Donating Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Maverick

  1. Nope. If the door is armed and it's opened from either inside or outside the big silver tongue appears.
  2. Nearly three years ago to the day I wrote about the Royal Air Force's retired fleet of Lockheed L1011 derived Tristar tankers being put up for sale. With nine aircraft available, some of them already outfitted for the tanker role, and for a very attractive price, the Tristars seemed like a perfect opportunity for a new private aerial refueling contractor to emerge. Now, this is exactly what has happened, with Tempus Applied Solutions of Texas buying six of the Tristars with the intention of entering the contracted aerial refueling market. Tempus Applied Solutions provides a wide range of aerospace products, many of which are targeted at the defense industry and the Pentagon itself. This includes modifying existing aircraft for an array of testing and operational missions, many of which center around information, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) duties. Their website describes they wide capabilities base and some of their customers: "We fly airplanes—fixed wing and rotary, manned or unmanned. From surveillance missions in Africa to flight training in Texas, Tempus Applied Solutions is a safe, reliable, and effective operator. Uniquely, we also design and modify aircraft for special missions, certify them, and provide turnkey lease and service solutions... Our clients include NASA, the United States Department of Defense, Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, United States Africa Command, Joint Special Operations Command, and many other government agencies, individuals, and corporations." The existing Tristar tanker configuration includes two hose and drogue refueling systems installed on the aircraft's empennage. This configuration allows for only one aircraft to be refueled at a time, with the other hose and drogue system acting as a spare. It is not uncommon for aircraft to break off a drogue "basket" or for other refueling components to fail, which would often result in a emergency divert by thirsty aircraft if no other tankers were nearby. As such, the Tristars offer enhanced reliability, not to mention they can hold a whopping 300,000lbs of gas. It is also possible that Tempus may add two additional refueling pods to their Tristar's outer wing areas, allowing for three aircraft to refuel simultaneously instead of one. This was eyed by the RAF as an upgrade before the jets out of service date was deemed too soon to justify the cost. The Tristar was replaced by the Airbus A330 based Voyager multi-role tanker transport (MRTT). Adrian Pingstone/wikicommons RAF Tristar K1 with its dual basket setup. Three Tristars would represent a substantial private aerial refueling capability that the US Navy, USMC, or other foreign air arms with aircraft that use probe and drogue tanking to take advantage of. For the Navy and USMC in particular, the Tristars could offload up some of NAVAIR's tanking demand off the USAF's shoulders. Omega Air in particular has done this for many years now and the model, both business-wise and operationally speaking, has already been proven. Large tanker aircraft, like the L1011, could not only help for training, but they could also drag groups of fighters across oceans for deployments, while also carrying support personnel and material. These missions can tie up USAF tankers for days at a time, and thirsty fighters like the F-35B will only require more of this type of support in the future. Adrian Pingstone/wikicommons A Tristar gets airborne. Tempus CEO Scott Terry stated the following via a press release: "We are very encouraged to have found a potential solution for the shortage of AAR services that currently exist within the US Navy and Marine Corps tactical aviation and many NATO/Allied air forces. We will perform the necessary inspections and evaluations over the next several weeks in order that the transaction can close as soon as possible." The Tristars have been in storage at Bruntingthorpe Aerodrome since their retirement a few years ago. Tempus will supposedly close the deal once the aircraft and their log books, as well as their support equipment are inspected. Then the aircraft will be brought back to flyable condition, which supposedly won't be a hard thing to do, and will receive maintenance that will prepare them to be ferried to the US for further updating. Tempus says it has already started marketing the aircraft's services to the Navy, USMC and NATO allies. MoD Tristar being marshaled to parking while operating in the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon in general would be wise to contract out far more of its aerial tanker needs. The USAF has been especially resistant to doing so, likely do to fear that they would eventually lose large parts of the aerial refueling mission set to private contractors, and this means having fewer aircraft under its purview. The War Zone has already detailed why the USAF should move to private aerial refueling support contractors so that it can focus more on the combat tanker support mission set, stating: "I have long argued the USAF should move toward obtaining a significant portion of its aerial refueling needs from private contractors who can offer tailored tanking solutions and elastic capacity. Doing so would mean the USAF would not have to invest so heavily up-front in tanker fleets or the infrastructure needed to support them, while contractors can procure fleets of smaller and larger aircraft based on what the market demands. As the KC-46A comes online, it will be a great time for potential commercial tanker services providers to absorb retiring KC-135Rs, or introduce new platforms depending on what their customers want. Even smaller tankers, like those based on the 737 or G550, can fulfill many missions where large tankers simply are not needed, and do so at a far lower cost. Under such a concept, it has been proven that industry, the service, and the taxpayer win. On the tanking front, Omega Air has been doing this for some time now for the Navy and international customers and other countries are following suit. Additionally, private tanker companies’ adversary air support contractor cousins will increasingly provide aggressor training for the same US Navy and USAF fighter aircraft that private tanker companies of the future could be supporting as well. Doing so will introduce competition into the marketplace and will allow the USAF to invest heavily on higher-end capabilities, like stealthy tankers, instead of maintaining a one-size fits all tanker armada. The problem is that without the weight of the USAF in the marketplace, there really won’t be a robust marketplace at all. Offsetting a portion of the USAF’s tanker needs to contractors makes so much sense, but cultural hurdles and fear of mission loss within the USAF will likely continue to block it from happening. It will take the right leadership to come along who can see the big picture over petty service heritage and cultural issues to get it done. Once the service realizes it can have more for less in the tanker department, the private tanking industry in the US will explode to meet the demand. Once again, the same thing is already happening with private adversary support contractors. It is simply too expensive and wasteful to fly an F-35 around as an intercept target for another F-35. The same can be said for putting large formations of enemies up in the air at one time to really challenge a 5th generation fighter pilot. As such, the USAF will follow the Navy’s example and will become more dependent on private adversary support companies for their training needs as their 5th generation fighter fleet continues to grow. Not embracing a similar strategy now for offsetting a portion of the USAF’s tanker needs is wasteful as procurement decisions are being made without factoring what is more of a eventuality than a possibility at this point." The Air Force could use the money saved by unloading a portion of their tanking mission to private contractors to invest in building new tankers faster, and at lower cost, to replace aging ones. Retired KC-10s and KC-135s could find new life in the hands of contractors. Unloading a portion of the tanking mission is not just about having less planes to sustain. It also means that USAF pilots, who are in short supply, can be sent to fly other airframes and large swathes of existing infrastructure can be sold off or leased to private operators. In other words, if there is any mission where private contractors can help the DoD's air forces, and especially the USAF, it is this one. Hopefully more companies like Tempus will come forward to take the risk—certainly others have tried and failed—but if the USAF could come to terms with the idea, it could really get the concept going on a grand scale. This would allow for stiff competition among multiple providers. As a result, lower prices and increase quality of service could be realized. The best part about such a plan is that the USAF could still keep its tanking mission, just with a more modern and potent, albeit smaller tanker fleet. We will keep you informed as to the progress of the deal, but hopefully we will see a trio of reinvigorated Tristars plowing the skies over the US soon. DoD Tristar refueling Hornets at sunset.
  3. OMG NO FOOD (⸮)

    The part that pi$$es me off is that the other airlines, you know, the ones that handle events like this properly will now be subjected to the inevitable "bill of rights". AT has proven time, and time again their amateur status.
  4. Fifi and Doc

  5. Fifi and Doc

    I'm a warbird guy. That's awesome!
  6. New Low Cost Start up in Canada

    I'll bet one of them will have a successful startup.
  7. United Airlines Offering Immigrants Special Flights That Circle U.S. Awaiting Gaps In Travel Ban CHICAGO—In response to the executive order restricting entry to the United States from six majority-Muslim nations, United Airlines announced Friday that the carrier will offer immigrants and refugees special flights that continuously circle the country until gaps in the travel ban allow them to land. “We’re excited to offer numerous daily flights from Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan to a perpetual holding pattern above the Atlantic Ocean, where international travelers can enjoy a relaxing journey while waiting for a federal court to temporarily suspend the ban,” said United spokesman Karen Jennings, adding that customers attempting to flee their war-torn native countries or just visit their American relatives will be offered onboard meals and a wide array of in-flight entertainment options throughout the voyage up and down the eastern coastline, which may last anywhere from one week to several years depending on the specific terms of the legal challenge to the executive order. “Rest assured, our pilots will be in constant radio contact to keep passengers updated on the appeals process, and each aircraft will stay within 60 miles of a major airport at all times to take advantage of any temporary restraining order with a quick landing.” United officials added that complimentary Wi-Fi would be available for the first month of the flight, but that passengers who wish to continue using the service will be charged $7.99 for each additional hour.

