NEW YORK -- Bank of America customers will soon be unable to spend more than they have in the accounts linked to their debit cards. It's a step that may become a common move ahead of new regulations limiting overdraft fees.
Rules set by the Federal Reserve that will ban banks from charging such fees, without first getting permission from the customer, are set to take effect July 1.
But Bank of America is going a step further than the regulations require. It will simply no longer allow debit card purchases to go through if there isn't enough money in the account.
That's how it should be: no money, no purchase.
For ATM transactions, customers who try to withdraw more than their balance will have to agree to pay a $35 overdraft fee before they can get the money.
"The majority of our customers who overdraw their account do so with everyday debit purchases," said Susan Faulkner, senior vice president of consumer banking for Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America. "They're doing this unknowingly, because they aren't aware that they are about to overdraft."
Since the bank doesn't have the ability to notify the customer when they're at the register and give them the chance to agree to a fee, it will simply reject such transactions.
Consumers have demonstrated a willingness to pay overdrafts for covering the mortgage and the car payment, said Greg McBride, who follows the banking industry for Bankrate.com. "But not if it's things like covering a latte and a scone."
The bank's new policy will kick in on June 19 for new accounts, and in early August for existing accounts. It will replace the bank's current terms, which allow overdrafts to go through but only charge a fee if the deficit is greater than $10.
Bank of America likely won't be the last to make the change. That's because while the new rules will save consumers from surprising dings on their accounts, they will also cut deeply into the more than $1.77 billion annual revenue overdraft fees generate for the banking industry.
Faulkner would not estimate how much such fees pulled in for Bank of America in the past.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. estimates about 41 percent of that total is from point-of-sale debit transactions. About 8 percent was from ATM transactions. The rest were from bad checks and online bill payments, which are not addressed in the regulation.
What's more, 93 percent of overdraft fees are generated by just 14 percent of customers.
The 80/20 rule in action.
Because most of the fees were paid by what Robert Meara, a banking analyst with the consultant Celent, called "serial overdrafters," the rules may not save the average consumer much money. In fact, because banks will look to make up that lost revenue, it may actually cost most individuals more.
"What this may do really is produce the unintended consequence of creating the demise of free checking," said Meara. Banks jumped into free checking in the last decade because of competition, but at the same time started allowing overdrafts that generated huge sums. If they can't charge those fees, it's likely they won't offer the free products anymore either.
Or, he suggested, consumers might start seeing deals advertised where free checking kicks in after a certain number of transactions, or if a customer has several accounts linked together.
"I think banks will use this as an opportunity to be creative and differentiate themselves in ways that was really hard to do when everybody had a free checking account," Meara said. "There's a way this can be a win-win for everybody, but in the short term I think it's going to be challenging for banks to make up for that lost revenue."
Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy See's chief exorcist.
Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist for 25 years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic possession, said that the consequences of satanic infiltration included power struggles at the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not believe in Jesus, and bishops who are linked to the Demon".
Father Amorth, who has just published Memoirs of an Exorcist, a series of interviews with the Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, said that the attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 had been the work of the Devil, as had an incident last Christmas when a mentally disturbed woman threw herself at Pope Benedict XVI at the start of Midnight Mass, pulling him to the ground.
"Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God," he said. Some Vatican officials were more pious than others, "but from there to affirm that some cardinals are members of satanic sects is an unacceptable distance."
Father Amorth told La Repubblica that the devil was "pure spirit, invisible. But he manifests himself with blasphemies and afflictions in the person he possesses. He can remain hidden, or speak in different languages, transform himself or appear to be agreeable. At times he makes fun of me."
#3
sex abuse scandals in my Catholic Church were a demonstration of the powerful to hide, obfuscate, and enable disgusting and (sinful and morally) unacceptable behavior. The offending parties are being rooted out (have been for the most part) and hopefully prevented forever. Evil has a face, and sometimes it's simply "the convenient over the difficult, but necessary". Sad to say, fallible human nature includes the clergy, but one expects, and rightfully demands, more
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/10/2010 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God,"
Or, like a Jesuit said "We are like signposts,it doesn't matter if they're dirty or not, they still show the Way."
Road signs warning drivers that intoxicated people may be in the road have been put up as Romania tries to reduce the number of accidents.
