Re: Boeing Set For Huge Profits From Tanker Deal

[ZZBunker]

Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
> In article k.net>,
> "Robert A. Fowler" > wrote:
>
> >What is the offset expense of maintaining and operating the 136 aging Boeing
> >KC-135E aircraft ?
> >
> >- Fewer aircrews (5 people x 100k/year x10 years + 5m training cost + 2
> >crews per airframe) = 30 Million$ for each kc-135 eliminated ~$1.08 Billion
> >savings in aircrew alone. 136 vs 100.
>
> I'm very out of date on KC-135's, but in my time, there were 4 crew
> members and it took 6 crews to hold down and aircraft.
>
> In more recent times, there were 2 or 3 crew on a B-767 and if you add a
> boomer, you are back up to 4, but it still takes 6 crews to hold down an
> aircraft.

But, that's also why Boeing is going down the tubes.
Since nobody but Boeing or the Military understand
the words "Standby".

[Tarver Engineering]

"ZZBunker" > wrote in message
om...
> Ron Parsons > wrote in message
>...
> > In article k.net>,
> > "Robert A. Fowler" > wrote:
> >
> > >What is the offset expense of maintaining and operating the 136 aging
Boeing
> > >KC-135E aircraft ?
> > >
> > >- Fewer aircrews (5 people x 100k/year x10 years + 5m training cost + 2
> > >crews per airframe) = 30 Million$ for each kc-135 eliminated ~$1.08
Billion
> > >savings in aircrew alone. 136 vs 100.
> >
> > I'm very out of date on KC-135's, but in my time, there were 4 crew
> > members and it took 6 crews to hold down and aircraft.
> >
> > In more recent times, there were 2 or 3 crew on a B-767 and if you add a
> > boomer, you are back up to 4, but it still takes 6 crews to hold down an
> > aircraft.
>
> But, that's also why Boeing is going down the tubes.

What are you gibbering about?

> Since nobody but Boeing or the Military understand
> the words "Standby".

You might want to contact some fire fighters.

[Tarver Engineering]

"ZZBunker" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ZZBunker" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Ron Parsons > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > In article
k.net>,
> > > > "Robert A. Fowler" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >What is the offset expense of maintaining and operating the 136
aging
> > Boeing
> > > > >KC-135E aircraft ?
> > > > >
> > > > >- Fewer aircrews (5 people x 100k/year x10 years + 5m training cost
+ 2
> > > > >crews per airframe) = 30 Million$ for each kc-135 eliminated ~$1.08
> > Billion
> > > > >savings in aircrew alone. 136 vs 100.
> > > >
> > > > I'm very out of date on KC-135's, but in my time, there were 4 crew
> > > > members and it took 6 crews to hold down and aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > In more recent times, there were 2 or 3 crew on a B-767 and if you
add a
> > > > boomer, you are back up to 4, but it still takes 6 crews to hold
down an
> > > > aircraft.
> > >
> > > But, that's also why Boeing is going down the tubes.
> >
> > What are you gibbering about?
>
> Nothing a NASA contractor would understand.

That wouldn't include me, but your post came on the same day Boeing sold
another 100 airplanes. I fail to see how Boeing is going down the tubes.

> > > Since nobody but Boeing or the Military understand
> > > the words "Standby".
> >
> > You might want to contact some fire fighters.
>
> I already have, since fire fighters don't anything
> but standby the valve. Which is why most of them
> aren't paid as much as pumpers.

Standby for BLM firmen pays about 1/3 as much on standby.