[Scape]

commanderkai commanderkai:

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.

You are forgetting something here. C-17's are big birds. The bread and butter for boeing has been and always will be commercial and they simply aren't buying. The planes they buy in bulk are small and medium sized airframes only the government buys the really big planes for the most part and although there is a big price tag it is simply not good business for companies like Boeing to run on contracts like that. That's why they demand such high priced contracts to compensate for the loss of time, money, equipment and personnel that could be geared towards making more profitable and less costly airframes. So when they axe a line they really are not cutting their nose here to spite their face, it is sound business practice and we have to pay a huge penalty to keep the line in place.

[Scape]

Loader 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.

From the article:

$1:

OTTAWA -- Three of the military's four new C-17 cargo planes are out of service - including one broken down in Thailand after transporting aid for Myanmar - and this lack of spare heavy lift has critics questioning why the Harper government spent $3.4-billion on the aircraft instead of renting them when needed.

[commanderkai]

Scape Scape:

You are forgetting something here. C-17's are big birds. The bread and butter for boeing has been and always will be commercial and they simply aren't buying. The planes they buy in bulk are small and medium sized airframes only the government buys the really big planes for the most part and although there is a big price tag it is simply not good business for companies like Boeing to run on contracts like that. That's why they demand such high priced contracts to compensate for the loss of time, money, equipment and personnel that could be geared towards making more profitable and less costly airframes. So when they axe a line they really are not cutting their nose here to spite their face, it is sound business practice and we have to pay a huge penalty to keep the line in place.

Yes, you're right. The bread and butter of Boeing is commercial aircraft. However, like I said, if people start seeing Boeing not picking up the slack for a defective aircraft, why would anybody, big or small, want to buy a company that won't help out their consumers, why would anybody buy their product? There are other commercial (big or small) aircraft producers...Bombardier, and Airbus, that come to my mind right now (I will admit my knowledge in private aircraft isn't best, I'm not John Trovolta)

I mean, to use my car analogy again. If let's say Mercedes made a military truck, which had something defective...and Mercedes decided to not cover the expense for their flaw...you wouldn't think that this poor PR, which I'm sure some part of that government picked up on, would spread across the country? So now instead of 30 military supply trucks, they lose out 30,000 luxury car sales, partially due to bad reputation and PR, and partially due to the more patriotic citizens who are pissed at Mercedes for screwing over their country.

[Scape]

Well the damage would be non specific because it would be to a line the bulk of the business isn't servicing. true, they will still take a hit, but really the damage is to customers who expect to take that hit like governments who don't expect much in follow though and are not prepared or seriously committed to do so. You know, like the one we are talking about?

[Loader]

Scape Scape:

Loader 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.

From the article:

$1:

OTTAWA -- Three of the military's four new C-17 cargo planes are out of service - including one broken down in Thailand after transporting aid for Myanmar - and this lack of spare heavy lift has critics questioning why the Harper government spent $3.4-billion on the aircraft instead of renting them when needed.

Not to belabour the point, but when an aircraft needs to do work to get certified to fly into a war zone its not out of service. Didn't think you were one of the folks who would complain on one hand the 17s are "broken" and the next day complain they suck cause they can't support the troopies in theatre.

[Scape]

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

What's next Loader, the dog ate my homework? If you are looking for sympathy it's between shit and Syphilis in the dictionary.

[RUEZ]

Scape Scape:

bootlegga bootlegga:

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.

What's next Loader, the dog ate my homework? If you are looking for sympathy it's between shit and Syphilis in the dictionary.

So are these planes actually "broken" or what?

[Scape]

The parts are and since we don't have adequate spares the planes are.

[Hyack]

Where are they now? As of 24 May.


1 At Canadian Forces Base Trenton, broken down and rated "unserviceable" because it is awaiting parts. It's not known when these parts will arrive.

2 In Bangkok, broken down after an aid flight to Thailand last week to help cyclone-stricken Myanmar. It will have to be flown elsewhere to be fixed.

