Having spent 20 years maintaining the USAF's previous generation of aerial refueling tankers, though I have not worked on the KC-46 because I retired a couple months before my unit was scheduled to receive their first one. I can say one thing all new military aircraft go through years of issues. Hell back in the 50's and 60's the KC-135 had issues with the pilots over rotating on takeoff and crashing. That was fixed with new systems. C-17 had years of problems, B-52, B1, and B-2 all had issues. F-16, F-15, F-22, and F35 all had issues. The military is full of bright minds that work through them.
767-300ER’s can be retrofitted with the 787 cockpit in addition to the tallest winglets overall (blended type used) found on any aircraft like the in production Freighter version of it
I wouldn't be surprised that given the increasing structural issues with the KC-135R's (the KC-135R's are often originally KC-135A's built in the late 1950's to early 1960's!), the USAF could end up building close to 300 KC-46's because of the pressing need to not only replace them, but also the eventual need to replace the KC-10A models.
KC-Y was supposed to be awarded last year to replace the remaining KC-135Rs. But due to special interest lobbying and Boeing’s issues with the Pegasus, there is significant pressure on the Air Force to instead give the contract to Airbus (who is teaming with Lockheed now). Naturally the back-and-forth has bogged things down. The KC-10s are newer and won’t be replaced until KC-Z, which is probably going to piggyback off the US Navy’s MQ-25 drone tanker (and the USAF’s own flying wing drones like the RQ-170) instead of being a commercial aircraft derivative.
@@GintaPPE1000 you guys have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, the KC10 will be fully retired by next year and the 135 has no plans for retirement anytime soon.
Now that the obstacle is no longer in the Senate (read: John McCain), I agree with you except the number may likely be closer to 450 just to keep the line going and the jobs in Seattle.
@@cheapskateaquatics7103perhaps the US Air Force is aware of issues that are not being shared, publicly. Boeing has built a, well deserved, reputation for quality control issues in design and manufacturing.
The KC-46 also uses the wings, undercarriage, and engines of the 767-400ER, in addition to a reinforced airframe. This is in order to increase its maximum fuel capacity - fuel is a lot denser than cargo or passengers, so weight is the bigger limitation on capacity than volume. You get a nice cargo deck on aerial refuelers mostly as a bonus - it can’t be used much during tanking missions. As with all US military aircraft, the Pegasus also had all of its flight information and control systems upgraded to improve shock and EMP resistance, and additional backup systems installed so it can better-survive damage. These requirements aren’t shared by most other air forces in the world, even other NATO air forces, which is why Airbus created the KC-45 for KC-X rather than submit the existing A330 MRTT. The KC-767 that Israel and Japan operate are just 767s with a boom and refueling pods - only their aircraft on order are actually KC-46s.
It's shocking how much trouble Boeing has had building this contraption, considering they (including reverse-acquired McD-D) are the only company who has made such things.
Well given all US tankers have used the British Cobham wing delivery drogue systems that is not true. The RAF and Navy alone used the: Lancaster Lancastrian Lincoln Vulcan Buccaneer (Buddy Up) Sea Vixen Victor VC-10 Tornado (Buddy Up) Valiant
Great video! I didn’t know about the multirole capability, including passengers, freight and medevac. I just assumed a tanker was a tanker. What a shock, though, Boeing underestimated the severity of a problem.!
It is embarrassing that the USAF keeps bragging about the KC-46 as having a "787 style" cockpit. Really the only thing it shares in common with the 787 cockpit are the four LDSs. 767Fs already come equipped with three LDSs. This doesn't give Pegasus any increase in capabilities.
Every aircraft that has ever taken to the sky has had issues in shape or another... Once they get the bugs worked out of them it will live a long life just as the KC-135 have.
I am a long time Boeing fan and love their aircraft. But, the KC-46 program has been plauged with problems since USAF civilian officials were caught accepting bribes from Boeing for the contract almost 20 years ago. I think maybe it's time the DOD seriously considered the A330 MRTT. They are working with Lockheed as their american partner and can build the aircraft at the Airbus factory in Alabama.
Technically, it's an entirely different aircraft. Italy just completed an analysis of attempting to upgrade from their KC-767s to KC-46s and found it unfeasible--opting for trade-in replacements instead. Still, a little nod in the video would have been appropriate.