    It's often used for an area that requires aerodynamic sealant but there isn't sufficient time to allow it to set up. I don't think this is the case here and I'm actually kind of mystified as to why it would be there.

    Agreed, that's about a 5 minute job to put fresh tape on there. It's not really a hazard but it is certainly not something a professional would leave as is.
  10. After seven months of protectionist rhetoric from President Donald Trump’s administration, the Canadian aerospace and defense industries may look to increase business ties to the Asia-Pacific region. A new report from the Conference Board of Canada warns Canadian companies that they must no longer be content with supplying U.S. companies, especially as sales of narrowbody aircraft surge. Not only that, Canada’s nonprofit, nonpartisan economic trend analysis group said in a report July 5 that its A&D sector will have to safeguard itself while growing its global reach and should increase its presence in Asia. Credit: Bombardier “Canada’s aerospace industry is highly integrated and dependent on trade flows, particularly with the United States. As the [North American Free Trade Agreement] renegotiation process moves forward, it will be critical for the industry to keep these trade channels open to limit disruption of its supply chain,” says board economist Carlos Murillo. “The industry needs to continue to expand and diversify its supplier and customer base away from the U.S. market.” The U.S. is the Canadian A&D industry’s largest trading partner, with about 40% of domestic demand for aerospace products fulfilled by U.S. imports, while about half of Canadian-made products are exported south of the border. But Canada’s trade with the Asia-Pacific and European regions has been expanding. In particular, its exports to China, Malta, Singapore, Spain and Switzerland have grown “rapidly” over the past decade, although these five countries combined still account for less than 15% of total exports, the report says. “Canadian firms will continue to look to emerging economies for growth, particularly Asia, where demand for single-aisle aircraft is expanding rapidly,” according to the board. “This presents an opportunity for Canada’s aerospace companies involved in the production of the Bombardier C Series aircraft to expand their market share in this segment, and for the industry to diversify its supplier and customer base.” Known Knowns The U.S. Air Force is in the midst of deciding whether to compete production of the next tranche of GPS III satellites, but the House Appropriations Committee indicates it would prefer the service keep Lockheed Martin, which is producing the first 10 spacecraft in the constellation. Lockheed is trying to hang on to production of GPS, while Boeing, the previous GPS incumbent, and Northrop Grumman, which makes satellites for the intelligence community, are trying to gain a foothold. The defense spending bill for fiscal 2018 passed by the committee on June 29 says the “least technologically risky and most cost-effective approach to procuring space vehicles 11 and beyond is to continue block buys within the program of record.” The committee also asks Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson to review solutions that would not just limit technical and schedule risks but also consider how to reuse existing technology and infrastructure investments. Lockheed, for example, has constructed a massive thermal vacuum test chamber and a cavernous anechoic chamber at a Colorado processing facility for GPS III satellites. Precision Strike The House Armed Services Committee remains at odds with the Navy over its requirements for a carrier-based UAV—the MQ-25 Carrier-Based Aerial Refueling System. Since 2015, when the Navy referred to that system as the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System, the committee has raised concerns that funding a nonstealthy UAV might preclude spending on a stealthy, long-range penetrating system. In the recently passed fiscal 2018 defense authorization bill, the committee revisits that issue for the platform now called MQ-25, which is tasked with providing aerial refueling to other naval aircraft. The bill would block 75% of MQ-25 funding until Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson certifies that the aircraft meets a “validated capability gap.” A report on the bill notes the committee is concerned that the most recent documentation sent to contractors did not include precision strike among the requirements. “The Navy may be unnecessarily excluding a critical capability and precluding future growth in a platform that will likely be integrated into the carrier air wing for the next 30 years,” the report says. Boeing, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Lockheed and Northrop are vying to make the MQ-25. A request for proposals is anticipated soon, and a contract should be awarded in 2018. The current tanker mission is well suited to General Atomics’ aircraft. But the contenders’ platforms could hold an edge when it comes to long-range precision strike. With Michael Bruno in Washington
  11. Interesting Take Off.

    It looks like a flaps 1 takeoff. The 737NG can't deploy the leading edges without trailing edge movement.
  12. We're not looking for publicity. Just doing the right thing. If you can't find it, well that's on you!
  13. Amelia Earhart

    To be taken with a grain of salt perhaps...
  14. Bonjour Gumbi, any rumours of what AT's doing with the A330's? The early ones are approaching 20 years, A330NEO or A350's perhaps?
  15. I'm still a bit mystified on EBITDAR, I get it that AC's numbers look good but they've taken delivery of how many 787-9's this year? It's at least four that I've seen plus the progress payments on all the MAX's they have coming etc. Is EBITDAR an approved stat under GAAP? Regardless, they'll probably still have some pretty sound numbers this quarter.
  16. You have information you'd like to share that hasn't been disclosed or are you just chucking sh!t, again?
  17. I think it's north of 60 for the 600/700. What it will cost Boeing is not really the point. I doubt WJ or SW for that matter want to be stuck with an aircraft with limited to no resale value. The -600 is a case in point. Nobody wants them. I suspect WestJet will run them out the back door at 25 years. Leaves a pretty big hole in the fleet between 80 and 180 seats as the -700's depart... hmm, wonder what could fill that void?
  18. "Maybe a little late for WestJet, the sky is getting crowded into YVR" There's 1.3 Billion Chinese but you're probably right, Jackie Chan was the final karate chop for WestJet! Cancel them Dreamliners!
  19. 150 years young

  20. Of equal interest is what will happen with the MAX 7? WestJet has 25 on order and Southwest 30. There's a few more scattered orders but certainly less than those two combined. Boeing stretched the original MAX 7 by two rows and still no new orders. I suspect Boeing may be getting a bit of a stare down right now from Dallas and Calgary...
  21. The F-35

