philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 14, 2014 8:09:26 GMT 1
This time, there is no support from the taxpayer. Boeing actually is expected to lose a lot of money on this contract since it is a fixed-price contract and they had to offer a very low (dumping ?) price to overcut the competition (EADS) and win. Only if there is a top-up order will they possibly earn money.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959 
|
Post by s543 on Sept 15, 2014 7:34:21 GMT 1
Oh boy - Philidor you mean it seriously ? I can not believe it !
How many 767 would they sell if this contract would not go through ? Answer 0.
US has now over 450 tankers based on B707 - ok with CFM engines.... still B707 designed 65 years ago - it is a long time !
How many would be finally replaced ? Answer ALL plus some more added - total expected number of tankers ordered 555 !
This is a tremendous WIN to be able to use all the tooling which other way would go to scrap !
All this is going to be financed by TAXpayers. Or who will pay the tankers ? Enlighten us please.
And it is not support ?
They have to do some redesign of 767 to become tanker (and modernize it a bit) - that is clear and obvious - this redesign costs some money no doubt about it. Any design and redesign and development costs money. It is all the game of quantity. And we are not looking at 18 pcs.
They got contract to develop the changes and produce first 18 pcs. They will get 4.9 bil i.e. 272mil/plane. Normal list (what ever it means) price of 767 is around 180 mil. OK the military one would cost probably more, no doubt about it there is other addtional technology implemented.... but not so more, why it should ?
It cost them 1 bil. more - fine they are probably most happy it was so few. And now how many more pcs will they produce ?
The first of three tranches according to the same article should be 179 i.e. the 1bil/179 = 5.58 mil and or 1.86mil for all three. That is pennies - since that is ALL their design and development cost - all the other ones are long time ago paid for. But of course in the price of each of the plane is some depreciation of the design and development calculated.
And you still believe it is not taxpayer support ? They Loose money on first developmental series cool.
I am sure that design of any NEO or MAX costs much much more and nobody (aside of the vendor) pays for it !
It is for BOEING without any question considerably better deal than all the 777 they did sold in the past and will sell in the future to their biggest customer Emirates.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Sept 15, 2014 8:24:32 GMT 1
Any government contract is a cost for the taxpayer, that's obvious, but this does not make all such contracts taxpayer support - that would be the case only if the selling price was inflated, which is not the case this time.
Firstly, there is a development cost, you cannot just forget it as you do when you refer to list prices ! Secondly, the contract was awarded after a competition in which EADS' bid was very low (the A330 FAL has been fully written down like the 767 FAL, and the A330 MRTT development cost was already paid for thanks to the UK contract won by Airbus). Even if the competition was uneven, Boeing had to beat EADS' bid, and that is the reason for the losses.
Now, if you prefer to believe that Boeing is collecting a subsidy, it's your right.
|
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Sept 15, 2014 13:35:10 GMT 1
Well if the price of the production KC46 will come out - we might have some idea how it is, until then.... Concerning the EADS/Boe tender - I do believe again that what ever the offer and benefits of AB would have been - BO is unconditional winner - second time in a row on same item  I do believe there will be by the government known and approved hefty margin. But again we both speculate - you speculate Boeing is going to have loss on the whole KC46 production - I speculate it is going to be the big opposite. And I do not believe we will know.  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Sept 16, 2014 22:10:34 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 15, 2014 23:36:09 GMT 1
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Oct 16, 2014 14:16:35 GMT 1
The first prototype will be used to certify the 767-2C configuration. It will be modified to the tanker configuration afterwards.
Each KC-46 will leave the FAL as a 767-2C and will be modified into a tanker at Boeing Field.
|
|
|
|
Post by peter on Oct 16, 2014 16:53:57 GMT 1
Each KC-46 will leave the FAL as a 767-2C and will be modified into a tanker at Boeing Field. I understand the designation to be 767-2LK (not 767-2C) See FAA Registry |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Dec 3, 2014 22:43:02 GMT 1
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Dec 17, 2014 18:25:24 GMT 1
|
|
