If it is a loan, taxpayers should not get a stake.
Amen. As bad as Boeing has been run its nothing compared to the conditions Chuck and Nancy will require. All we need is another Government Motors make work program employing unemployables building airplanes,
Loan guarantees. Shouldn't we the taxpayers at least get some points on the loan? After if the banks won't make the loans without guarantees, why should we do this for free? If actions don't have consequences, don't be surprised if the actions continue.
I agree. They should go for private loans or issue bonds. I know why they won't...they won't get a rate as low as what the govt will give them let alone forgivable. I rather see them bankrupt so a guy like Buffet with loads of cash on sidelines can pick it up for pennies on the dollar and turn the company around with proper management put in place.
It's like a kid. If you keep bailing him out for bad behavior, do you think he is going to change his bad behavior?
Boeing has some self inflicted problems but the FAA dragging out the MAX approval is something else. Boeing is put in an extra squeeze because access to regular funding isn't there. I see the US action as ensuring liquidity and access to affordable capital which is a reasonable role of government. As Rifledriver said, strings that could come with government intervention is problematic. Letting politically connected types that do not intrinsically understand Boeing's business can lead to an assortment of operational and product decisions that are agenda derived. One I can think of immediately is the Embraer acquisition - good business for Boeing but possible bad optics in Washington, DC. Boeing has used outsourcing for decades in part to ingratiate themselves for foreign sales - another good business vs political optics. For me acceptable strings could include for a period of time (5 years?): no stock buybacks, suspend dividend, suspension of bonuses, some restriction on stock options that effectively replaces the lost bonuses.
Using GM as a model, that was and is a train wreck. Company would have benefited greatly from a bankruptcy and been stronger as a result but instead became a plaything for politicians.
Unbelievable. How many more issues like this will pop up in the news? Seems like every month there is something new... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-boeing-pentagon/u-s-air-force-finds-additional-deficiency-in-boeings-aerial-fuel-system-idUSKBN21I06C
I would sure like to know if what the Air Force is complaining about now are designs that they had approved of at earlier stages of the development program. I wuld not find it too surprising if the Air Force is trying to cover their own ass when they are culpable in this too.
The aircraft is a proven product and the fuel system should be similar to that in use on the KC-135 and KC-10, not to mention the existing KC-767 tankers. So I cannot see why there would be so many problems now.
Jim- Nobody else had to certify for as many aircraft as the KC-46, and the video system was new and unproven and had to work in all light conditions. They painted themselves in a corner with the video system and the airflow around all those aircraft proved to be a problem. The KC-135 and KC-10 had much simpler systems and booms.
Simple and straight forward systems and creme of the crop designing and building them. The KC-46 has been hanging on the vine.
Who drove the use of a video system? Was that something that the Air Force essentially drove as the solution? There are comments floating around about how the A330 tanker is already in service with various air forces around the world while the KC-46 is still having issues. But my question is how many changes would have been necessitated by the US Air Force requirements? Would there have been more refueling capability requirements? Does the A330 already work in all light conditions? To satisfy the USAF would they have needed to use a video system?
Most of the A330s and earlier 767 tankers are working with probe and drogue aircraft and maybe one or two US aircraft that need a boom. Not the same problem. All USAF air refuelable aircraft use the much higher flow boom system. Try refueling a C-5 or C-17 with a probe and drogue. Would take all day. AF did not drive the video system. It made it simpler for Boeing than having to put in a manned refueling position in the rear of the aircraft.
I thought there had been some issue of reduced cargo capacity of they had used a manned refueling position because that would have required a walkway the entire length of the cabin.
Boeing, USAF Agree On Dramatic KC-46 Remote Vision System Redesign Lee Hudson April 03, 2020 The U.S. Air Force and Boeing have finalized a deal on a dramatically redesigned version of the KC-46A Pegasus tanker’s problem-plagued Remote Vision System (RVS). In addition, due to a change in cash flow policy prompted by the novel coronavirus pandemic, the Air Force has decided to release $882 million of withheld funds to tie up the negotiations and ease Boeing’s burden. The government and Boeing signed off on two separate memorandums of agreement—the first on the redesigned RVS, which the service is dubbing RVS 2.0, and the second on releasing the $882 million, which had been withheld because of the contractor’s poor performance. “Our teams were able to negotiate those two memorandums simultaneously,” Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper told reporters April 2. “Of course, releasing cash, it’s $882 million. It’s a significant size but so is the scope of the work for RVS 2.0. We’re talking about a major overhaul.” Roper said the KC-46 team employed “creative thinking under fire” to nail down the deal. RVS 2.0 Every facet of the RVS will be altered. The new system will be outfitted with modern, 4K, high-definition cameras, with a fiber-optic cable running imagery from the cameras to larger, 4K color displays for the operators, Roper said. “Right now, the cameras are slanted, which creates that warping... We’ll remove that, which will make the image that the operator sees the same as the reality outside of the tanker, so no more warping or rubber sheeting,” he said. Additionally, the new system will incorporate a “laser ranger LIDAR” where the camera box resides that will paint the aircraft that approaches the tanker and the boom, he said. “We think that will help significantly with them understanding their distance to go because LIDARs are extremely accurate,” Roper said. “They’ll be seeing both the boom and the aircraft in the same reference frame, which means there will be no bias term that would translate into an additional error.” Another new aspect of the system will enable the KC-46 to tank autonomously or semi-autonomously. This capability has been on the service’s roadmap for years and the government agrees it is the future of tanking and mobility, Roper said. “This is going to bring that future about much faster,” he said. “I couldn’t be happier with the design that we have, I couldn’t be happier with the team that helped pull it together, and I think we’re turning a corner and starting a new chapter in KC-46.” RVS 1.5 The new deal does not close the door to RVS 1.5, which is what the service and Boeing analyzed at the end of last year. This iteration of RVS implements numerous software changes and a few hardware updates. “We have told Boeing that we will analyze that design when it’s complete,” Roper said. “If there’s operational benefit to deploying it across our fleet, then we’ll be open to doing so, but the data has to lead us to that decision.” The program anticipates kicking off flight testing of RVS 1.5 this summer, and having it ready for fielding on fleet and production aircraft in the second half of 2021, Jamie Burgess, KC-46 program manager and vice president at Boeing, told reporters April 2. For the RVS 2.0 technology refresh and associated upgrades, testing will begin in 2020 and be ready for fielding in the second half of 2023, he said. “It’s a two-phased approach and we are very, very proud of the capability this will bring to the aerial refueling warfighter,” Burgess said.
Sounds like V2 should fully solve the issue; certainly they think so. Surprising though that testing starts this year but implementation won't be until 2023; sure seems like a long time unless the testing finds a new round of problems.
Jeff- Seems to take forever on changes. I did OT&E for the AF and it took a while even to get a fairly simple software change for avionics or weapons through the system.
A shame if they do. Understandable under the current situation and with the absolute grief that the EU continues to give with their continued scrutiny of the deal. The E190 E2 would be a good solution for Boeing and a very nice counter to the A220.
That would be a shame. I have seen the A220's at ORD and it is a good looking aircraft. If it is anything like the CR700's and CR900's it will have issues that the manufacturer will insist are all the operators fault . EMB aircraft are in general more reliable than the Canadian Rejects(CR) regional aircraft. And the CR200's were even worse. I hope Boeing teams up with them still.
Don't know about the commercial side of Bombardier's product support but with the corporate aircraft they are regarded as substandard. Substandard to the point where operators that are use to Gulfstream support find that enough of a deterrent to not want Challengers/Globals.