we doing even thinking about new tankers when what we have can still go on much cheaper for a long time?”
In any case, the KC-135 replacement won’t come so quickly. The deliveries of the KC-X is spread over many years. Maybe by then, the KC-135 will be really-really old.
The question is if the US needs so many tankers. What’s the nature of future conflicts? Who knows?
47. Curious | November 18th, 2009 at 15:42
Like any other organization planning for an unknown future, The USAF has to evaluate it resources and try to maximize the options its has with the equiptment is has at hand.
With the world becoming smaller but its reach larger a decision was made to replace the aging Tankers. Several people think there is no need as these planes seem to defy time and continue to fly.
But there are studies of deterioration and fatigue that seem to be dramatic enough as to make this Contract the highest priority, Can we assume that the Air Force and Pentagon have a mind of their own and come to this conclusion based on real and perceived needs and not the influence of areospace companies
48. keesje | November 18th, 2009 at 21:31
- we have to include the remaining value of the Kc135 and KC30 fleets after those 25 yrs.
- we have to include the value of alternative transport if the KC-X is not choosen..
- new aircraft require low maintenance for the first ~30.000 hrs (expensive component changes) unlike an old aircraft. Same as cars. Is it included?
49. Jack | November 19th, 2009 at 14:30
John Mccain should be stripped of his bravery awards and political status for trying to sell out the US defense interests the retards in Brussels.
He has become a liability for US interests and threatens our security.
For someone like him to have served in the US Army and then denigrate Boeing and have the bastardized Europeans buddy up to him is sickening. He has destoryed America’s ability to rely on its own aerospace industry to protect our homeland in favor of Europe that couldnt even be bothered to stop the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia.
F@@king disgusting.
50. Curious | November 19th, 2009 at 23:08
Does anybody know the number of Tankers that are supposed to be delivered per year over the first ten years? Or anything about the schedule and number of deliveries ?
51. Boeing Investor | November 20th, 2009 at 16:07
From Wikipedia on the KC 135
“Operations and support costs for the KC 135 Fleet are estimated to grow from about $2.2 B in 2003 to $5.1B in 2017..a growth rate of 6.3 %
There are currently 505 Aircraft: 199 on active duty; 80 Reserve: 222 National Guard
There is also a list of the many Varients on the model. Many have been upgraded over the years and many have been reengined.
So, it must be interesting where the first tranch are scheduled for replacement
52. Leelaw | November 21st, 2009 at 10:50
“For someone like him to have served in the US Army ”
Sen. McCain is a veteran of the US Navy and a former Naval Aviator.
53. ikkeman | November 27th, 2009 at 05:18
Sorry for being late - I’ve had a lovely vacation, thank you very much!
#1, there is no WTO preliminary ruling - there is a draft proposal - both parties get to input and amend before the WTO panel puts out it’s draft proposal that will then (in all likelihood) be accepted in it’s entirety by the WTO.
#2, there will be an WTO draft proposal ruling that will find Boeing & the US gov’t are guilty of similar facts of comparable magnitude. I don’t know this far a fact - but my water is seriously tingling.
Let’s ignore #1 - Let’s even assume there is an ruling. The WTO rules specifically forbid any party to implement punitive action before the WTO has ruled and the guilty party has had a chance to correct their fault. This has not happened. Don’t try and change the rules because they don’t suit you - either use the WTO and ALL its rules, or disregard the WTO in its entirety.
Lets ignore #2, Only the Airbus & the EU are found guilty and need to make reparations. How much do you really think it is going to be - and how much will trickle down to the tanker. remember it’s only a few aircraft a year, in the low tens per year I think. Any damages would be amortized over a long period and over the full production & product line of Airbus.
Let’s ignore both - Would it make you proud to be an American knowing that your son, daughter, relative or friend is risking his/her life on a godforsaken patch of dirt halfway across the world depending on the second best choice just because the baseline model of the best was engineered in the EU - for decades your strongest supporter and best ally, whatever you think of the french in particular (no one likes them - it’s their forte) - despite the fact that the EU company was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to place as much of the production and assemble of each airframe in the US. Or is it just your own job, not their lives you’re interested in…
if the 767 is the better choice let that be chosen - if not, than to bad and get Boeing to work on a KC777.
and could it maybe have something to do with the fact that it is highly contested military technology that the picture leaves much to be desired by you? would you like a working CATIA model so you can help Boeing along with their proposal?
13. Ed | November 12th, 2009 at 14:57
1. Wrong, this WTO case is US vs. EU on illegal subsidies. The WTO has ruled that EU has Provided them. No unfair advantage was proven because that’s not what the WTO is about. the subsidies are wrong, whether they benefit anyone or not.
2. The counter case is about 6 months behind the US case, not a year. Both cases are important because if either company is found to have received illegal subsidies ALL PRODUCT of said company are subject to possible punitive action.
3. wake up and smell the bacon. ALL AVIATION is heavily subsidized. Our business is a global jobs program - deal with it.
4. because it is likely Airbus will open themselves up to an easy loss when Boeing/ US congress finds out airbus right out lied and didn’t actually do the night refuel. A400M, and you talk about apples and oranges? - I say pots and kettles.
how much does Boeing sped again on capital hill lobbies - I remember a figure of some millions.
How much would you pay to buy McCain?