    What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter? The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired but has turned out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history By Michael P. Hughes, The Conversation US on June 14, 2017 Lockheed Martin F-35A. Credit: Erik Simonsen Getty Images The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research. The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired, serving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy – and even Britain’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy – all in one aircraft design. It’s supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – aircraft types with widely different missions. It’s marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane significantly better than anything potential adversaries could build in the next two decades. But it’s turned out to be none of those things. Officially begun in 2001, with roots extending back to the late 1980s, the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has failed to meet many of its original design requirements. It’s also become the most expensive defense program in world history, at around US$1.5 trillion before the fighter is phased out in 2070. The unit cost per airplane, above $100 million, is roughly twice what was promised early on. Even after President Trump lambasted the cost of the program in February, the price per plane dropped just $7 million – less than 7 percent. And yet, the U.S. is still throwing huge sums of money at the project. Essentially, the Pentagon has declared the F-35 “too big to fail.” As a retired member of the U.S. Air Force and current university professor of finance who has been involved in and studied military aviation and acquisitions, I find the F-35 to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history. Forget what’s already spent The Pentagon is trying to argue that just because taxpayers have flushed more than $100 billion down the proverbial toilet so far, we must continue to throw billions more down that same toilet. That violates the most elementary financial principles of capital budgeting, which is the method companies and governments use to decide on investments. So-called sunk costs, the money already paid on a project, should never be a factor in investment decisions. Rather, spending should be based on how it will add value in the future. Keeping the F-35 program alive is not only a gross waste in itself: Its funding could be spent on defense programs that are really useful and needed for national defense, such as anti-drone systems to defend U.S. troops. Part of the enormous cost has come as a result of an effort to share aircraft design and replacement parts across different branches of the military. In 2013, a study by the RAND Corporation found that it would have been cheaper if the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had simply designed and developed separate and more specialized aircraft to meet their specific operational requirements. Not living up to top billing The company building the F-35 has made grand claims. Lockheed Martin said the plane would be far better than current aircraft – “four times more effective” in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” in recognizing and suppressing an enemy’s air defenses. It would, in fact, be “second only to the F-22 in air superiority.” In addition, the F-35 was to have better range and require less logistics support than current military aircraft. The Pentagon is still calling the F-35 “the most affordable, lethal, supportable, and survivable aircraft ever to be used.” But that’s not how the plane has turned out. In January 2015, mock combat testing pitted the F-35 against an F-16, one of the fighters it is slated to replace. The F-35A was flown “clean” with empty weapon bays and without any drag-inducing and heavy externally mounted weapons or fuel tanks. The F-16D, a heavier and somewhat less capable training version of the mainstay F-16C, was further encumbered with two 370-gallon external wing-mounted fuel tanks. In spite of its significant advantages, the F-35A’s test pilot noted that the F-35A was less maneuverable and markedly inferior to the F-16D in a visual-range dogfight. Stealth over power One key reason the F-35 doesn’t possess the world-beating air-to-air prowess promised, and is likely not even adequate when compared with its current potential adversaries, is that it was designed first and foremost to be a stealthy airplane. This requirement has taken precedence over maneuverability, and likely above its overall air-to-air lethality. The Pentagon and especially the Air Force seem to be relying almost exclusively on the F-35’s stealth capabilities to succeed at its missions. Like the F-117 and F-22, the F-35’s stealth capability greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, its radar cross-section, the signal that radar receivers see bouncing back off an airplane. The plane looks smaller on radar – perhaps like a bird rather than a plane – but is not invisible. The F-35 is designed to be stealthy primarily in the X-band, the radar frequency range most commonly used for targeting in air-to-air combat. In other radar frequencies, the F-35 is not so stealthy, making it vulnerable to being tracked and shot down using current – and even obsolete – weapons. As far back as 1999 the same type of stealth technology was not able to prevent a U.S. Air Force F-117 flying over Kosovo from being located, tracked and shot down using an out-of-date Soviet radar and surface-to-air missile system. In the nearly two decades since, that incident has been studied in depth not only by the U.S., but also by potential adversaries seeking weaknesses in passive radar stealth aircraft. Of course, radar is not the only way to locate and target an aircraft. One can also use an aircraft’s infrared emissions, which are created by friction-generated heat as it flies through the air, along with its hot engines. Several nations, particularly the Russians, have excellent passive infrared search and tracking systems, that can locate and target enemy aircraft with great precision – sometimes using lasers to measure exact distances, but without needing radar. It’s also very common in air-to-air battles for opposing planes to come close enough that their pilots can see each other. The F-35 is as visible as any other aircraft its size. Analysts weigh in Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.” Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.” Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design. Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.” How did we get here? How did the F-35 go from its conception as the most technologically advanced, do-it-all military aircraft in the world to a virtual turkey? Over the decades-long effort to meet a real military need for better aircraft, the F-35 program is the result of the merging or combination of several other separate and diverse projects into a set of requirements for an airplane that is trying to be everything to everybody. In combat the difference between winning and losing is often not very great. With second place all too often meaning death, the Pentagon seeks to provide warriors with the best possible equipment. The best tools are those that are tailor-made to address specific missions and types of combat. Seeking to accomplish more tasks with less money, defense planners looked for ways to economize. For a fighter airplane, funding decisions become a balancing act of procuring not just the best aircraft possible, but enough of them to make an effective force. This has lead to the creation of so-called “multi-role” fighter aircraft, capable both in air-to-air combat and against ground targets. Where trade-offs have to happen, designers of most multi-role fighters emphasize aerial combat strength, reducing air-to-ground capabilities. With the F-35, it appears designers created an airplane that doesn’t do either mission exceptionally well. They have made the plane an inelegant jack-of-all-trades, but master of none – at great expense, both in the past and, apparently, well into the future. I believe the F-35 program should be immediately cancelled; the technologies and systems developed for it should be used in more up-to-date and cost-effective aircraft designs. Specifically, the F-35 should be replaced with a series of new designs targeted toward the specific mission requirements of the individual branches of the armed forces, in lieu of a single aircraft design trying to be everything to everyone. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
  22. The F-35 Quite long read so I didn't post the text. Very interesting though!
  23. The F-35

