[RUEZ]

Scape Scape:

Something the cons should keep a keen eye on is the multi Billion dollar price tag and the fact that these fresh off of the assembly line aircraft are grounded and it isn't even a year since we had them.

I don't think anyone would ignore this disturbing fact.

[spikereli]

well laughing at the canadian was a good 90's thing but the true public airforce element is strong with the people that run that aircraft and make it maintainable,, but yes aircraft are over worked,,,, I guess you can say this americans dont work within a budget for maintaining aircraft, but when canadians do,,, they make it last.... yes we have a low budget for aircraft and i agree that f 18s cannot land on aircraft carriers,,, but i think we should button up, and support the cause.

[Loader]

Look folks, the C-17s are the best of the best but they are a software driven aircraft with fresh off the line aircraft having minor problems. We had lots of teething problems with 01 & 02 and quickly overcame them, as we will with 03 & 04. To say the aircraft are grounded gives the impression they are badly damaged or need major repairs. In peacetime, they can and are grounded for very minor items. Many times when flying on operations they are flown unless a defect is a major one. I just flew 13 hours trouble free from Trenton, via Germany and a ME country on my way to Afstan on the sustainment flight referred to in the article. I can tell you the reliability rate of the Canadian, British and US C-17 is the highest of any cargo airplane in the world. Notice the article did not talk about the numerous breakdowns of the Antanov although it has laxer safety standards than military transports. It also did not talk about the delays and problems on the Airbus A 400 which many say we should have purchased. No matter what plane we have they will require maintenance. Leasing will not guarantee we have airlift available when we need it, owning the airframe does. We are well on the way to doing what the Brits have already done which is flying the aircraft more than double the estimated hours, which the maintanence is based on. The Brits are so pleased they ended their leases and purchased the aircraft outright, plus several additional ones. The Australians originally purchased four but are so pleased with the versatility and serviceability they have purchased a fifth. It’s to bad this story is more about sensationalism than an objectively researched story with comparisons to the serviceability rates of other heavy lift cargo aircraft.

[Scape]

When 3 out of 4 are grounded that's more than just a teething problem. C-17 are top of the line and they are brand new so they better work for the price we paid. It is expected there will be some kinks to be ironed out and it is far to early to brand them lemons or white elephants but C-17 itself in not a new line, it's a proven line with a track record. So why shouldn't it uphold that record now? Antanov and Airbus may not be to the same standard but they have a longer service an lower price tag as well. I'm sure we would have had problems with them too but that does not mean this isn't then.

[Tricks]

I fail to see how this is the tories fault. How can they take the heat for Boeing fucking up?

[Streaker]

They never seriously considered any alternatives, and Boeing knew that...

[Tricks]

Streaker Streaker:

They never seriously considered any alternatives, and Boeing knew that...

So? Still don't see how this is the tories fault when boeing fucked up.

[Scape]

Tricks Tricks:

Streaker Streaker:

They never seriously considered any alternatives, and Boeing knew that...

So? Still don't see how this is the tories fault when boeing fucked up.

That encouraged boeing to 'phone it in'. Why should they do a good job if they know they won't be held to task?

[Tricks]

Won't be held to task? How is not looking at alternatives thinking they won't be held to task? Boeing isn't stupid. They aren't going to walk away from this unless they want really bad PR. Blaming the tories for this is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while.

[Scape]

Why should boeing care? The line was slated to close anyway and now they have made their money. You have to hold their feet to the fire now or they will simply say too bad so sad. You broke it and you bought it, chump.

It's not a fantastical scenario Tricks, corps sell people down the river all the time. Ever heard of Bre-Ex? Boing has a rep but if they have no market to sell their over priced birds then they aren't really doing themselves a lot of harm then are they? Might as well hoodwink the suckers while they can and at 3.4 Billion why not?

[Tricks]

Scape Scape:

Why should boeing care? The line was slated to close anyway and now they have made their money. You have to hold their feet to the fire now or they will simply say too bad so sad. You broke it and you bought it, chump.

It's not a fantastical scenario Tricks, corps sell people down the river all the time. Ever heard of Bre-Ex? Boing has a rep but if they have no market to sell their over priced birds then they aren't really doing themselves a lot of harm then are they? Might as well hoodwink the suckers while they can and at 3.4 Billion why not?