The signs read "Attention — Drunks" and show a reveller crawling along with a bottle in his hand.
Petru Antal, the Mayor of Pecica in Romania said his town had a vibrant nightlife.
"We are a border town and have lots of cars thundering through here all the time," he said. "But we also have a very vibrant nightlife and the two don't mix. We have to target the drivers because by the time they get to this state the pedestrians are beyond caring."
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged quake-stricken Haiti on Tuesday to hold legislative elections "as soon as appropriate," saying new polls were key to the stability and legitimacy of the Haitian government. Clinton, speaking to reporters after meeting with Haitian President Rene Preval, said rescheduling elections delayed by the Jan. 12 earthquake should be a top priority "to ensure the stability and legitimacy of the Haitian government." There is no government. There won't be a government after an election. Haiti is a basket case. It needs aid, technical assistance and outside governance until it can recover, not just from the earthquake but from fifty years of dictatorship and turmoil.
"I assured President Preval that the United States would work with the international community to hold elections as soon as appropriate," Clinton said.
Preval has said he would not seek to extend his term in office beyond its scheduled conclusion on Feb. 11, 2011, and said on Tuesday he was confident that legislative elections -- originally scheduled for Feb. 28 -- could be organized in time to ensure an orderly transition. "What we must absolutely avoid is that we have a temporary provisional government that does not enjoy legitimacy," Preval said during his appearance with Clinton, although he gave no dates for when the elections might be held.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I call BS. The key to Haiti's stability is them being responsible for themselves. We are "aiding" them to death.
#2
you got that right. Damn , all those idiots can think about is an election somewhere
Posted by: chris ||
03/10/2010 2:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Simply a matter of ending oppressive colonial rule and Aparthied, establishing legitimate majority rule, etc. Examples include 'legislative elections' in Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Detroit.
#4
The key to Haiti's stability is the establishment of heretofore absent property rights. Then maybe France could return some of the money it extorted.
China's exports jumped by 46% in February compared with a year ago, raising hopes of a strong recovery in global trade. The increase was higher than analysts' expectations of a rise of between 35% and 40%.
The recovery seems to have gained legs and this will give China's government more confidence to start revaluing the yuan.
Ren Xianfang, IHS Global Insight
It is likely to increase pressure on the Chinese government to raise the value of the yuan, which the US in particular complains is undervalued. China's imports also rose strongly, increasing by 44.7% last month.
The rise in imports reduced China's trade surplus to a one-year low of $7.6bn (ÂŁ5bn) for February.
What could go wrong?
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is trying to encourage public retirement funds that control more than $2 trillion to buy all or part of failed lenders, taking a more direct role in propping up the banking system, said people briefed on the matter.
Direct investments may allow funds such as those in Oregon, New Jersey and California to cut fees for private-equity managers, and the agency to get better prices for distressed assets, the people said. They declined to be identified because talks with regulators are confidential.
#1
Dead horse. Stick. If they had rechartered Hamilton's Bank of the United States for 20 years back in the fall of 2008 to absorb all these banks and institutions, taking not just the debt but the assets as well would we still be here with crap like this? You would have seen the Wall Street firms pay big bucks for a lot of the banks and the like and take the debt in order to get their hands on them rather than see the assets disappear for 20 years. We're killing little ones so that the Big Ones won't have competition in the future rather than consolidating our own Big One from the market. Instead we pass the assets on and suck up the debt in the continuing wave of FDIC closures.
#2
"Seriously. Two Words. 'Gigli 2'. It will be a guaranteed box-office smash. Trust me. The public is dying to see Ben Affleck and J-Lo together again. You'll make a fortune!...Hello?...Hello?"
The economic crisis and the resulting growing unrest offer the EU government in Brussels a welcome opportunity to quietly test the deployment of a 'secret' EU force, which was established to put down uprisings in the EU. This secret unit is called EUROGENDFOR, has its headquarters in northern Italy, and is now preparing to leave for Greece, to be deployed against the population of an EU country.
In Brussels, all preparations are being made to for the first time employ the 'secret' EU force to crack down on uprisings. Most Europeans have never heard of this 'secret' unit.
The staff of the European task force of 3,000 troops has its headquarters In the Italian town of Vicenza [in the "Generale Chinotto" barracks], and is called "EUROGENDFOR".