    OTTAWA — Federal officials are expected to sit down with representatives from different fighter jet makers in Paris next week, as uncertainty swirls over the Trudeau government's plan to buy "interim" Super Hornets. The meetings on the sidelines of the prestigious Paris Air Show are being billed as the first step towards the eventual launch of a competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fleet with 88 new fighters. That is how many warplanes the Liberals' new defence policy calls for Canada to buy, an increase from the 65 previously promised by the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. The policy estimates the cost at between $15 billion and $19 billion, up from the $9 billion previously budgeted by the Tories. But while much of the attention will be on the competition, which the government says it will launch in 2019, the companies are also expected to pitch their own ability to sell Canada "interim" jets if needed. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on Monday said the government was still reviewing its decision to buy 18 "interim" Super Hornets from U.S. aerospace firm Boeing. The Liberals previously said they needed the Super Hornets to address a critical shortage of fighter jets, referred to as a "capability gap," until the full competition to replace the CF-18s could be run. The government said at the time that the Super Hornet was the only aircraft that met its immediate requirements, including being compatible with U.S. fighters and not in development. But that was before Boeing complained to the U.S. Commerce Department about Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier, sparking a trade dispute and threats from the Liberals to kill the Super Hornet deal. The plan to purchase an interim fighter jet has been unpopular with retired military officers and defence officials as well as analysts, who have instead called for the competition to start now rather than in 2019. A survey of 75 such experts conducted by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and released on Tuesday found that the vast majority didn't believe there was a capability gap, and opposed the plan to buy interim jets. But a senior government official told The Canadian Press that the Liberals have no intention of backing away from their plan to buy an interim fighter — even if it means going with a different jet. Sources say the government has not actually approached any of Boeing's competitors about stepping into the breach if the Liberals decide to scrap the Super Hornet deal. But the Paris meetings offer an opportunity for U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin, French firm Dassault, Swedish company Saab, and European consortium Eurofighter to make their best pitches on the issue. Each has indicated that it is prepared to provide interim fighter jets upon request. The government's delegation will be led by Maj.-Gen. Alain Pelletier, head of National Defence's fighter program, and Lisa Campbell, who oversees military procurement at the federal procurement department. While sources say meetings with Boeing's competitors have been set up, it wasn't immediately clear whether the delegation would sit down with the Super Hornet manufacturer as well. That is despite Boeing's plan to enter the Super Hornet in the full competition to replace the CF-18s. Public Services and Procurement Canada spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email that details of the delegation, including its schedule for the Paris Air Show, were still being finalized. "Canada is committed to fair and transparent procurement processes," Bujold added. "Supplier engagement and industry feedback are important elements of PSPC's work." The Liberals have cut off most contact with Boeing since the government threatened to cancel the planned Super Hornet purchase over of the company's spat with Bombardier last month. Boeing spokesman Scott Day said in a statement that the company continues to work closely with the U.S. Navy, through which any sale of interim Super Hornets to Canada would actually be arranged. The government also recently paid another $30 million to remain at the table as a partner in the development of the F-35, and largely backed off its promise never to buy that stealth fighter. Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
  24. A Ryanair passenger on a Brussels-Berlin flight was prevented from boarding the budget airline after launching into an angry tirade at a boarding-gate attendant. The American man, said to be called Rudy Kendall, was irked after learning he had to pay €50 at the check-in desk to print his boarding pass, having not done it himself. The 'print or pay' policy has been in place at the low cost airline since 2011. Mobile phone footage, which the passenger appears to have filmed himself, shows him becoming increasingly agitated after he is told of the cost for printing his boarding pass at the airport. He demands that the attendant, working for Ryanair's handling agent Aviapartner, call her supervisor and when she does not respond he shouts: “I’m paying your salary, what kind of customer service is this? I'm a customer, lady. I'm asking your supervisor's name so I can speak with your supervisor because I'm unhappy with the way you're performing your job. "You tell me I have to pay €50 for a flight I'm already checked in on." Abusive behaviour will not be tolerated by the airline (Getty Images) As the attendant gives a slight smile while picking up the phone – presumably to security – he says: "Is there something funny here? What's the joke? Is it your attitude? "You have a bad attitude. You have no business working here and dealing with customers." After berating her for more than three minutes at a packed boarding gate, a fellow passenger wades in to diffuse the situation and asks the man in the video to “stop harassing” the attendant. He responds by calling the man fat and bald, telling him, "You're nothing man, you're nothing." Witnessing the argument the attendant buries her head in her hands and starts to cry. As other passengers attempt to help, he tells them to mind their own business. The man, who is black, later claimed later he was a victim of "mob tendencies by Europeans against dark-skinned foreigners". However, a witness named Philipp said racism did not play a part in the incident.