Interesting to know that NOBODY is a synonym for Boeing.

“You CAN derive from common sense that …“
Especially you can’t do that. And common sense is in no way useful to determine such conclusions.

“For any route that requires <180 3-class (or <225 2-class) passengers, the 767-200ER is “more efficient PER PASSENGER” than the A330-200.“
You won’t find much passengers who like to fly on a 767–200 with such a configuration for a second time. I would use a A321 on some of such routes. The real equivalent to a A330-200 is a B767-300ER.

“BIGGER & HEAVIER (but with 110,000 lbs less fuel capacity) than the LARGE KC-10″
The A330 is about 10 ft longer and has a much bigger wingspan but is in no way heavier with its bigger cargo volume. At a range of 1,000 nm a KC-45 just provides about 40,000 lb less fuel than a KC-10. At 2,500 nm a KC-45 can provide more fuel than a KC-10.

“But the US currently has just TWO, one with fuel capacity of ~200,000 lbs (& we don’t use its full capacity most of the time) & one with fuel capacity of ~350,000 lbs.”

The US Air Force has 3 aircraft types. KC-10, KC-135R and KC-135E. US Marine Corps has KC-130 and Navy F/A-18 Hornet with a body system and KS-3A.

Now Air Force will introduce some day a KC-45. Later on there are the KC-Y and KC-Z programs.

“Sorry, but only the THREE is even CLOSE to realistic.“
Why? Because Air Force just have 3 types of heavy bombers? There are over 6 types of fighter aircraft and more than 10 types of cargo aircrafts. So what?

NOBODY EVER SAID THAT THE A330-200/KC-30 BURNS 24% MORE FUEL PER HOUR AT ALL WEIGHTS! What has been said is that when flying similar commercial mission profiles, a A330-200 burns an AVERAGE of 24% (417 gal) more fuel per hour than a 767-200ER.

You CAN derive from common sense that an aircraft that has an operational empty weight of ~265,000 lbs that is 193′ 7″ long, with a 197′ 10″ wingspan will burn more fuel per hour than an aircraft that has an operational empty weight of ~185,000 lbs that is 159′ 2″ long, with a 156′ 1″ wingspan EVEN WHEN CARRYING THE SAME PAYLOAD. AND you can derive from common sense that since we don’t even use the full capacity of the KC-135 MOST of the time (& even if we DOUBLED what has been the average over the last four conflicts the KC-767AT would be enough) that replacing the KC-135 with a tanker that is BIGGER & HEAVIER (but with 110,000 lbs less fuel capacity) than the KC-10 is the WRONG thing to do.

The A330-200 is “more efficient PER PASSENGER” when carrying many more passengers than the 767-200ER can carry but just as more tanker sorties require 100,000 lbs of offloaded fuel, more airline routes require 200 passengers. For any route that requires <180 3-class (or <225 2-class) passengers, the 767-200ER is “more efficient PER PASSENGER” than the A330-200.

Yes, most of the time even the full capacity of the KC-135 is not utilized/required yet you & your fellow EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker want people to believe that a tanker that is BIGGER & HEAVIER (but with 110,000 lbs less fuel capacity) than the LARGE KC-10 is the right choice to replace the KC-135…

Wouldn’t be great if the world was SO organized & predictable that the US could procure SEVEN different tankers, one with fuel capacity of 50,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 100,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 150,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 200,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 250,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 300,000 lbs & one with fuel capacity of 350,000 lbs in order to have just the right capacity tanker for most every mission? Sorry, not relistic. Maybe compromise & simplify for something closer to reality with FOUR, one with fuel capacity of 75,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 150,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 225,000 lbs & one with fuel capacity of 300,000 lbs? Maybe get even CLOSER to reality & go for THREE, one with fuel capacity of 100,000 lbs, one with fuel capacity of 200,000 lbs & one with fuel capacity of 300,000 lbs? Sorry, but only the THREE is even CLOSE to realistic. But the US currently has just TWO, one with fuel capacity of ~200,000 lbs (& we don’t use its full capacity most of the time) & one with fuel capacity of ~350,000 lbs.

Once again demonstrating the disingenuousness of EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers.

Completely ignoring all the OTHER higher operating costs of a larger tanker or that the KC-30 would burn MORE fuel per hour EVEN WHEN DELIVERING THE SAME PAYLOAD AS A KC-767AT, or that we already have a large tanker that is SMALLER & LIGHTER than the KC-30 yet has 110,000 lbs GREATER fuel capacity (which could see a drastic fuel efficiency improvement) or that the VAST majority of the time we don’t even utilize the full capacity of the KC-135 much less the KC-767AT or KC-30 or that even IF we managed to DOUBLE the average fuel offload per sortie that the KC-767AT has the fuel offload capability to do so…

Also ignoring that NO justification has been made for including cargo capacity as a parameter in determining a TANKER (nobody doubts the utility of cargo capability) & that the KC-767AT can carry more cargo than a C-17 & that tankers fly MANY MANY MANY more TANKER sorties than cargo sorties & that KC-767AT can operate from airfields which the KC-30 can not…

AND ignoring that the requirement for fuel is MUCH more determined by the number of booms needed to refuel all the receivers in an effective/efficient manner than by the amount of fuel each tanker can carry…

Just as you consider the totality of both F-22s and F-35s when looking at fighter requirements, you should consider the balance of airlift using tanker aircraft vs. C-17s. Past underutilization of tankers for lift does not constrict us to that option in the future.

The A330 gets much greater fuel economy then a C-17 anc carries far more pallets. It also gets better fuel economy with a slightly aft CG so carrying both pallets to gain aft CG and fuel should always be considered on any ferry flight.

If you noted the last few days of airpower summaries, Mhalblaub, the fuel offloaded per sortie was closer to 70,000 lbs than the typical 50,000 lbs. Perhaps the USAF is learning to combine sorties to get more out of each aerial refueling flight. Just think how many flights they could combine with the bigger A330.

It’s still more efficient to guzzle 24% more fuel while delivering 30% more.

You can’t derive from the Conklin & de Decker “study” which aircraft would consume more fuel for both aircrafts operating at same payload.

According to several international airlines except Azerbaijan Airlines an A330 is more efficient than a B767. (I know that lately several B767 were “sold” as compensation for late 787 delivery.)

“Why not KC-757 or KC-737? Because neither would have a fuel capacity of even 100,000 lbs…“
Many tankers return to base during Operation Iraqi Freedom with no fuel offloaded. For these missions you can use smaller aircrafts. You don’t need such a big range for forward based tankers, do you?

He can buy part (68/179ths)of a very nice larger truck for $25K or he can buy part (68/179ths)of a smaller model for $30,800. The smaller truck gets 25 mpg so it burns 600 gallons of fuel a year to drive 15,000 miles. The larger truck gets 20 mpg so it uses 750 gallons to drive the same distance. Of course that is based on carrying a full load of cargo. When they both carry reduced cargo, the larger cheaper plane gets 23 mpg and the smaller plane gets 27 mpg…the difference shrinks.

The difference in annual fuel use carrying the fictional max truck cargo load is 150 gallons. Multiply that by 40 years and the difference is 6,000 gallons. Multiply that by $3.83 and you get a dollar difference in constant today dollars of $22,980 for 40 years of fuel use.…to drive a bigger truck for essential work situations where some gas stations are far and few between and you could run out of gas with a truck that has a smaller fuel tank. And of course gas is nowhere near $3.83 these days, is it.

But Mr. Slick truck salesman says we should plan on that higher starting gas point coupled with 5.5% fuel inflation each year over those 40 years. That means instead of nearly $23K difference in fuel use over 40 years, Mr. Slick is trying to convince you that it will cost you about 3.5 times as much due to the inflation values he skewed.…some $80,430 of future dollars in extra gas over 40 years. Lookie, lookie says Mr. Slick. Oh BTW, he wants you to focus on the fuel use of the ENTIRE fully loaded truck always driven at max gross weight, while forgetting to mention the $5800 upfront price difference applies to just 68/179ths of the KC-X truck in TODAY’S non-inflated dollars.

How many folks would fall for that banana in a tailpipe. Yet Conklin says it to GI Joe with a straight face.

LOL…

AGAIN, “Fuel Consumption Analysis of the
Boeing 767-200ER and Airbus 330–200
in Commercial Service when operated
at High Take-off Gross Weight…”

Why? BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF READILY AVAILABLE DATA FOR 767-200ER & Airbus 330–200 IN COMMERCIAL SERVICE WHEN OPERATED AT HIGH TAKE-OFF GROSS WEIGHT!

Why not KC-757 or KC-737? Because neither would have a fuel capacity of even 100,000 lbs…

MTOW for a A330-200 is about 500,000 lb.
The specific Operating Empty Weight (OEW) is about 273,000 lb. Let’s fill this aircraft with 300 PAX with 250 lb weight each (luggage incl.). The aircraft guzzles about 100,000 lb fuel and lands at 400,000 lb MLW but still with 50,000 lb of fuel inside the tanks.

MTOW for B767-200ER is about 400 k lb but MLW is about 300 k lb. So MLW is 75% of MTOW but it’s about 80% for A330.

So the Conklin & de Decker “study” compares operations that rarely exits and compares different cases. Just guess why Conklin & de Decker didn’t compare such things like fuel consumptions vs payload and range.

Just to remind everybody. At introduction KC-135 was the biggest tanker available. Now even a 767 was said to be to big. Why not use a KC-757 or a KC-737?

BS, I can see that the A330-200/KC-30 CAN carry more (& that in the Conklin & de Decker 767-200ER vs A330-200 AIRLINERS studies that it does) but it is IRRELAVANT. Contrary to what EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers want people to believe, the Conklin & de Decker studies are only to DEMONSTRATE how the KNOWN & UNDENIABLE higher fuel consumption of the A330-200/KC-30 (EVEN WHEN CARRYING THE SAME PAYLOAD AS THE 767-200LRF/KC-767AT) & the changing price of fuel effects fuel costs over the life of the KC-45 — NOT to say exactly HOW MUCH the cost/cost difference between the KC-30 & KC-767AT would ACTUALLY BE. EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers conveniently ignor that I pointed that out when the studies were first released to the public. I have already said TIME & TIME & TIME AGAIN that the KC-45 (whether it be a KC-767AT or a KC-30) will operate MUCH DIFFERENTLY than a commercial airliner. MOST of the time it will carry the SAME payload (which will be LESS than the full capacity of the KC-767AT) requardless of whether it is a KC-767AT or a KC-30 & that its flight profile (when operating as a tanker — which it will do the VAST MAJORITY of the time) will burn MORE fuel per hour than a commercial airliner.

So what if the KC-30 (not KC-45 yet & if the DOD/Department of the Air Force listens to the USAF/AMC/tanker generals & crews it won’t be) can carry 32 pallets vs 19 for the KC-767AT?. We are SUPPOSED to be buying a MEDIUM TANKER to replace the KC-135!!! In the REAL WORLD the KC-767AT won’t carry a full load of 19 pallets all that often much less the KC-30 carrying ANY MORE than what the KC-767AT would carry. There is NO NEED to carry 19 pallets (much less 32) in a MEDIUM TANKER.

A KC-767 can carry 19 463L pallets. A KC-45 32 pallets.

But everybody can imagine pfcem’s reply to these facts.

No, the “problem” is that there simply are not enough VALID pro-EADS/KC-30 &/or anti-Boeing/KC-767AT arguments so EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have to make shit up about, mischaracterize & TRY to discredit Boeing/KC-767AT supporters by harking on typing/spelling errors because they CAN’T counter the pro-Boeing/KC-767AT &/or anti-EADS/KC-30 arguments.

I had already said WAY BACK IN MARCH, when the SECOND Conklin & de Decker study was released that it (JUST AS IT SAID IT DID) compared 767-200ER & A330-200 AIRLINERS flying COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILES in order to DEMONSTRATE how the higher fuel consumption of the 330–200/KC-30 & the increasing cost of fuel effect the fuel cost of operating them at the rate & for the amount of time the KC-X is projected to do so! I made it CLEAR WAY BACK THEN that the total $ amount was not an accurate indication of the ACTUAL $ amount fuel would cost for the KC-X BUT that the Conklin & de Decker studies DO demonstrate how the higher fuel consumption of the 330–200/KC-30 & the increasing cost of fuel effect the fuel adds up to A LOT of money over the life of the KC-X.

That’s the problem buddy. The quality of your spelling parallels the efficacy of your arguments. But you sure can use the caps key!

Later.

Let me spell it out for you.

CONTRARY to what you have posted & CONTINUE to falsely promote that the Conklin & de Decker STUDIES are/were deceitful/misleading/invalid. It is quite CLEAR from both the Title, Summary & Intoduction from ALL THREE studies that they are an analysis of Boeing 767-200ER & Airbus 330–200 flying COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILES in order to DEMONSTRATE how the higher fuel consumption of the 330–200/KC-30 & the increasing cost of fuel effect the fuel cost of operating them at the rate & for the amount of time the KC-X is projected to do so!

No matter how you want to try & spin it a larger (193′ 7″ x 197′ 10″ x 16′ 6″ vs 159′ 2″ x 156′ 1″ x 18′ 6″) & heavier (~265,000 lbs vs ~185,000 lbs operational empty) aircraft IS going to burn more fuel. Hell, even if a A330-200 takes off with “only” 125,000 lbs of fuel & a 767-200LRF takes off with 200,000 lbs of fuel the A330-200 will burn MORE fuel every hour than the 767-200LRF.

Yes I looked at the charts, guess what, they PROVE my point. Fuel price IS NOT CONSTANT!!! It would be ABSOLUTELY GREAT if we could buy 750 hrs for 40 years worth of fuel ALL AT ONCE but we can’t. So when we buy fuel 10 years from now is will cost more than it does today, 10 years later it will cost more still & so on & so on. You CAN NOT honestly calculate 40 years worth of fuel cost with a constant $3.83 per gallon! Even IF inflation were 0% for the next 40 years, the price WILL NOT remain at a constant (or average) $3.83 per gallon.

NOBODY EVER SAID ANYBODY SHOULD COMPARE ACQUSITION COSTS IN CURRENT DOLLARS TO FUTURE FUEL COSTS EXPRESSED IN TODAY’S DOLLARS! Such is the typical BS EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers have to come up with. What you DO have to do, however, is compare the TOTAL MPLCC for the KC-30 & the KC-767AT to determine just how much each will REALLY COST you. That means not only acquisition costs & LIFETIME fuel costs but development costs, & ALL SORTS OF LIFETIME OPERATIONAL COSTS.

THE KC-767AT CAN REPLACE C-17 MISSIONS!!! And what you & other EADS/KC-30 Kool-AId drinkers CONTINUE to fail to recognize is that the KC-X IS A TANKER. It will fly MANY TIMES more tanker missions than it will cargo missions & JUST LIKE TANKER MISSIONS will carry the SAME AMOUNT OF PAYLOAD most of the time REGUARDLESS of whether it is a KC-30 or KC-767AT & MOST OF THE TIME said payload will be LESS than the full capacity of the KC-767AT.

If you can show me data that flying at a suboptimal flight level at 275 knots uses less fuel than an optimal flight level at mach .83, I may concede that point. I know you can’t show me data that take-off and landing at max gross will burn the same overall fuel as take-off and landing at far lower weights due to proper flight planning/loading of required mission fuel and fuel transfer in flight.

No airliner kicks 50K lbs of pax and luggage out of the plane at altitude to reduce weight as occurs when a tanker transfers 50K of fuel. You honesty claim that a commercial flight that keeps that 50K extra lbs the entire flight is more fuel efficient than a tanker mission that sheds that weight?

If your KC-767 takes off with 125K lbs of fuel added to its 184K empty weight for a fairly short distance/time mission and 50K fuel transfer, the result is a take-off weight of 309K…some 86K below max take-off weight.

If the KC-30 takes off with 135K of fuel added to its 265,700 lb empty weight for the same mission, the take-off weight is 400,700 lbs…some 113,765 lbs less than max gross weight. Which aircraft is further from its max gross take-off weight to fly the same mission?

The claimed 417 gallon per hour difference between KC-candidate aircraft shrinks considerably in the lighter mode.

Note a 118,765 lb difference between the KC-30 and KC-767 max take off weight. Note that in the above scenario the difference in aircraft t/o weight is just 91,700 lbs. The KC-30’s fuel burn in these typical fuel offload scenarios will be closer to the 767 and nowhere near the fuel burn at max gross.

If KC-X aircraft fly only 100 hours annually with a start take-off weight at max gross and the remaining 650 of its 750 hours a year in a far lighter mode…the overall fuel burn AND difference in fuel burn with the 767 is far less than the Conklin and deDecker’s study implies.
———————————
pfcem: “The price of fuel IS NOT A CONSTANT, it has been increasing at an average rate of 5.69% annual for the past 21 years. It is PERFECTLY REASONSABLE to when calculating the cost of fuel over the next 40 years to use an anualy cost increase of 5.69% — MUCH MUCH MUCH more realistice that assuming it will remain constant.“
————————
Are you serious? Did you look at the fuel inflation price charts I handed you. Have you looked at the price of a barrel of oil today…and what it will do if the economy continues going south and folks drive less?

The entire notion that the DoD should compare current acquisition costs in current dollars to future fuel costs expressed in today’s dollars is ludicrous. At least if you use $3.83 as the constant dollar amount to measure future fuel costs, you get a better perspective of actual life cycle fuel cost. And the Conklin and deDecker claimed difference of 2.2 billion gallons when turned into a more realistic 1.5 billion gallon difference would mean that future fuel costs expressed in today’s constant dollars would be only about $5.745 billion.

Now lets consider the fuel saved by using the larger A330 tanker in place of multiple C-17 missions. My bet is that A330 vs. 767 fuel burn difference disappears entirely.

B)ITAR Regulations. The point people fail to realize is that by the ignorance of the USAF contracting with NG/EADS/AIRBUS the US is contradicting and ignoring ITAR strict regulations put in place to protect our intel from foreign countries. Handing over our technology to foreign countries is prohibited for a reason, and the USAF somehow skipped that point. Sec. Gates shaking up procurement was the best possible scenario, although this deal did not end up as well as we would have wanted.
C)The hose reel design Boeing chose is superior to FRL through NG (a guise at best)

D)USAF procurement did not take into consideration that they “changed up” the SPEC’s of the planes (Boeing vs. Airbus) so it was never an even “playing/bidding” field when all was said and done. The USAF decided they needed a “larger plane” after production was already in progress for the Italian Air Force and the 767 was approved by them?

We need Sec Gate’s attention on this one.

Like I said, your reading comprehenision is SEVERYELY lacking.

“
To determine this impact, an analysis was accomplished, using published data, to calculate the
additional fuel consumption and the resulting extra cost incurred by a fleet of 179 Airbus 330–
200 when compared with the Boeing 767-200ER where both fly similar commercial mission
profiles, both fly 750 hours per year over a 40 year service life and both are operated at or
near their maximum take-off gross weight.
”

THAT IS NOT FUEL BURN AT MTOW, IT IS FUEL BURN FOR THE ENTIRE FLIGHT!!! It even said AVERAGE FUEL BURN!!! NOT FUEL BURN AT MTOW!!!

HOW MANY TIME DO I HAVE TO SAY THERE IS A DIFFERENSE BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILE & A TANKER MISSION PROFILE!!! Guess what, tanker mission profiles burn MORE FUEL than commercial mission profiles. Airliners (their airframes & engines) are SPECIFICALLY designed for maximum effeciency for commercial mission profiles. tanker mission are flown at the wrong speeds (including many more speed changes) & altitude.

Good GOD, the PURPOSE of the Conklin & de Decker was to determine the impact of the KC-30’s higher fuel consumption & the rising cost of fuel. NOT TO DETERMINE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF FUEL THE KC-X WOULD BURN. The only DISTORTION is the BS of EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers like yourself TRYING to fool people into thinking that the Conklin & de Decker studies were something they were not. Conklin & de Decker DID NOT try to hind that it used commercial mission profiles, on the contrary is made a SPECIFIC point it point that out. Afterall fuel burn numbers for commercial mission profiles ARE READILY AVAILABLE! Those for tanker mission profiles ARE NOT.

The price of fuel IS NOT A CONSTANT, it has been increasing at an average rate of 5.69% annual for the past 21 years. It is PERFECTLY REASONSABLE to when calculating the cost of fuel over the next 40 years to use an anualy cost increase of 5.69% — MUCH MUCH MUCH more realistice that assuming it will remain constant.

I have been to many USAF & US ANG bases all across the western half of the US from Minnesota to New Mexico to California (all states were I have lived &/or worked). I have never lived in Billings, Montana. And yes tankers operated from Malmstrom AFB for DECADES. The KC-135Rs which had operated there were relocated [according to sources on the internet USAF wing to California & ANG wing to Florida] in the mid/late 90’s & the “airfield” has been nonoperational ever since.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3737274/B767-and-A330-Fuel-Cons-Report-June-26

Look at the title of the June 26,2008 version of the study. See pfcem see…the analysis is based on “commercial service when operating at high take-off gross weight.”

Go pfcem go, to page 3 and read the bulleted comment just above the chart:

“The additional fuel consumption for a 179-aircraft fleet of A330-200 when compared with B767-200ER where both fly similar commercial mission profiles, both fly 750 hours per year and both are operated at their maximum take-off gross weight at the start of each mission profile and/or their maximum landing weight at the conclusion of each mission profile is shown in the following table.”

Look pfcem. Your naughty friends attempt to have the aircraft take-off and land without burning or transferring any fuel…otherwise how does it land at max landing weight at the conclusion of each mission profile?

Oh that’s right…this is a commercial mission profile. All those fat pax and bags stay on board. No fuel is transferred to other aircraft to make it lighter and burn less fuel as the mission progresses. Bad Conklin bad. You could have kicked passengers and luggage out the door to simulate fuel transfer and you could have slowed the aircraft down to 275 knots thus burning less fuel for an hour or so to more closely resemble a tanker mission.

Take this pill for your attention deficit disorder, little pfcem, because Daddy is going to use a big word: distortion. That’s kind of like when little pfcem tells a fib and daddy has to spank him.

Now little pfcem, while still on page 3 look at the table, that thing with boxes and numbers. Look pfcem. See the average gallons per hour that Conklin used for each aircraft. These are based on take-off “and/or” landing at max weight which means your cited average fuel burn is higher than normal. That higher average is what leads to the claimed 313,210 gallon difference for one of each aircraft flying 750 hours for a year.

When daddy’s car is fully loaded with pfcem and mommy and all the other kids and all our bags,our car gets only 15 mpg. But because daddy steps on it, the fuel mileage drops to 13 mpg. When daddy drops you 8 kids, mommy, and the bags off at soccer practice and then drives for an hour at 40 mph instead of 80 mph, daddy’s car gets 27 mpg. When you average the two segments of the trip that are equidistant, daddy is happy that he gets 20 mpg instead of 13 mpg when gas is $4 a gallon.

But wait, there’s more. Daddy could have bought a 8 passenger minvan instead of a 10 passenger van…because most of the time we don’t carry mommy, little pfcem and 7 passengers. That would have meant better gas mileage for sure. But daddy thinks mommy would not have been happy if he told her and little pfcem they had to stay home because there was not enough room in the car for twice weekly trips to soccer practice.

Now pay attention pfcem because daddy is going to use big numbers. Remember that 313,210 gallon difference that Conklin claimed (distorted)?:

313,210 gals x 40 years = 12,528,384 gallons difference for one aircraft flying 750 hrs per year.

But for 179 KC-X aircraft they calculate:

12,528,384 gals x 179 aircraft = 2,242,580,721 gallons difference. Holy big-number batman, that’s more numbers than little pfcem has fingers and toes to count on!

Now let’s use the $3.83 price per gallon that Conklin derived from $130 per barrel (price is currently closer to $107 per barrel):

$3.83/gal x 2,242,580,721 gallons = $8,589,084,161.43 in TODAY’S dollars, But naughty Conklin did not show that number. Naughty Conklin showed the number on page 6 of $30.7 billion.

Naughty Conklin and deDecker applied a 5.69% annual inflation rate to the price of fuel over 40 years…because they chose to focus on a 21 year period beginning in 1988 when fuel was low relative to today…instead of the 14 years through 2001 when gas was at or below normal 3% inflation, or instead of comparing the price of gas to 1982 when gas was similarly pricey compared to other products, goods, and services.

Bad Conklin bad. What if Daddy applied inflation to the price of tankers purchased 12 years from now…or better yet 36 years from now when the USAF will have only replaced 450 tankers at a low 15 produced per year. Daddy could say that the USAF will not spend $100 billion in TODAY’S dollars to replace its tankers. Instead it will spend $300 billion! That’s because the Boeing tankers we buy in 2050 will cost $600 million each instead of $200 million each today. Little pfcem, that’s called dishonesty, distortion, and marketing. Bad Conklin bad, and bad boy, pfcem, for agreeing that analysis methodology makes sense.
——————————

pfcem: “The Conklin & de Decker SPECIFICALLY said ‘flying commercial mission profiles at or near their maximum gross take-off weight’ AND SPECIFICALLY said ‘average per hour’. THAT IS NOT fuel burned at MTOW but the AVERAGE BURNED for an ENTIRE COMMERCIAL MISSION PROFILE.“
———————————
But little pfcem, how can the aircraft land and take-off at max gross weight for landing and/or take-off. That’s what they said. Will Mr. Tanker take-off and land at max gross weight. No pfcem, because it will burn and transfer fuel which makes it lighter and makes it burn less fuel overall.