It was initiated by the former French Defense Minister Alliot-Marie after the French had to deal more and more frequently with internal uprisings of Muslim immigrant youth with street battles and looting.
With the powers of the secret service, the equipped unit must in close cooperation with the European military guarantee the 'security in European foci of crises'. It is its duty as a police force to crush rebellions. More and more EU countries are joining EUROGENDFOR.
From the Eurogendfor website: "...the EGF HQ is now developing a comprehensive and coherent operational system, which will permit to be ready in case of prompt deployment to crisis areas. EGF goal is to provide the International Community with a valid and operational instrument for crisis management, first and foremost at disposal of EU, but also of other International Organizations, as NATO, UN and OSCE, and ad hoc coalitions."
Note: Turkey joins the European Gendarmerie force as Observer. "Furthermore," Furthermore EGF states: "...it is excellently suitable for deployment parallel with or immediately after a military operation to maintain public order and safety as well as in situations where local police services are not (sufficiently) deployed. Since January 2007, the EU has in theory always had two battlegroups on call, each comprising at least 1500 combat soldiers."
EUROGENDFOR is nothing else but a paramilitary police unit which in times of crisis can be deployed instead of the regularly army, so as not to raise the impression that an army of the country itself would fire on its own citizens.
To that purpose the secret unit EUROGENDFOR exists. The European Gendarmerie Force could theoretically be deployed anywhere the EU sees a crisis -- for example, when an EU country does not ratify the Lisbon Treaty, or against the will of the central government in Brussels wants to leave the EU. It's in the Lisbon Treaty, which regulates the deployment of EUROGENDFOR.
#2
Well, if it was needed, this is a perfect statement that there is no such thing as national sovereignty left in the EU. Greeks no longer control their country and every other "nation" in the EU is the same.
Who will be the next to feel the weight of the EU? Portugal? Italy? Spain? If the EU goes after a larger "province" with its police might, things could get a trifle interesting, no?
#3
Where do they get the idea this force is going to Greece? It sounds like a glorified policeman's association to me. The sort of thing that could muster a few thousand troops of lousy quality, not some sort of ridiculous fascist boot brigade.
#6
If they do go to Greece, I hope they get butchered. I want to see the complete collapse of the EU and then a disbanding and return to its individual Nation States & currencies.
#7
The Brussels Journal is getting a little paranoid here. So far in Greece, all that has happened is a few Lefties and trade unionists have instigated some minor disturbances.
Wait till next year and the year after when the austerity measures really bite and the Greek economy goes into a major slump. You may well see large scale disturbances then.
#8
Lemmee know if it looks like the lefties and union guys are planning the type of uprising riot that the EU would send their "police" to "put down" - I'll order more popcorn. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/10/2010 20:34 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I strongly recommend a NEW TITLE-ACRONYM, as the curr sounds off like "EURO GENDER".
You can just hear THE SIMPSON'S DEVILISH MONTY BURNS going, "DID YOU HEAR THAT, SMITHERS, I HAVE TO WATCH MY STEP BECUZ THE GENDER FORCE [Two World Wars-losing Germans]IS AFTER ME"!
The powerful House Appropriations Committee announced Wednesday it will no longer approve earmarks directed at for-profit companies.
Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and newly appointed defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) made their ruling less than an hour after House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) asked that House Republicans meet to take up a unilateral moratorium on earmark spending.
In a statement Obey said that "these new policies are not intended to be a one-year experiment. They are intended to be a long-term proposition."
A number of Democrats and Republicans have undertaken efforts to rein in so-called "pork barrel" spending in recent days, sparking a battle between the parties over who can best reform the earmark process.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has lobbied members of her party in recent days to impose a moratorium on earmarks in order to get out in front of Republicans on the issue.
Republicans discussed enacting a ban in the last Congress, but a vote never materialized.
That the Appropriations Committee decided to bar for-profit earmarks signals that Democrats are looking to make a splash with their effort. Without harming the 'community organizations' that are vital to their re-election hopes ... Dicks' successor atop the defense appropriations subcommittee, the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), was known for handing out millions of dollars in earmarks to defense contractors to create projects in his district. Murtha's propensity to dole out cash for his district sparked several probes by the ethics committee and federal prosecutors.
Government watchdogs have for years decried the use of earmarks, saying that they are wasteful and cause corruption.
Several lawmakers have pushed for reform for several years, but spending has ballooned under both Republican and Democratic Congresses.
Obey and Dicks claim that 1,000 earmark requests would have been turned down last year if the rule was in place on their panel. The ruling also requires agencies to audit at least 5 percent of non-profit earmarks.
They also announced the creation of a program that allow companies that don't have connections to the Pentagon to present their products to Defense Department officials.
In a release, the two Democrats also touted earmark reforms enacted by Democrats in 2007 and 2009 related to earmark disclosure.
But earmark disclosure reforms pushed by the Obama administration has not reduced the amount of spending, according to a recent report by Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Two Republicans have taken up the issue in addition to Boehner.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has indicated he will force a vote on a one-year moratorium on earmarks when the Senate takes up its extenders bill, which is expected to happen Wednesday.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) is planning to offer a privileged resolution on the House floor requesting better guidance from the ethics committee on taking campaign contributions from companies that accept earmarks.
Republicans have argued that Democratic proposals won't go far enough in cutting earmarks. In a statement, Flake praised the committee's move but said more is needed.
"Banning earmarks to private companies leaves untouched the millions of dollars wasted every year by earmarks, but it is a good first step in addressing the corruption that stems from the practice," he said. "I hope that Republicans take these restrictions a step further and impose a moratorium on all earmarks this year."
#2
So basically, this means that stuff like Defense work, which is mostly done by for-profit companies, will be outside the earmark mechanism, while less venally-driven ventures, like the non-profit ACORN, will still be eligible.
#5
This is snake oil. "Not for profit" corporations handle some huge sums. They are just as corrupt as "for profit" companies. Some of the highest paid positions are with "not for profits". It doesn't mean they don't have cash flow, it just means they have to spend it, they can't show a "profit".
WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The Pentagon may speed up awarding a multibillion-dollar aerial tanker contract after Northrop Grumman Corp and Europe's EADS pulled out of the contest, leaving Boeing Co the sole bidder.
The current plan calls for companies to submit their bids by mid-May, with a contract award expected in September; but Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said defense officials are looking at accelerating the current timeline for the program.
"We may be in a position where we will be able to take a look at reducing some of those milestones," he said on Tuesday, referring to the 75-day deadline for bids, and plans for the U.S. Air Force to award a contract 120 days later.
Senator John McCain, whose probe of an earlier $23.5 billion lease-then-buy tanker deal with Boeing eventually scuttled that contract, declined to fault the latest contest. McCain told reporters on Tuesday the Air Force's handling of the competition appeared to be "legitimate," which made it difficult for lawmakers to intervene, even if they would have preferred to see a competitive process.
"I don't see how we can, unless we find some flaw in it, and we haven't found any flaws so far," McCain said.
Defense analyst Jim McAleese said McCain's endorsement of the Air Force process, however tepid, made it unlikely that Congress would intervene to avert a sole-source bid by Boeing. "No one else has the conviction or credibility to generate an intervention," McAleese said.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton chimed in late on Tuesday, saying he was disappointed that there would be no competition, but said it was important to start replacing the aging current KC-135 fleet "without any further delay."
Whitman said the Pentagon was confident it could negotiate a reasonable price for the tankers even if Boeing were the only bidder. EADS on Tuesday ruled out a solo bid for the work.
"There is baseline cost data that is associated with these air frames," he said. "There are also measures the department can take to make sure we are controlling the costs."
He declined to specify what measures were in mind, but federal acquisition rules require sole-source providers to certify their pricing data is accurate, timely and complete.
The government could also buy less than the 179 airplanes expected in this competition if it believed Boeing's prices were too far off the mark, McAleese said.
Unlike the new radar-evading fighter being developed by Lockheed Martin Corp, aerial tanker planes already exist today, Whitman said. He said officials also have ample cost data from the last competition, which Northrop and EADS won in February 2008 but later lost after government auditors upheld a Boeing protest.
Boeing last week said it would offer an updated 767-based tanker this time around, including a new digital flight deck from its 787 Dreamliner and a new fly-by-wire refueling boom.
The European Commission on Tuesday said it regretted Northrop's decision and would be "extremely concerned" if it became clear that the terms of the competition were written to inhibit competition from Northrop and its European partner.
It also noted that the United States traditionally sold more defense goods to Europe than vice versa. In 2008, the United States exported $5 billion, and imported only $2.2 billion of defense material from the European Union.
Northrop said it was disappointed that the rules favored Boeing's smaller tanker, but said it would not protest to avoid further delays in the Air Force getting new planes that are used to refuel fighter jets and other planes in mid-flight.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Golly geez. Think ya need one of dem buffalo when Bush is not Pres?
Well, we needed three. So how, pardner will you give us THREE refuling planes? Will ya storm tha gates for em or just call em home?
Dem refueling planes can be a tricky bunch when you are out in the brush without em... yep.
Make you dream of sweet JP-8 all night long the day you find you could not fuel half of your fleet because you assholes in congress were playing money games with your your local gas station pump extorter's mechanics new flim flam device or prosthetic seem-a-like.
Get three, yes 3 refueling planes or I will drop kick you in da eye.
Hear me pardner?
;)
#2
767 is still the basis. THat means its nto a s good as the EADS/NG. It should have gone to the 777 for design, but ignorant flag-waving fools helped Boeings lobbyists push the process their way, so we ended up with the inferior 767, which Boeing was planning to shut down had this contract not come.
The EADS/NG was not flawless, but it was better over-all, and had a lot more potential. Anyone that knows military aircraft knows that it usually takes a few years until the aircraft are tinkered with by the operations people and made better. But you cannot change fundamental limits involving the airframe and basic range/load capacity.
Politicians pushed this one (Looking at you John "the Asshole" McCain). The EADS/NG tanker was newer airframe, easier to maintain, longer range and carried more load.
The only thing it didn't have was Boeing's lobbyists and a lot of jingoistic morons who wanted a "made in the USA" plane (in spite of 20-30% of the components sourced overseas) instead of one that serves better (and was still 60% US).
So congrats to Boeing, they saved their crappy old 767 assembly line at the possible cost to taxpayers of more money, and cost to military personnel of less capability and higher risk due to shorter range.
And the latter part bothers me the most.
This will have negative effects: the shorter legs require forward basing - meaning we have to entangle ourselves with other countries in order to base tankers there, instead of merely getting overflight. That also has strategic impact in that we now need to maintain bases for these aircraft in forward areas, and they will not be able to haul as much cargo as the other would (and yes, the tankers typically do haul cargo in addition to fuel).
All in all, not a good day for the USAF or the nation.
#4
Boeing is headquartered in Chicago and the 767 production line in Washington state, bluest of the blue states. Northrop's version would have been built in Alabama, a truely red state. Politics over value? Surely not.
#5
Hmm I overlooked that: Boeing = union labor for the most part, NG/EADS = not nearly as much union, especially in major workign areas in Alabama and Texas.
On the upside, at least they are FINALLY getting something to replace the superannuated KC135s (originally entered service in 1957).
#6
many of the components are made in Wichita which could use the employment since the President's attack on private business jets destroyed the market.
Wichita is in flyover country called Kansas, and is not a blue state.
#7
Other than size, why would we prefer the 777 to the 767? Boeing claims they're going to update the 767 based tanker with 787 technology, so other than the fact that the 777 is considerably bigger (and more expensive), what's wrong with the 767?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/10/2010 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Boeing is at least a US company, while EADS is not. I would not want to buy a plane built be committee; we tried that once ( think A-12 AvengerII) and that didn't work out so well. As to the union argument; look again at the EADS labor force, 35 hour work weeks.
take a look at the EU regulations that go way beyond anything we can think up ( OSHA, EPA) they are really burendsome.
as to the airframe itself; there is nothing wrong with a 767; agree that it is not the latest and greatest gee-whiz toy, but it is proven. funny i don't hear a lot of people putting down the C-130J (first flight 1954) in favor of the A400M (first flight 2007).
i am glad that BMAC did not try to stretch the Screamliner into a tanker; it is not mature enough for that, IMHO.
#9
'We don't need fancy, we need hoses in the air.'
Well said.
Posted by: Kelly ||
03/10/2010 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
No! We need the BEST hoses in the air - and more; the tankers are not just flying gas stations.
Did you know that the KC's haul cargo nearly every bit as much on their mission as they do fuel - and that's why cargo is so important which you didn't account for.
These planes will likely be flying 50+ years. The 767 line had been planned to close in a decade except for this contract. Didn't take that into your decision did you?
Did you consider that the original bid the KC45 outperformed the KC767 in cargo lift, range and fuel capacity?
Too me it looks like you'd rather have an inferior flag waving product for the troops than better gear for about the same money. I see where you stand. You are more worried about flag waving than function.
Let me tell your boat riding candy ass something: when you are in the shit, you don't care who made it or where it was made - you just need stuff to work. And that includes the logistics chain.
As for the 777: The 777 is a more modern design air frame, lower cost to maintain, longer between main times, and will remain in production far longer than the 767, meaning we don pay a premium in the out years to get upgrades and parts.
One of the good things to come from the protest and rebid is that it forced Boeing to rework the original inferior design. They did re-engine the 767, update the cockpit to glass, go with the FBW boom (cuts a lot of weight), and in doing so, they upgraded the cargo, lift, range and capacity of the 767 based design to something competitive with the NG/EADS design.
FYI, the Assembly maint, etc was to be done in Alabama.
I could go on. But I will not, the die is cast and idiots like you got their way, and as usual the troops pay.
Go wave a flag and cheer that Boeing is getting the money. Like it will do any difference for the troops out on the pointy end of things.
#11
And USN Ret you are one of the jingoistic buttheads I was referring to. I've run into your sort time and again in the service and the various agencies I worked in over my career. I know the stink. Your kind does more harm then you realize with your interference, you tend to be very handy for politicians to use - and use you they did. How does it feel to be a tool? Guys like you burn me up eventually and I let go. Man up and deal with it.
#13
The European Commission on Tuesday said it regretted Northrop's decision and would be "extremely concerned" if it became clear that the terms of the competition were written to inhibit competition from Northrop and its European partner.
It also noted that the United States traditionally sold more defense goods to Europe than vice versa. In 2008, the United States exported $5 billion, and imported only $2.2 billion of defense material from the European Union.
I don't know whether to laugh or rage. 2008 US-EU trade deficit: $96 billion. That includes the measly $2.2 defense surplus but does not include the tens of billions spent subsidizing European defense. Another way to look at $96 billion is more than twice the entire German military budget. That's goes into Euro retirement funds while it comes out of American kids futures. So who has a bone to pick with whom? In addition, I would not be surprised if in 2009 the $2.2B surplus turned into a deficit (Can you say LUH-72?).
Bottom line: The B767 won on cost. While it is cheaper to produce is also cheaper to operate. The A330 burns 20% more fuel. That comes out to around 1500 gallons on every 6 hour mission and will do so for the next 50 years of service life. This does not even include the new hangers and tarmac the A330 requires but the N767 does not.
Did you know that the KC's haul cargo nearly every bit as much on their mission as they do fuel - and that's why cargo is so important which you didn't account for.
Less than 5% of the time. Less than 2% of the time as primarily cargo hauler. But the A330 carries the weight and fuel burn penalty 100% of the time. Tankers are limited and expensive assets whose airframe hours is better spent doing it primary mission than using up life hauling MREs. Tankers make poorer freighters than their commercial cousins due to extra weight and drag they carry. There is nothing either the B767 or A330 can carry that UPS won't for much less cost and that is why the Air Force contracts that stuff out to the thousands of commercial airframes. Combi tanker/freighters only make sense for small Air Forces that can't afford separate tankers (or too cheap/rely on Uncle Sugar) and proper airlifters (C-17).
These planes will likely be flying 50+ years. The 767 line had been planned to close in a decade except for this contract. Didn't take that into your decision did you?
The A330 will close (see A350 XWB) before the B767 line closes. The Air Force just guaranteed that.
Did you consider that the original bid the KC45 outperformed the KC767 in cargo lift, range and fuel capacity?
20% more initial capacity, decreasing to 0% end capacity due to the 20% greater fuel burn. That is why both aircraft have the same range. The A330 is also is limited in basing options due to it's near 2X footprint. And with billions in new required infrastructure not included in the A330 cost calculations.
Too me it looks like you'd rather have an inferior flag waving product for the troops than better gear for about the same money. I see where you stand. You are more worried about flag waving than function.
Looks to me like you want to blow billions on unneeded, unwanted and unused capacity. Money that could be better used elsewhere, like buying ammo or preparing for the 30% cut Obama desires for the US military.
Let me tell your boat riding candy ass something: when you are in the shit, you don't care who made it or where it was made - you just need stuff to work. And that includes the logistics chain.
The B767 works. You get more refueling booms/hoses that cost less to operate. That's called combat effectiveness.
As for the 777: The 777 is a more modern design air frame, lower cost to maintain, longer between main times, and will remain in production far longer than the 767, meaning we don pay a premium in the out years to get upgrades and parts.
Wrong tender. Look to KC-Y or KC-Z tender in 10 or 20 years to replace the KC-10 "strategic" tanker. The Air Force wants to tankers to refuel fighters.
One of the good things to come from the protest and rebid is that it forced Boeing to rework the original inferior design.
They did re-engine the 767, - Stock B767-200ER engine. update the cockpit to glass, - Yes go with the FBW boom (cuts a lot of weight), - Nothing new. Boeing included that in the 2007 proposal and is offloading fuel. Can't say the same for the Airbus boom. and in doing so, they upgraded the cargo, lift, range and capacity of the 767 based design to something competitive with the NG/EADS design. - Still a 767-200 fuselage (200LRF vs 200ER). Fuel/cargo capacity has not changed. The wing comes from the larger -400 (vs -300).
FYI, the Assembly maint, etc was to be done in Alabama.
Design and airframe parts built in France. Screwdrivers turned in Alabama.
I could go on. But I will not, the die is cast and idiots like you got their way, and as usual the troops pay. Go wave a flag and cheer that Boeing is getting the money. Like it will do any difference for the troops out on the pointy end of things. And USN Ret you are one of the jingoistic buttheads I was referring to. Yada yada...
No need to go on. You've waved your weewee quite enough. In the mean time, the Boeing tanker will get to the troops quicker and cost less to buy and operate.
The Air Force wanted a KC-135 replacement, an updated 100,000 lb class aircraft that could carry 200,000 lbs of fuel. Instead they will get a 200,000 lb widebody that will carry 200,000 lbs and not the 300,000 lb monstrosity. Unfortunately the US is broke and doesn't have the funds to develop a new tanker airframe.
Posted by: ed ||
03/10/2010 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Still a 767-200 fuselage (200LRF vs 200ER).
Correction. The 2007 Boeing proposal already used the strengthened freighter airframe. Airbus proposed using the passenger airframe. That ought to have been fun for the aircrew having tons of pallets on rollers on an non-level surface. To overcome the standard A330's nose-down body angle on the ground, the A330F will use a revised nose landing gear layout. The same leg will be used, however its attachment points will be lower in the fuselage, requiring a distinctive blister fairing on the nose to accommodate the retracted nose-gear. This provides a level deck for cargo loading.
Posted by: ed ||
03/10/2010 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#15
What we need now is planes in the air. This is an unmet operational need from the nineties that has been a total procurement disaster. Mistakes were made. People were fired. Perhaps the Feds would have had to settle a civil suit if it were awarded then. None of that is important.
Getting the 80% solution in the air five years ago was the most important thing.
Similarly now, the most important thing is getting tankers in the air. You will never hear about the mission that ended early, or was never flown, for lack of a tanker. But the opportunity cost there is soldier's lives, lost initiative, and enemies who live to fight again.
Is the Middle East about to go officially nuclear?
Dual announcements Tuesday by bitter rivals Israel and Syria that they want to pursue atomic power plants could complicate the diplomatic storm over Iran's nuclear program and fuel a widening web of suspicion across the Middle East.
In a region where few trust each other to keep a nuclear program peaceful, Israel -- which is widely thought to have a secret nuclear weapons program -- is unlikely to accept Syrian assurances its program is civilian. Looming in the background Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates also have ambitions to develop nuclear power.
Israel's Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau dodged regional politics in announcing his country's intentions at a nuclear energy conference in Paris, painting them instead in earth friendly tones.
"We need this energy source because it is environmentally clean," Landau told The Associated Press on the sidelines of the conference. Nuclear fission contributes far less to global warming than burning of coal, but it worries many because of the risks of long-term waste storage and proliferation of potentially deadly nuclear technology.
Building atomic power plants would enable Israel to reduce its dependence on imported fossil fuels and meet its long-term energy needs. Such construction could also increase pressure on Israel to open its facilities to inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would shine a spotlight on an area the country has long kept secret.
The Jewish state is used to being accused of nuclear hypocrisy. It demands a nuclear-free Iran when no one doubts Israel has nuclear weapons of its own.
Charges of double standards could intensify -- making it harder for Israel to argue that Iran must open all its facilities to world scrutiny.
Landau said his country would open any nuclear power plants to international inspections -- but said "we don't see a reason" to allow inspectors into sites that are believed to house Israel's nuclear weapons, or to sign the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The situation could also complicate U.S.-led efforts to level a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran for refusing to cooperate with nuclear inspectors. Tehran says its uranium enrichment activities are peaceful but many world powers suspect the Islamic republic is seeking weapons.
"Israel's probably trying to create an exemption for itself, but I don't think people will buy it. Too many Arab countries and too many non-aligned countries would react pretty badly," said David Albright, a former U.N. nuclear weapons inspector who now heads the Institute for Science and International Security.
The Iran standoff and Israel's own case illustrate how hard it is for the U.N. watchdog to keep nuclear technology confined to producing electricity and out of the arms sphere.
Syria, meanwhile, has its own nuclear ambitions.
Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mekdad, also at the Paris conference, said his country would like to consider alternative energy sources, "including nuclear energy," to meet rising demand.
So far those dreams appear distant. Syria has little know-how or money to invest in building nuclear power plants, which are enormously expensive. They do, however, reflect rising regional interest in the technology.
The United States is providing financing and training for nuclear power plans in Jordan. The United Arab Emirates in December awarded a South Korean consortium a contract to build energy-producing nuclear reactors. Egypt has two small nuclear reactors used for research and is pursuing power-producing reactors.
Israel has acted in the past to keep regional enemies from pursuing nuclear programs.
In 2008, Israeli warplanes struck a Syrian site the U.S. alleged was a plutonium-producing reactor secretly being constructed with help from North Korea. Syria has maintained the site was an unused military installation.
An Israeli raid in 1981 destroyed Iraq's partially built Osirak nuclear reactor.
Landau called Israel's need for nuclear energy "imminent" but gave no timeline for building a nuclear plant.
Israeli energy expert Amit Mor estimated it would take 15 to 20 years for Israel to build a reactor. The country will also have to find someone willing to sell it the equipment to build the nuclear power plants, which could prove challenging since Israel is not a signatory to non-proliferation treaty.
India could be one source, as well as a possible example for Israel to follow. India has avoided signing the non-proliferation treaty but has developed nuclear energy and weapons with international help, including from the United States.
Landau said his country would like to build a reactor in cooperation with scientists and engineers from "our Arab neighbors" -- a prospect that appears unlikely in the current atmosphere of particularly strained Arab-Israeli relations.
In the past Israel floated the possibility of cooperation with Egypt on nuclear energy; the current talk is of a possible French-Israeli-Jordanian project.
Jordanian officials dismissed the idea.
"It's too early to talk about any regional cooperation with Israel before a solution is found to the Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts," said Khaled Toukan, chief of Jordan's Atomic Energy Commission.
Landau met several months ago with the French Energy Minister Jean-Louis Borloo to discuss possible joint nuclear efforts. France derives more of its electricity from nuclear power than any other country and Paris sees export potential.
It was France that, beginning in the 1950s, helped Israel build its nuclear reactor at Dimona. Israel is believed to have used that reactor to construct a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Israel also has a smaller nuclear reactor for research at Nahal Soreq, not far from Tel Aviv.
A new election law issued by Burma's ruling military bars pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi from joining a political party, and thus from running in upcoming elections.
State-run newspapers on Wednesday published the Political Parties Registration Law, which excludes anyone convicted by a court from participating in the elections.
Ms Suu Kyi, a Nobel laureate, has spent 14 of the past 20 years in detention. She was convicted last August of violating the terms of her house arrest by briefly sheltering an American who swam to her lakeside residence.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION NEWS KERALA > FORMER NEPAL MONARCH BACKS CALL TO DECLARE NEPAL [Tibet] A "HINDU STATE".
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
NEW YORK -- Bank of America customers will soon be unable to spend more than they have in the accounts linked to their debit cards. It's a step that may become a common move ahead of new regulations limiting overdraft fees.