As the 767 start to time out , why is boeing not offering this airframe to civilian use. This airframe 787 cockpit and the updzted wing would fill the ever growing gap between legs that are to big for a narrow body but to small for a 777
Why can't:767-400 body be produced in military version when wings engines cockpit undercarriage are 767-400. If military version of 767 200 , frighter version 767-300 are still in production then why not b 767-400 Max be produced
The Air Force has always been slow at introducing aircraft. The procurement is complete. Its the delivery schedule they requested in the beginning with the exception of the production delays.
It is stark raving insane that they didn't include thrust reversers on the KC-46 to keep it the same as 767s. And also to match the capabilities of the C-17 and C-5 etc. It's just nuts. Typical military SNAFU. All fouled up.
Yes. Everybody is buying A300 MRTT. Only poor Japan and Israel must buy Boeing to stay loyal to US. So only the most most close allies buy Bieing 😅 😅 Otherwise nobody would buy. Great product yeah 😂
Boeing continually showing that it’s going down the crapper. Boeing used to have an incredibly prideful history of reliable airplanes. McDonnell-Douglas merged with them and it’s been downhill since.
Really? Have you talked to 135 pilots about how sketchy it is to land? No thrust reversers and terrible brakes plus a terrible ground turning radius, all things much better on the 767.
@@PasleyAviationPhotography yep. That was my source. No argument on your point. Their point was that the 135 demands the pilot actually fly the airplane rather than be hands off. It’s a late 50s but built mil spec airframe Vice a late 20th C baseline airframe built for commercial applications. The DoD was offered a great deal a number of years ago on commercially converted 757s (yes, that’s a “5”) that were more applicable to an interim tanker with ability to get into smaller expeditionary fields and a payload akin to the 135, at a fraction of the cost of the 767/KC46. The proposal was tabled because the right defense industry palms weren’t greased. Those interim 757 tankers would’ve already been fielded and effectively engaged, allowing the DoD to have an opportunity to build out its heavy tanker that is still having teething pains.
Maybe but that really isn’t an option considering the age of the KC-135 and the fact that many of them have so many hours that they are in danger of failure.
"Buggy navigation software"????? That's a software thing, not an aircraft thing. I load nav data all the time. God I hope they have it right before I load it. God help them.
The USAF originally chose the A330 MRTT but someone wasn't happy as it wasn't an American design so they built this. I believe that Lockheed is now offering the A330 under a US Designation.
It was also offered under US designation back then. Not only the military retrofit would have been in the US, Airbus even wanted to build the base plane itself in the US. The spin that a Boeing order was better for American workers was pure Boeing PR. It was better for Boeing, not for anyone else.
Another Boeing loss leader - the KC-46, years behind in getting into production, they won the USAF contract over Airbus. Guess who is the leader in supplying Air Tankers to the Air Forces of the World?
KC-46 should never have been. The KC-10 carried almost twice the fuel and could have restarted the lines of manufacture for less money and more capability. Wish we still had McDonnell Douglas as Boeing has been slipping in the last 10 Years? The KC-46 is grossly overpriced for the capability.
@@johnp139 it’s a converted 767, so was FIRST designed as a passenger aircraft before being converted. However regardless of how it was designed/built 58 passengers for a 767 size aircraft is still shockingly low especially as the 330 carries a lot more and can still fuel whilst carrying more passengers
@@johnp139 A330 MRTT is in every way superior to the KC46. If it weren’t for Boeing spitting the dummy that it wasn’t American, the USAF would’ve had a far better platform.
The worst airplane I ever flew. Poorly designed pneumatics, weak electrics, single hydraulic system with poor redundancy, low passenger satisfaction. Putting the MLG on backwards didn’t help on touchdown.. the industry joke was the MLG was designed by the cleaning lady during her afternoon ‘Joe’ break. Boeing, to their credit, began a re-design they called the 767X.. it rectified all of the shortcomings of the 767ER family.. it eventually became the 777.
I would say the most impressive part of the story of this aircraft was the political pressure that allowed this aircraft to be developed rather than use an off the shelf and in production product. Boeing may have trouble with its aircraft but my golly it’s politics department is clearly unsurpassed!
The USAF has shock and EMP resistance requirements that no commercial airliner can meet. Airbus had to modify the A330 MRTT into the KC-45 when bidding on KC-X as well.
LOL funny man... "Boeing's answer to that airbus" thing... Don't think that anyone in America feels any need to "answer" for that airbus. They've been doing refueling since they invented the category and dominate it world wide.
wouldn't they had been better to do a military version of the 787? the 767 is now a 40+ year old program, and possible soon to end for civilian use. so will cost the air force for parts and maintenance in the near future.
The 767 is still available for civilian production, and the civil fleet will likely keep flying in the cargo sector for decades yet. The 787 is also unsuitable for a freighter or even tanker conversion as its composite airframe is engineered specifically for passenger use. An equivalent volume of fuel or cargo is much heavier, and you can’t easily reinforce composite structures like you can aluminum because most of it is bonded rather than joined by either welds or fasteners. If you need a new fuselage, then why bother sticking with an existing airplane at all?
No! The Request for Proposals came out before the 787 was qualified, which would have added a HUGE amount of RISK. Boeing did not propose this configuration.
Having spent 20 years maintaining the USAF's previous generation of aerial refueling tankers, though I have not worked on the KC-46 because I retired a couple months before my unit was scheduled to receive their first one. I can say one thing all new military aircraft go through years of issues. Hell back in the 50's and 60's the KC-135 had issues with the pilots over rotating on takeoff and crashing. That was fixed with new systems. C-17 had years of problems, B-52, B1, and B-2 all had issues. F-16, F-15, F-22, and F35 all had issues. The military is full of bright minds that work through them.
Has there been any known issues with the KC-46? Especially with Boeing’s quality lately, have those issues spread to the military division?
@@JungleJetAviation06 did you watch the video???
@@rye811 Didn't mean to upset you...
767-300ER’s can be retrofitted with the 787 cockpit in addition to the tallest winglets overall (blended type used) found on any aircraft like the in production Freighter version of it
I wouldn't be surprised that given the increasing structural issues with the KC-135R's (the KC-135R's are often originally KC-135A's built in the late 1950's to early 1960's!), the USAF could end up building close to 300 KC-46's because of the pressing need to not only replace them, but also the eventual need to replace the KC-10A models.
KC-Y was supposed to be awarded last year to replace the remaining KC-135Rs. But due to special interest lobbying and Boeing’s issues with the Pegasus, there is significant pressure on the Air Force to instead give the contract to Airbus (who is teaming with Lockheed now). Naturally the back-and-forth has bogged things down.
The KC-10s are newer and won’t be replaced until KC-Z, which is probably going to piggyback off the US Navy’s MQ-25 drone tanker (and the USAF’s own flying wing drones like the RQ-170) instead of being a commercial aircraft derivative.
KC-10’s are going away very soon.
@@GintaPPE1000 you guys have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about, the KC10 will be fully retired by next year and the 135 has no plans for retirement anytime soon.
KC-10s have already been going to the boneyard
Now that the obstacle is no longer in the Senate (read: John McCain), I agree with you except the number may likely be closer to 450 just to keep the line going and the jobs in Seattle.
The KC-10 Extender is still the coolest tanker I’ve ever seen
Exactly, and has far greater fuel and cargo capacity. Yet they want to retire it even though it is far younger than the kc-135.
@@cheapskateaquatics7103perhaps the US Air Force is aware of issues that are not being shared, publicly. Boeing has built a, well deserved, reputation for quality control issues in design and manufacturing.
@@cheapskateaquatics7103 Lack of parts...
@@Dischingo true
In the air force, the gas station comes to you!
And you don’t need to pay, not even a penny 😄
"Any time, any place" was our refueling squadron's motto/patch.
imagine having to swipe your credit card midair and it being rejected with the message "REJECTED, CONGRESS HAS NOT PASSED A BUDGET" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
America’s logistic at its finest
The KC-46 also uses the wings, undercarriage, and engines of the 767-400ER, in addition to a reinforced airframe. This is in order to increase its maximum fuel capacity - fuel is a lot denser than cargo or passengers, so weight is the bigger limitation on capacity than volume. You get a nice cargo deck on aerial refuelers mostly as a bonus - it can’t be used much during tanking missions.
As with all US military aircraft, the Pegasus also had all of its flight information and control systems upgraded to improve shock and EMP resistance, and additional backup systems installed so it can better-survive damage. These requirements aren’t shared by most other air forces in the world, even other NATO air forces, which is why Airbus created the KC-45 for KC-X rather than submit the existing A330 MRTT. The KC-767 that Israel and Japan operate are just 767s with a boom and refueling pods - only their aircraft on order are actually KC-46s.
