Leaderboard

This is an aviation "urban legend". Pilots have speculated about this for a long time. But the proof is in the results. We all know plenty that have been hired at companies other than SWA while in possession of a 73 type. The Legacies simply do not care.

Congress Saves the A-10 Warthog... for Now by Rich Smith The U.S. Air Force wants to kill the A-10 Thunderbolt II. But the Air Force's paymaster does not. And when all's said and done, that's what the debate over the fate of America's best tank-destroying warplane may come down to -- whether the folks who control the Air Force's purse strings want to keep the A-10 flying. A few weeks ago, we went over a few trial balloons that the Air Force has floated, in case Congress won't let it retire its fleet of 326 A-10 "Warthogs." To save the estimated $700 million a year it costs to keep the A-10s fueled, maintained, and flying, USAF has suggested it could retire its entire fleet of 66 B-1B long-range bombers instead -- or put about a third of its 1,018 F-16 fighter jets into mothballs. That makes sense because, as Georgia Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have pointed out, the A-10 is cheaper to fly, per flying hour, than either the F-16 or the B-1. This suggests that cutting the more expensive planes from the Air Force's arsenal, and sticking with the older -- but cheaper and more effective -- A-10 is the right move to make. And speaking of no brains -- Congress! Regardless, Congress is busily brainstorming other ways to save the A-10. Earlier this month, for example, legislators in the House Armed Services Committee, or HASC, passed an amendment, voting two to one to forbid the USAF from even thinking of retiring the plane unless it can assure legislators it has other ways of providing "adequate" close-air support to troops on the ground. This requirement edged out a separate proposal (which was rejected) that would have had the Air Force mothball its A-10s -- so that rather than being disassembled and sold for scrap, they'd be kept in stasis, shrink-wrapped in latex, and could be brought back from retirement if need be. (The main problem with that plan: "Spinning up" a latex wrapped A-10 can take as long as four months to accomplish. By that time, the war may already be lost). Meanwhile in the Senate, the HASC's doppelganger, the Senate Armed Services Committee, confirmed this week that it's working on a plan to shift funding from other programs to cover the cost of the A-10. (The catch here? Optimistic senators think they only need to cobble together $400 million to keep the A-10 flying for another year. That's barely half what USAF says it needs -- and less than half of what the Obama Administration says the A-10 will cost). What it means to investors It's that last point that may turn out to be of most importance to defense investors. The White House went on record this week saying it has "serious concerns" with Congressional efforts to keep the A-10 alive, and "objects," in particular to Congress's plan to shift funding from the Littoral Combat Program, among others, to fund programs such as the A-10. The Administration even went so far as to utter the "V" word -- threatening to veto the bill if its demands are not met. What might this mean for investors, in dollars and cents? Here's a quick rundown of the highlights. Northrop Grumman America hasn't built a brand-new A-10 Warthog in decades. But as the debate before Congress shows, it still spends hundreds of millions annually keeping the ones it's already built flying. Since 1987, Northrop Grumman has served as prime contractor for A-10 work. Its most important recent contract was awarded in 2010 -- a $486 million contract to equip U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft -- including A-10s -- with up to 99 LITENING targeting pods. Other tasks assigned to Northrop: $1.7 million to "sustain and modernize all A-10 weapon system configurations," and $11.3 million to perform "evaluations, analysis, repair designs, and/or testing" of A-10 structural integrity. Boeing Another contractor with arguably as big a stake in the A-10's survival as Northrop Grumman's, is Boeing. Last year, Boeing was the single biggest recipient of A-10-related funding, winning $218 million in maintenance contracts for the A-10, "the most of any defense prime," according to Bloomberg. These included $212 million awarded in just one single contract to deliver 56 replacement "thick-skinned" wings for the A-10. Going forward, and working from the estimated $4 million cost per wing, Boeing's contract to build as many as 242 replacement wings for the A-10, of which 173 have already been ordered, could yield as much as $276 million in additional revenue for Boeing in years to come -- and help to keep the A-10s flying well into the 2040s. (That is, if Congress can convince USAF to keep the plane flying, at all). Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin, in contrast, has almost no ties to the A-10 program whatsoever. Yet, it's arguably the single company most interested in the aircraft's fate. A review of business segment data from S&P Capital IQ on the revenues of each of the major A-10 players reveals that, even the multi-hundred-million-dollar contracts that Boeing and Northrop have won for A-10 work amount to mere fractions of 1% of each company's annual revenue stream. In contrast, Lockheed Martin gets 20% of its revenues from production of its new F-35 Lightning II fighter jet -- the plane that the Obama administration and the U.S. Air Force agree can do an "adequate" job of replacing the A-10 on, for close-air-support missions. Over time, and based on the F-35's projected program cost, the F-35 could ultimately grow to constitute 50% of Lockheed's business, if the company is able to sell as many F-35s as originally expected. But here's the key: Every dollar diverted from F-35 production to fund the A-10 means fewer F-35s built today. And the fewer F-35s that get built, the slower Lockheed Martin is able to scale production of the F-35. Less economies of scale mean less efficiency of production for Lockheed, raising the cost of building F-35s, and making the plane less price-competitive with alternative fighter jets for sale on world markets. And this effect tends to snowball -- the more expensive the plane, the fewer the foreign buyers, and the fewer the foreign buyers, the less efficient the production -- raising the F-35's cost even further, and leading to even fewer buyers. In short, Lockheed Martin needs to scale production of the F-35 fast. But the more funds get diverted from F-35 production to save the A-10, the harder this job gets for Lockheed Martin. If you were wondering before why the F-35's backers in Congress hate the A-10 so much, well, now you know.

Not true, Danny. I was hired at a legacy with the type rating and zero hours in the 737. They didn't even ask me about it. They aren't that parochial. To the OP; Don't worry about getting it. You're qualified. Can you imagine a recruiter having the following mental dialogue? "Let's see, this one is a fighter pilot, so he graduated at the top of his UPT class. He's upgraded to flight lead and IP, so he's probably got his crap together. Hmmm, I think we'll pass on this dude since...wait a sec! He's got a type rating proving he can fly somebody's simulator and pass a pretty tame checkride! We'd better get this guy right in here." You're a known quantity. Spend your money on interview prep. MUCH better investment. Good luck! Listen to Huggy

Stick, I'm congratulating you for having the courage to punch despite being on the "path." You made your mind up, followed your convictions, and it worked out. You will be missed brodimir putin, take her easy.

I am not sure if the guy in Boston is doing them any longer, no one seems to be able to get in touch with him. He is an elderly guy, early 70s if I had to guess. If you can get him, best deal out there. It is on the level, you accomplish everything required per the PTS for the checkride. He just uses a different philosophy on how he conducts the checkride and it is tailored for military guys.

Your liberal-side is once again showing, Vertigo--unless you think that O'Keefe's exposure of ACORN and Maryland voting officials allowing O'Keefe to vote for Eric Holder (because he said he was Holder and wasn't required to produce an ID) is all taken out of context? I applaud what he and his team does with these videos...hell, hidden audio exposed Sterling and people don't seem to have a problem with that situation.

This statement is one of the most delusional things I've heard in a LONG time. And given the current executive administration, that's something to be proud of. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Self deport... Like locusts leaving a field of crops after they've consumed all the resources... Brilliant!

The best intimidation story ever used on the boyfriend of a daughter was told to me by my Sq/CC at SJAFB. His (at the time) 16 year old daughter had her boyfriend over for dinner and said Sq/CC began to tell the story of the 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash wherein - as he told it - a BUFF full of nuclear weapons crashed in North Carolina and despite exhaustive efforts, they never found all of the weapons. Imagine a great story teller finishing this elaborate story over dinner and putting his fork down, then leaning in to the young man with eyes towards his daughter and saying, "If all those people with so many resources couldn't find nuclear weapons in North Carolina...what makes you think they would ever find you?" Sometimes you don't need a gun.

Hopefully the first 10K are the shoes that contribute nothing but uniform corrections to the war effort. Hopefully the next 10K are people like Rusty Pipes who put the same amount of thought into foreign policy as they do reading a children's book.

Thanks for proving what I said earlier- The problem is self correcting. When too many immigrants come the resources and available jobs become very limited and with it the incentive to immigrate. Many would even choose to self deport at that point! Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

And you want to limit human freedom for your own selfish reasons. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

There should be no restrictions. And if the border was open to all but still managed, what incentive is there to trek through miles of open desert when you can come through a checkpoint legally, with no restrictions? Comprende mi amigo? By you keeping out those who you don't want in, aren't you infringing on my private property rights to sell, or rent to whomever I choose to enter into a contract with? Or as a business owner, whom I can hire to work for me? So your "right" to possibly feel crowded supersedes my rights as a property owner or business owner to run my businessour home in its best interest? Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! Are you saying no one would rent or sell to an immigrant, tree? Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

Nice that you label all immigrants like that. Your true white robe colors are showing Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!

So slavery should be legal again, right? After all of we're going to limit freedom for selfish reasons, why not go all out?

How bouts common sense and wisdom.