22. Edd | November 12th, 2009 at 21:41
so both will be available when this latest round (not final?) is finished?
25. Sal | November 12th, 2009 at 23:49
“holding on to straws” mean anything to you?
31. Sal | November 13th, 2009 at 14:52
sorry, but it sounded like you questioned the MRTT contact by demanding a very specific picture and as long as you hadn’t seen it wih your own eyes, you wouldn’t accept it had happened.
I’d also like to see all teh MRTT refuel pictures, ’cause airplanes are pretty!
39. Vero Venia | November 15th, 2009 at 17:05
now imagine your choise with only two options, the I-phone (assuming it does the scripting, non-mandatory req’d) and a Nokia 3310.
Which would you take - a free 3310 or a $200 I-phone (I’d take the 3310)
44. Vero Venia | November 17th, 2009 at 09:36
would you consider toilet flushing pressure a mandatory requirement?
would you consider the amount of man-hours it takes to change from full freight to pax a mandatory requirement?
45. tommytoyz | November 18th, 2009 at 08:47
can you provide any reference for your quoted figures - was that $53B for the past 25 years of 340 KC135 operations?
47. Curious | November 18th, 2009 at 15:42
assume all you want - do you have a basis? Why exactly does the KC-135 warrant replacement? It’s designed mostly to safe-life principles, before we knew anything but the rudimentary of fatigue. why not replace those parts that are at the and of their design life and keep flying the rest?
48. keesje | November 18th, 2009 at 21:31
1) who would you resell them too?
2) I remember some number in the billions a year… not that much considering the 53 vs 108 claim
3) good question, again - what’s the basis for Curious’ numbers
49. Jack | November 19th, 2009 at 14:30
learn to type, retard - then explain how McCain has “destoryed America’s ability to rely on its own aerospace industry” - way I see it, US industry did that all by themselves - see US automotive industry!
54. Jack | November 27th, 2009 at 14:47
Mr/Ms Ikkeman
Why the need to call me a retard because I made a spelling error?
If anyone is a retard its you.
You spelt, “choice”, “the”, “with” all incorrectly - not to mention the grammatical errors in your comment.
Practice what you preach, retard.
55. ikkeman | November 27th, 2009 at 23:59
54. Jack | November 27th, 2009 at 14:47
So I guess you agree that making unbased insults isn’t quite the thing to do - so lets get to the heart of the matter.
Why should McCain be stripped of any medals - do you propose we should try to change the past to fit the future? Ever read 1984?
How does McCain pose a threat to US interests and security. All he does is force the AF to consider all options based on their merits instead of continuing the incestuous relation between the US defense and industry
He has not destroyed USAF’s ability to rely on US industry. to credit him with such extensive and far reaching powers is to grossly overestimate his abilities.
and it’s Mr, thank you very much
56. Edd | November 30th, 2009 at 09:05
ikkeman
22. Edd | November 12th, 2009 at 21:41
so both will be available when this latest round (not final?) is finished?
Not necessarily, Airbus have stated that they have already got 80% or the requirements met, so there could still be surprises!
As for boeing, their current Gen 5 boom (used for Japan and Italy) is only capable of offloading 900GPM (the requirement for 1200GPM may be met with the Gen 6 boom (Boeing only state it can offload ‘more than 1000GPM) either way, its unmade and untested).
The Tanker for italy and Japan is the 767-200, Boeing have not (I am open to being corrected on this), stated they will use this, or, as per the earlier competition a model that combines the 200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear and cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flightdeck and flaps, uprated engines and “sixth-generation” boom.
Clearly this will mean a great deal more development work, or a degredation on performance over their previous offering to the USAF.
57. ikkeman | November 30th, 2009 at 15:29
56. Edd | November 30th, 2009 at 09:05
Boeing have clearly stated they will not again go down the road of combining the best of various models. It’ll be a direct COTS approach.
58. Edd | November 30th, 2009 at 18:29
Fair enough, though i suspect this will make the performance advantages of the KC-30 even greater, especially when operating from shorter strips.
59. ikkeman | November 30th, 2009 at 22:30
perhaps - but the competition stops at 1% cost difference…
60. Paulo M | December 1st, 2009 at 20:07
53. ikkeman | November 27th, 2009 at 05:18
Sorry for being late - I’ve had a lovely vacation, thank you very much!
Clearly rested.
Just on the 3310 and the iPhone; the only thing the 3310 can do that the iPhone can’t is survive being thrown at the wall many times - through no fault of its own, rather network congestion. Apparantly the iPhone does everything. So a more useful Nokia for comparison would be the any of the E-series, which also do everything, but don’t have touchscreens.
61. ikkeman | December 2nd, 2009 at 07:52
60. Paulo M | December 1st, 2009 at 20:07
Paulo - KC-45 is not like a KC767 with touch screens. It is a much more capable item, and while it is true the KC767 fulfils most if not all the important mandatory requirements jut like the kc-45 - the 45 does offer much more.
So no, it’s not a choice between a high-tech phone and a high-tech phone, it’s more like a choice between a basic model that conforms to all the mandatory requirements (it’s mobile, allows you to call and text) like the 3310.
Notice that even Mr Venia said he only looked at models that allowed for his “nice to have” features.
On unrelated news - NG is threatening to drop out again - I guess the 1% cost difference allowavle is to small.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed