Boeing’s Charles Johnson suggested that a/c weight translates directly into operating costs. If so, it’s worth discussing why Boeing’s 787 is being touted as more efficient than anything Airbus can offer when it’s even heavier than the A330/KC-X

The reason why the 787–9 has a higher MTOW (despite its LIGHTER OEW) than the A330-200 is because of its GREATER (weight) capacity. The A330 can not even carry its own weight in payload!

The KC-767AT was to have the higher MTOW of the 767-300ER, it appear the KC-767NG will NOT use the higher MTOW landing gear, flaps et cetera.

The A330-200 carries up to 295 3-class passengers,

Airline experts know full well that the 767 & A330-200 do do not compete for the same market segments AND that the recent ‘sucess’ of the A300-200 vs decline of the 767 is because the A330-200 segments continuing to grow while the 767 segments declining. That is ALSO why the 787 is larger than the 767. THE purpose of the A330-200 was to fit IN BETWEEN the 767 & 777 so as to NOT compete directly with either.

I’m aware of that.

Boeing’s replacement for the 767 is the heavier 787.

Also I’m aware that many airlines are eager to replace their B767 with B787.

So what is the advantage of a lighter B767 for UASF?

“767-200ER MTOW: 395,000 lbs

A330-200 MTOW: 513,000 lbs “

Keep in mind these two figures. Boeing often claims A330-200 needs 24 % more fuel per hour compared to 767-200ER both aircraft operating at MTOW. According to Boeing’s publications KC-767 for USAF is going to weight 412,000 lbs. 17,000 lbs heavier than basic 767-200ER. Hint: a B767 consumes about 10,500 lbs/hour.

“The 787–9 carries a similar # of passengers as the A330-200 >25% FARTHER than the A330-200.”

“similar” is the word. A 787–9 carries up to 290 pax at 8,000 nm and an A330-200 up to 404 pax at 6,000 nm.
Difference between MTOW and Max Landing Weight (MLW) is 120,000 lbs of fuel for a 787–9 and 124,000 lbs for A330-200.

A 787 uses 0.05 lb of fuel per pax and nautical mile an A330-200 also.

The figures for 787–9 are still estimations. So the final official figures may vary.
“According to ILFC’s Steven Udvar-Hazy, the 787–9’s operating empty weight is around 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) overweight”

“The A330-200 DID NOT kill the 767, they did/do not even compete for the same market segments!”

Airline experts won’t agree with you on that.
767-200ER got about the same range than A330-200 but with less pax. An A330-200 offers at least 30 % more seats. A 767-300ER offers about the same amount of seats but less range. Just the 767–400 offers more seats but range is about 1,000 nm shorter.

Boeing’s tanker bid is based on the 767, not the 787 but just so that you can get the facts correct.

767-200ER
159′ 2″ x 156′ 1″
OEW: 181,600 lbs
MTOW: 395,000 lbs

A330-200
193′ 7″ x 197′ 10″
OEW: 265,100 lbs
MTOW: 513,000 lbs

787–9
206′ 1″ x 197′ 3″‘
OEW: 254,000 lbs
MTOW: 545,000 lbs

The 787–9 carries a similar # of passengers as the A330-200 >25% FARTHER than the A330-200.

The A330-200 DID NOT kill the 767, they did/do not even compete for the same market segments!

And I must disagree with you on the importance of buying American vehicles. A strong and healthy American economy filled with domestic manufacturing jobs (auto industry is but one example) is just as important as any defense contract. Our great nation is currently on a path to becoming the world’s most powerful military protecting a country whose only business is lawsuits and selling cheeseburgers to each other.

The car analogy was an over-simplification on my part but still valid for my needs in this conversation. I was attempting to draw attention to the hypocrisy of those (not you in particular, i have no idea what your spending habits are and meant no offense) who are encouraging the DoD to buy American at whatever price when they have a garage filled with foreign automobiles at home that were purchased with value in mind.

One can in no way compare defense equipment with every day vehicles. The purpose is totally different. We can not rely on others for that and need to be self reliant.

Boeing is the only remaining American corporation able to meet the USAF requirements without assistance. The inclusion of foreign companies into the competition is seen by the DoD as the best way to lower contract costs.

Cost and value will trump patriotism and national security concerns. One has only to look at American roadways to see this in action. Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, BMW, Nissan, etc.

For what it’s worth, I drive a Jeep.

The latest proposals have all sorts of changes designed to upgrade the original proposal. But there is a reason why nobody is buying even the latest commercial 767 anymore — it’s an old design and just cant compete on the basics with the 330 which is still selling strong.

The purpose of buying civilian designs is to get the best design at the lowest cost not to prop up obsolete commercial production lines.

Combat maneuverability? Is this truly a make or break requirement for a tanker? “Too close for missiles, I’m switching to guns.” That sort of combat maneuverability? Or is Boeing referring to emergency breakaway maneuvers and/or SAM/AAA avoidance without actually referring to them?

Airbus (more that most) is well aware of what can happen if pilot inputs are left unlimited with modern aircraft.

This seems to be the old 1950’s way of selling cars, priced the car stripped down and then start with the add on’s, hey you don’t want these cheap dangerous two play tires that the manufactures ship on your new car, how about some four plays for only a few dollars more? Say did you want a radio? You know it gets cold in the winer around here how about a heater?

Boeing either bid the aircraft as the AF spected out with 372 criteria, or it didn’t. The 787 cockpit just seems to be more gold plating by a defense contractor, I don’t recall the Air Force asking for the 787 cockpit before the bids were turned in, the tax payer can’t afford this. Of course Boeing could have bid the 787 cockpit as an alternate bid to the original bid, did they? What’s next, oh you want seats?

Or is Boeing with the highest price trying a “value added” end around run to steal the contract?

Another question. As everybody knows there are three bid numbers floating around the net and Boeing’s is the highest, why hasn’t the Federal contracting agency that put this out to bid posted the bid results?

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner