Accueil
Portail
Galerie
S'enregistrer
Connexion
par Beochien Mar 18 Mai 2010 - 9:02Bonjour !
Un débat de furieux commence à l'USAF, qui veut améliorer les coûts de maintenance, en particulier en ramenant l'entretien et la modernisation de sa flotte de transport dans ses propres MRO !
Fusillant l'intermédiation de Boeing et Lookheed Martin, et d'autres encore ...
Un coup de hache sur la tire-lire de Boeing !
Mombreux débats et questions ... aprés l'externalisation, le raoatriement !
Ca hurle chez les grands contractistes ...
Réglement de compte avec Boeing, aprés l'affaire "Tankers" en sous jacent ?? Qui sait !
Faut dire que l'addition était salée, en particulier pour les C17 et C5, voir les C-130 aussi !
---------------------- Flightglobal Extrait ------------------
Why is USAF bringing maintenance in-house?
By Stephen Trimble
Control of the multi-billion dollar maintenance budget for Boeing C-17s is the source for an increasingly public and bitter feud between the US Air Force and industry.
The USAF said in January it would take over management of the C-17 supply chain in fiscal year 2012, essentially firing Boeing from the job after a 12-year run. Responsibility for managing the F-22's supply chain also will be transferred from Lockheed Martin to the USAF.
The decisions mean hundreds of millions of dollars in programme integration costs will shift from industry balance sheets to government accounts.
For three months, industry officials tried to argue privately with senior USAF officials, questioning the methodology used to justify a claim that in-sourcing the C-17 maintenance and logistics would yield $12 billion in savings over 30 years or $250 million annually.
But the largely internal argument has now spilled over into the public arena, with one high-ranking industry executive publicly criticising the USAF's reasoning for the decision.
William Begert is the vice-president for military international programmes and business development with Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, which makes the C-17's PW2000-derived F117 engine. But Begert is well-known among senior USAF staff after retiring in 2005 as a four-star general in command of all air force units in the Pacific region.
Begert aired his concerns about the performance-based logistics (PBL) decision on 22 April at the MRO Americas convention, where he spoke on a panel.
In a meeting two weeks before, a senior USAF official told him that the air force did not trust the official database used to calculate the cost of maintaining aircraft, Begert says. The database - called Air Force Total Ownership Cost (AFTOC) - shows the C-17 has the second lowest cost per flight hour of any air force aircraft and has been declining steadily for several years, Begert says.
According to Begert, the USAF official said the database is unreliable for calculating actual maintenance costs. The official added that the business case analysis shows the C-17 is more expensive to maintain under Boeing's PBL contract than the older Lockheed C-5 fleet, which is maintained under the air force's control at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia.
The official's statements about the C-17 cost stunned Begert, who previously commanded a C-5 wing. If true, the air force's statements would certainly appear provocative. The C-17 was designed two decades after the C-5. Moreover, the C-5 faces severe maintenance challenges. The air force is investing $11 billion to improve the reliability and re-engine half of the C-5 fleet, which is partly intended to reduce the cost per flight to operate the aircraft.
The USAF says it could not verify statements between Begert and a specific air force official. Leaders and industry meet regularly to have "open and frank discussions", but the conversations are not recorded, it says.
However, the air force's official position on maintenance costs for C-17s relative to the C-5 is not quite as Begert says he was told.
JPRS
Un débat de furieux commence à l'USAF, qui veut améliorer les coûts de maintenance, en particulier en ramenant l'entretien et la modernisation de sa flotte de transport dans ses propres MRO !
Fusillant l'intermédiation de Boeing et Lookheed Martin, et d'autres encore ...
Un coup de hache sur la tire-lire de Boeing !
Mombreux débats et questions ... aprés l'externalisation, le raoatriement !
Ca hurle chez les grands contractistes ...
Réglement de compte avec Boeing, aprés l'affaire "Tankers" en sous jacent ?? Qui sait !
Faut dire que l'addition était salée, en particulier pour les C17 et C5, voir les C-130 aussi !
---------------------- Flightglobal Extrait ------------------
Why is USAF bringing maintenance in-house?
By Stephen Trimble
Control of the multi-billion dollar maintenance budget for Boeing C-17s is the source for an increasingly public and bitter feud between the US Air Force and industry.
The USAF said in January it would take over management of the C-17 supply chain in fiscal year 2012, essentially firing Boeing from the job after a 12-year run. Responsibility for managing the F-22's supply chain also will be transferred from Lockheed Martin to the USAF.
The decisions mean hundreds of millions of dollars in programme integration costs will shift from industry balance sheets to government accounts.
For three months, industry officials tried to argue privately with senior USAF officials, questioning the methodology used to justify a claim that in-sourcing the C-17 maintenance and logistics would yield $12 billion in savings over 30 years or $250 million annually.
But the largely internal argument has now spilled over into the public arena, with one high-ranking industry executive publicly criticising the USAF's reasoning for the decision.
William Begert is the vice-president for military international programmes and business development with Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, which makes the C-17's PW2000-derived F117 engine. But Begert is well-known among senior USAF staff after retiring in 2005 as a four-star general in command of all air force units in the Pacific region.
Begert aired his concerns about the performance-based logistics (PBL) decision on 22 April at the MRO Americas convention, where he spoke on a panel.
In a meeting two weeks before, a senior USAF official told him that the air force did not trust the official database used to calculate the cost of maintaining aircraft, Begert says. The database - called Air Force Total Ownership Cost (AFTOC) - shows the C-17 has the second lowest cost per flight hour of any air force aircraft and has been declining steadily for several years, Begert says.
According to Begert, the USAF official said the database is unreliable for calculating actual maintenance costs. The official added that the business case analysis shows the C-17 is more expensive to maintain under Boeing's PBL contract than the older Lockheed C-5 fleet, which is maintained under the air force's control at the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center in Georgia.
The official's statements about the C-17 cost stunned Begert, who previously commanded a C-5 wing. If true, the air force's statements would certainly appear provocative. The C-17 was designed two decades after the C-5. Moreover, the C-5 faces severe maintenance challenges. The air force is investing $11 billion to improve the reliability and re-engine half of the C-5 fleet, which is partly intended to reduce the cost per flight to operate the aircraft.
The USAF says it could not verify statements between Begert and a specific air force official. Leaders and industry meet regularly to have "open and frank discussions", but the conversations are not recorded, it says.
However, the air force's official position on maintenance costs for C-17s relative to the C-5 is not quite as Begert says he was told.
JPRS