Having worked in the Program Office, your comment is spot on.
Frankentanker
This is pretty cool with different cockpits.
Nice of you to Cover Military aircraft please do it more often
It's shocking how much trouble Boeing has had building this contraption, considering they (including reverse-acquired McD-D) are the only company who has made such things.
Aerospace engineering is really complex, especially this technology to pump fuel
The AROS was underestimated.
The actual AIRCRAFT has been wonderful, the SUBSYSTEMS not so much.
Boeing is not the only company that makes refueling jets. Airbus does it too the a330 mrtt
Well given all US tankers have used the British Cobham wing delivery drogue systems that is not true. The RAF and Navy alone used the:
Lancaster
Lancastrian
Lincoln
Vulcan
Buccaneer (Buddy Up)
Sea Vixen
Victor
VC-10
Tornado (Buddy Up)
Valiant
Please do a video like this on the A330MRTT, I am completely obsessed with the aircraft and would love to see if I can learn something new.
My son is a KC-135 boom operator. He hates the KC-46. He is seriously thinking about moving to another job before he moves to the KC-46.
great job,keep up the good work!
Boeing underestimating the severity of a problem??? 😲 Are we surprised? 🤔 No 🤦♂
Great video! I didn’t know about the multirole capability, including passengers, freight and medevac. I just assumed a tanker was a tanker.
What a shock, though, Boeing underestimated the severity of a problem.!
MRTT. Multirole conversion.
@@jaysolis5870 multi role tanker transport
@@nw6gmp Yes Exactly. Like I said, Mulltirole conversions. into tanker and transport.
that’s really awesome, a rugged proven aircraft with modern tech is gonna be cool!
"a rugged proven aircraft"?
🤣🤣😂😂🤦♂🤦♂
It can't refuel aircraft with its boom. 🤣
@@1chish so it may have its downsides, im mostly talking about how strong their frames are and such
It is embarrassing that the USAF keeps bragging about the KC-46 as having a "787 style" cockpit. Really the only thing it shares in common with the 787 cockpit are the four LDSs. 767Fs already come equipped with three LDSs. This doesn't give Pegasus any increase in capabilities.
FedEx, UPS and many 767 converted freighters have the “787 style” cockpit as well
My son flies these planes out of the NHANG and gave us a tour inside the plane, very interesting.
Make a video on the kc135
Every aircraft that has ever taken to the sky has had issues in shape or another... Once they get the bugs worked out of them it will live a long life just as the KC-135 have.
How can you screw up emergency exit trim? They’ve only been making emergency doors for over 60 years.
I've been in one. It's purdy Nice!
What is the range and fuel capacity difference between the Boeing KC 46 and Airbus MRTT??
I’m surprised that Boeing hasn’t marketed the 767-2C as a modernized 767 Cargo aircraft.
You described the aircraft 99.9% with no cockpit detail. The title of this video is misleading.
I am a long time Boeing fan and love their aircraft. But, the KC-46 program has been plauged with problems since USAF civilian officials were caught accepting bribes from Boeing for the contract almost 20 years ago. I think maybe it's time the DOD seriously considered the A330 MRTT. They are working with Lockheed as their american partner and can build the aircraft at the Airbus factory in Alabama.
That’s not how it works.
It's too late for that, and as John mentioned, that's just not how it works.
I think this is a replacement aircraft of the DC-10
Not really, but it will have that effect.
Note even close
No mention of the KC-767?!?
Technically, it's an entirely different aircraft. Italy just completed an analysis of attempting to upgrade from their KC-767s to KC-46s and found it unfeasible--opting for trade-in replacements instead. Still, a little nod in the video would have been appropriate.
Can you do a video about MYAirline, the newest airline in Malaysia, please????
so good boeing had to re-run the competition a few times to make sure they won the USAF tanker contract.
As the 767 start to time out , why is boeing not offering this airframe to civilian use. This airframe 787 cockpit and the updzted wing would fill the ever growing gap between legs that are to big for a narrow body but to small for a 777
Since it has the 787 cockpit and avionics, they are half way to a stopgap NMA. An engine and wing refresh and the short term problem is solved.