3 Believed to be in Texas being fitted with defensive aids that will help protect it from missile attacks.

4 Supporting the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

I mean, to use my car analogy again. If let's say Mercedes made a military truck, which had something defective...and Mercedes decided to not cover the expense for their flaw...you wouldn't think that this poor PR, which I'm sure some part of that government picked up on, would spread across the country? So now instead of 30 military supply trucks, they lose out 30,000 luxury car sales, partially due to bad reputation and PR, and partially due to the more patriotic citizens who are pissed at Mercedes for screwing over their country.

They do.

$1:

Atego, the lightweight, medium-duty truck range, offers a GVW range from 10t to 15t. Power comes from four inline engines producing 130kW (177hp) 675Nm up to 210kW (286 hp) 1,120Nm, which can move 3t to 5t payloads effortlessly.

Axor, the semi-heavy-duty truck range, offers a GVW of 18t. Power comes from four inline engines producing 175kW (238 hp) 850Nm up to 240kW (326hp) 1,300Nm which transport 5t to 7t payloads.

Actros, the heavy-duty truck range with a GVW up to 41t, is already well established in the civilian market and offers several axle variations: 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 and 6x6 truck tractor. Power comes from V6 and V8 engines offering seven different output versions, from engines producing 235kW (320hp) 1,530Nm to high-power 442kW engines (609 hp) producing 2,400Nm.

S-Type, the medium and heavy-duty truck range with a GVW up to 27t, offer two axle variations: 4x4 and 6x6. Its payload capacities range from 4t up to 10t. Power comes from a V6 engine which offers an output of 240kW (326hp) producing 1,300Nm.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/mercedes-benz/

I think your analogy assumes many Canadians care about the CF, but the sad fact is that they don't. Otherwise Harper would have gotten at least a little political capital from his defence spending.

[commanderkai]

bootlegga bootlegga:

commanderkai commanderkai:

I mean, to use my car analogy again. If let's say Mercedes made a military truck, which had something defective...and Mercedes decided to not cover the expense for their flaw...you wouldn't think that this poor PR, which I'm sure some part of that government picked up on, would spread across the country? So now instead of 30 military supply trucks, they lose out 30,000 luxury car sales, partially due to bad reputation and PR, and partially due to the more patriotic citizens who are pissed at Mercedes for screwing over their country.

They do.

$1:

Atego, the lightweight, medium-duty truck range, offers a GVW range from 10t to 15t. Power comes from four inline engines producing 130kW (177hp) 675Nm up to 210kW (286 hp) 1,120Nm, which can move 3t to 5t payloads effortlessly.

Axor, the semi-heavy-duty truck range, offers a GVW of 18t. Power comes from four inline engines producing 175kW (238 hp) 850Nm up to 240kW (326hp) 1,300Nm which transport 5t to 7t payloads.

Actros, the heavy-duty truck range with a GVW up to 41t, is already well established in the civilian market and offers several axle variations: 4x4, 6x6, 8x8 and 6x6 truck tractor. Power comes from V6 and V8 engines offering seven different output versions, from engines producing 235kW (320hp) 1,530Nm to high-power 442kW engines (609 hp) producing 2,400Nm.

S-Type, the medium and heavy-duty truck range with a GVW up to 27t, offer two axle variations: 4x4 and 6x6. Its payload capacities range from 4t up to 10t. Power comes from a V6 engine which offers an output of 240kW (326hp) producing 1,300Nm.

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicles/mercedes-benz/

I think your analogy assumes many Canadians care about the CF, but the sad fact is that they don't. Otherwise Harper would have gotten at least a little political capital from his defence spending.

I know they do, the assumption was making a defective military truck. And yes I do agree that a good number of Canadians sadly don't care much about the CF, but I think Harper got Political capital from military families and such. 80,000 soldiers and their families are probably more grateful that they're getting new equipment...I hope anyway...