Remember pfcem, that daddy’s car gets much better gas mileage when carrying and dropping off little pfcem and his little friends. But if daddy carries slim mommy and some of mommy’s fatter relatives for hours and hours, daddy’s gas mileage is gonna suck. Little pfcem, daddy’s van cannot magically not burn any of the 50 gallons in the fuel tank while traveling hundreds of miles. It’s also not true to say that Daddy’s van will get the same mileage carrying mommy’s fat relatives for hundreds of miles at 80 mph vs. dropping most of them off halfway through the trip and driving a lot at 40 mph.…just as Mr. Tanker transfers lots of fuel weight, burns more, and flies at 275 knots to dispense fuel.
——————————-

pfcem:“Good God, Conklin & de Decker did THREE STUDIES! The 1st (Nov 07) determined the fuel usage. The 2nd (Mar 08) determined the cost at $100 & $125 per barrel. The 3rd (Jun 08) determined the cost at $130, $140 & $150 per barrel. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF!!!“
———————————
Little pfcem, daddy went to West Point. He wasn’t real smart there, and was an enlisted combat engineer who went to the prep school to get in, but he finished about mid-class. Daddy is worried that little pfcem would have trouble in junior college let alone a military academy. Daddy thinks Mr. Conklin and deDecker are smarter than daddy and little pfcem…and are smart enough to distort a study in a manner to favor their paying client.

Daddy also wonders if little pfcem ever spent a day in the military. He sure knows a lot of tanker generals and pilots to be living in Billings, Montana. Do tankers support the missiles at Malstrom AFB little pfcem? Does anything fly there pfcem except eagles and their droppings deposited on little pfcem’s head?
———————————–

“pfcem:“The Conklin & de Decker costs ARE IN CONSTANT YEAR DOLLARS.“
———————————-
Yes, they are quoted in constant $30.7 billion TODAY dollars to make it sound high. But that number was calculated using a FUTURE 40 years of excessive 5.69% inflation resulting in gas prices of $33.14 dollars/gal in the 40th year.

Daddy’s sure that if you multiply the highly unrealistic quoted difference between KC-X aircraft of 2.24 billion gallons by the current more realistic $3.83/gallon…that the TODAY’S dollar difference between aircraft is only $8.6 billion…not $30.7 billion. Daddy is also sure that there is nowhere near a 2.24 billion gallon difference because both aircraft will fly much lighter most of the time and will burn less overall and in difference. Daddy also is highly suspicious of a 5.69% inflation rate for fuel.

If Daddy, for the sake of an argument, compares TODAY’S dollars $8.6 billion fuel difference to the procurement difference for 68 aircraft of $3 billion, daddy is inclined to believe that by the time you buy the other 111 KC-X aircraft, the procurement difference between aircraft would be about $8.6 billion too.

But daddy also believes that there is nowhere close to a 2.23 billion gallon difference between the two aircraft in a tanker profile instead of a commercial one at max gross take-off weight and flight at high weight and speed throughout the profile. He also believes that Mr. Tanker General and pilot would prefer a 10 passenger van to an 8 passenger one…despite what little pfcem claims.
—————————
pfcem: “No I don’t believe you. You don’t have the 1st clue what you are talking about (which you CONTINUE to prove with each & every post). ALL Airliner expenses have increased over the past multiple decades! AND NOT ALL AT THE SAME RATE!!! So comparing the % of fuel cost to total expenses IN NO WAY gives ANY indication of the ACTUAL cost of fuel. And the 5.69% fuel cost increase is an AVERAGE, some years it was higher, some years it was lower.“
——————————–
Little pfcem, you shouldn’t chew on that lead paint or hold your breath until you get your way, as it tends to kill brain cells. Feel free to read the big distorted words and numbers in the Conklin study. The $33.14 gas price is listed on page 6. Also little pfcem, check out these links:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm

Does that resemble 5.69% inflation in most of the years. See the spike in 1982 and during Desert Storm and OEF/OIF? But also note the years between 1988 and 2001.

Also see this:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm

And this:

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

I’m through with this B.S for now.