I LOVE the 2-3-2 layout of the 767. Too bad no NEO.
Sorry Airbus uses the Name Neo for "New engine Option"
Boeing uses Max or X for their new Engine Options.
Why can't:767-400 body be produced in military version when wings engines cockpit undercarriage are 767-400. If military version of 767 200 , frighter version 767-300 are still in production then why not b 767-400 Max be produced
because a 767-400MAX is just a worse 787. There is no point in having it
It’s a combination of all three!
Why would the FAA have anything to do with certifing a military aircraft?
Had hoped to see the flight deck as this video suggested but I guess it’s classified
No, it’s very similar to 777 and 787, with the addition of one display.
October of 2025?!?! How is it possible to take that long to procure something that's been in the works for over three years?
The Air Force has always been slow at introducing aircraft. The procurement is complete. Its the delivery schedule they requested in the beginning with the exception of the production delays.
It is stark raving insane that they didn't include thrust reversers on the KC-46 to keep it the same as 767s. And also to match the capabilities of the C-17 and C-5 etc. It's just nuts. Typical military SNAFU. All fouled up.
KC-46 is always better ❤
This refueling with cameras blows me away i want to sre the reveiver in real time time eye to eye npt on shadrd cameras
Airbus MRTT is much better. But usa had to choose this inferior tanker because it’s Boeing. 😂
How is this better?
Yes. Everybody is buying A300 MRTT. Only poor Japan and Israel must buy Boeing to stay loyal to US. So only the most most close allies buy Bieing 😅 😅 Otherwise nobody would buy. Great product yeah 😂
I'm surprised it has neither advanced wing design nor winglets
Amazing solid machine I think, should exceed the lifespan on the B707/KC135
How about it's MCAS?
It works on that aircraft.
The Air Force should of gone airbus. Better product.
Boeing continually showing that it’s going down the crapper. Boeing used to have an incredibly prideful history of reliable airplanes. McDonnell-Douglas merged with them and it’s been downhill since.
Yet, many current 135 crewmen especially pilots would rather stay in that airframe.
Really? Have you talked to 135 pilots about how sketchy it is to land? No thrust reversers and terrible brakes plus a terrible ground turning radius, all things much better on the 767.
@@PasleyAviationPhotography yep. That was my source. No argument on your point. Their point was that the 135 demands the pilot actually fly the airplane rather than be hands off. It’s a late 50s but built mil spec airframe Vice a late 20th C baseline airframe built for commercial applications. The DoD was offered a great deal a number of years ago on commercially converted 757s (yes, that’s a “5”) that were more applicable to an interim tanker with ability to get into smaller expeditionary fields and a payload akin to the 135, at a fraction of the cost of the 767/KC46. The proposal was tabled because the right defense industry palms weren’t greased. Those interim 757 tankers would’ve already been fielded and effectively engaged, allowing the DoD to have an opportunity to build out its heavy tanker that is still having teething pains.
Maybe but that really isn’t an option considering the age of the KC-135 and the fact that many of them have so many hours that they are in danger of failure.
If Boeing can't get it right, Hey let's go to Airbus A330 mrtt, they got it right the first time!!!!!!!!!
"Buggy navigation software"????? That's a software thing, not an aircraft thing. I load nav data all the time. God I hope they have it right before I load it. God help them.
Military aircraft are very odd in the first place
The USAF originally chose the A330 MRTT but someone wasn't happy as it wasn't an American design so they built this. I believe that Lockheed is now offering the A330 under a US Designation.
It was also offered under US designation back then. Not only the military retrofit would have been in the US, Airbus even wanted to build the base plane itself in the US.
The spin that a Boeing order was better for American workers was pure Boeing PR.
It was better for Boeing, not for anyone else.
@@MrSchwabentier Exactly! The KC-46 is a product of corruption
Should have bought the Airbus!!
Yet another mistake by the military should have used a 787 or 777
Another Boeing loss leader - the KC-46, years behind in getting into production, they won the USAF contract over Airbus. Guess who is the leader in supplying Air Tankers to the Air Forces of the World?
KC-46 should never have been. The KC-10 carried almost twice the fuel and could have restarted the lines of manufacture for less money and more capability. Wish we still had McDonnell Douglas as Boeing has been slipping in the last 10 Years? The KC-46 is grossly overpriced for the capability.
Not even close to the A330 MRTT..
Better than Airbus
it also have MCAS 😁
But the pilots are also well trained.
58 passengers is shockingly low for a 767 especially when compared to the A330 MRTT
It’s FIRST designed as a tanker, THEN as a cargo aircraft, THEN as Aeromedical Evacuation, and LASTLY as a troop transport aircraft!
@@johnp139 it’s a converted 767, so was FIRST designed as a passenger aircraft before being converted. However regardless of how it was designed/built 58 passengers for a 767 size aircraft is still shockingly low especially as the 330 carries a lot more and can still fuel whilst carrying more passengers
@@benny9371 WRONG!!!! It is designed as a CARGO AIRCRAFT!!!!!!
@@johnp139 A330 MRTT is in every way superior to the KC46. If it weren’t for Boeing spitting the dummy that it wasn’t American, the USAF would’ve had a far better platform.
The MRTT does not have pallet positions, the entire interior is has seats, that’s why
This would have been interesting - 7 years ago…..?!?!
w
The worst airplane I ever flew. Poorly designed pneumatics, weak electrics, single hydraulic system with poor redundancy, low passenger satisfaction. Putting the MLG on backwards didn’t help on touchdown.. the industry joke was the MLG was designed by the cleaning lady during her afternoon ‘Joe’ break. Boeing, to their credit, began a re-design they called the 767X.. it rectified all of the shortcomings of the 767ER family.. it eventually became the 777.
I would say the most impressive part of the story of this aircraft was the political pressure that allowed this aircraft to be developed rather than use an off the shelf and in production product. Boeing may have trouble with its aircraft but my golly it’s politics department is clearly unsurpassed!
The USAF has shock and EMP resistance requirements that no commercial airliner can meet. Airbus had to modify the A330 MRTT into the KC-45 when bidding on KC-X as well.
Which "off the shelf and in production" product did you have in mind?
The “off the shelf” aircraft DIDN’T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS!
That's just the thing, there were no off the shelf offerings, and the 767 was, and still is in production.
thanks,but i'll stay with the kc135
What? You have NO SAY IN ANY OF THIS!!!!
@@johnp139 say what pputo
LOL funny man... "Boeing's answer to that airbus" thing... Don't think that anyone in America feels any need to "answer" for that airbus. They've been doing refueling since they invented the category and dominate it world wide.
sure, sure the 767 as modified using carbon fiber to give it a 787 style
cockpit
click bait
No carbon fiber!
787’s cockpit isn’t carbon fiber. 😂 And it does in fact have a newer 787 style cockpit.
An obsolete aircraft for the USAF.
OK then, which platform would you consider "state of the art"?
It's just a tanker. How state-of-the-art does it really need to be?
It was actually a new design based on the 200/300/400 series of 767’s.
@@johnp139 lol. A new design of an obsolete aircraft? LOL
@@craigbeatty8565 Exactly. What’s your point? I don’t remember seeing you at the design reviews!
Boeing, is just the BEST; Boeing kicks Airbus - an inferior designed quality-in virtually all product offerings.
Yeah right! Boeing can't even get their aircraft certified!
@@heidirabenau511 neither can airbus certify XLR
True, Boeing >>> Airbus
@@nickolliver3021 At least the XLR is only 6 months-1 year delayed, the 777-9 is delayed by 5 years!
@@heidirabenau511 How would you even know? The XLR could be delayed another year if another problem arises potentially being 3-4 years late
wouldn't they had been better to do a military version of the 787? the 767 is now a 40+ year old program, and possible soon to end for civilian use. so will cost the air force for parts and maintenance in the near future.
The 767 is still available for civilian production, and the civil fleet will likely keep flying in the cargo sector for decades yet.
The 787 is also unsuitable for a freighter or even tanker conversion as its composite airframe is engineered specifically for passenger use. An equivalent volume of fuel or cargo is much heavier, and you can’t easily reinforce composite structures like you can aluminum because most of it is bonded rather than joined by either welds or fasteners. If you need a new fuselage, then why bother sticking with an existing airplane at all?
Indeed but the 787 would be 🤑🤑🤑🤑💰💰💰💵📈.
Get it
No! The Request for Proposals came out before the 787 was qualified, which would have added a HUGE amount of RISK. Boeing did not propose this configuration.