Because if they do that they will never get business again. It doesn't make smart business sense.

[Scape]

They were going to stop producing them. Our contract allowed them to keep the line going. There is a saying about cars that you never want to get a car made on a monday or a friday, we got a flock of friday birds. Now, Boeing may bite the bullet here and step up, but really, why should they? We bought the bill of goods already and as far as they are concerned 4 birds out of all the planes they made are not a huge concern. Even if they do walk away at this point they are not going to take a serious hit anyway.

[commanderkai]

Scape Scape:

They were going to stop producing them. Our contract allowed them to keep the line going. There is a saying about cars that you never want to get a car made on a monday or a friday, we got a flock of friday birds. Now, Boeing may bite the bullet here and step up, but really, why should they? We bought the bill of goods already and as far as they are concerned 4 birds out of all the planes they made are not a huge concern. Even if they do walk away at this point they are not going to take a serious hit anyway.

Because they screwed up, and Boeing makes more than C-17s. If they don't give us the parts for the aircraft that were defective basically right after purchase, then they will give us the parts if the next time ANY Canadian company or government agency needs an aircraft, we'd just decide to buy from Airbus or a Russian company or the x number of other military aircraft suppliers.

Its bad business if you decide to say "Fuck you" when your product broke down after being built. If any car company did this, nobody would EVER buy their car again, only difference is that aircraft have a much smaller market.

Corporations aren't as greedy or stupid as you're making them out to be. Reputation and PR is basically everything to corporations. Making defective weaponry is asking to never get a contract again.

[bootlegga]

Loader Loader:

Look folks, the C-17s are the best of the best but they are a software driven aircraft with fresh off the line aircraft having minor problems. We had lots of teething problems with 01 & 02 and quickly overcame them, as we will with 03 & 04. To say the aircraft are grounded gives the impression they are badly damaged or need major repairs. In peacetime, they can and are grounded for very minor items. Many times when flying on operations they are flown unless a defect is a major one. I just flew 13 hours trouble free from Trenton, via Germany and a ME country on my way to Afstan on the sustainment flight referred to in the article. I can tell you the reliability rate of the Canadian, British and US C-17 is the highest of any cargo airplane in the world. Notice the article did not talk about the numerous breakdowns of the Antanov although it has laxer safety standards than military transports. It also did not talk about the delays and problems on the Airbus A 400 which many say we should have purchased. No matter what plane we have they will require maintenance. Leasing will not guarantee we have airlift available when we need it, owning the airframe does. We are well on the way to doing what the Brits have already done which is flying the aircraft more than double the estimated hours, which the maintanence is based on. The Brits are so pleased they ended their leases and purchased the aircraft outright, plus several additional ones. The Australians originally purchased four but are so pleased with the versatility and serviceability they have purchased a fifth. It’s to bad this story is more about sensationalism than an objectively researched story with comparisons to the serviceability rates of other heavy lift cargo aircraft.

I'm amazed that you don't find it troubling that 2 planes are grounded, even though we've only been operating them for 10 months (2 of which are less than 3 months old). Major repairs or not, these planes are sitting on a tarmac out of service. And the USAF has flown C-17s for over a decade, there should be no 'software issues' as you put now. The kinks should have been worked out long ago.

Actually, I can't remember a single person who said the A400M was ever an option. The choice was only between the AN-124-100 and the C-17. The evil Russian plane (built in the Ukraine) actually flies farther, using less fuel and carrying more cargo, making it far more efficient. The only real advantage that the C-17 offered was its landing capability on shorter runways. Everything else was based on interoperability. Where are the Brits/US/Aussies with spare parts now? Probably backlogged just like us.

My biggest complaint was that the government went ot Boeing and Boeing only, insisting that this is only plane we'll ever need. Seems like they were wrong, because we are still renting inferior Russian planes even though we own a fleet of C-17s.

[Loader]

Actually Scape, 2 were grounded, one was undergoing Chaff and flare testing for certification purposes prior to allowing it into Afstan. I imagine with all the press the military will be told to get 3 & 4 flying on an operational basis if they are not hard broken.