SLam67.
I don't intend to spend the entire holiday weekend debunking nonsense originating from the non-credible full-time iHub basher of $TMPS "pennypincher2002" - any further posts here giving any credence to his posts on iHub will be treated as "deliberately misleading" or "trolling" and deleted.
Please wait for the brief - the fbo.gov website is currently down for maintenance so I can't access the correct wording of the Industry Day announcement.
Just this once I will spend some time giving you my view on the points you have raised.
I do not believe anything adverse about $TMPS was discovered during the processing of the Omega protests.
I do believe that the USN was disappointed that the Omega protests delayed the start of the $TMPS contract for almost 4 months and hence why they are considering the fast-track approach of the ID/IQ MAC process.
During the discussion process, Omega will undoubtedly have pointed out that they have provided a reliable "on call" contracted out AAR service to the USN for over 18 years. Despite $TMPS having the superior capability - twice the off-load capacity and lower operating costs due to larger aircraft doing less take offs / landings in a year and hence less maintenance cycles - with both companies only being able to provide a small fraction of the overall AAR requirement, there is no reason why both should not be included in the contract.
Worldwide, there are currently only 2 companies - $TMPS and Omega - with aircraft available right now to provide AAR to the USN.
The #1 contractor in the world - Airtanker UK - was formed specifically to provide the entire AAR capability to the Royal Air Force on a $16.5 Billion 27-year contract and only has precisely the right number of aircraft in its inventory for that task - with a number of them earning revenue on civilian airliner route / charter flights when not required for a maximum military effort during hostilities.
As I already stated in the Trading Summary for August 30, if the USN proceeds with the ID/IQ MAC, $TMPS would earn much more than the $121M under the not yet confirmed as cancelled previous contract.
Payment on AAR contracts is by "lbs of fuel delivered" and the $TMPS vs Omega capability ratio is over 2:1 [deduced by aircraft capability].
Also, the amount of fuel that could be delivered under the MAC is now "Indefinite Quantity" [so not capped at a particular total cost of $121M]. Also the contract is potentially for 10 years not 5.
As stated previously, the $TMPS Tristar aircraft were maintained meticulously by the RAF until they were retired in late-2014. Subsequently, they have been maintained in airworthy "flyable storage" by a top notch UK company GJD Services which has authorized international airworthiness inspectors.
Any required spare parts in the future - over and above those included in the ex-RAF package - can be manufactured - $TMPS is an authorized US manufacturer of aircraft parts.
The amount of time the Tristars have spent on the ground at Bruntingthorpe - less than 5 years - during which period the engine have been run up to full power regularly - is insignificant when compared to the reserve storage periods the US DoD practices.
In recent years, the USAF has reclaimed aircraft from the 309th Aerospace Maintenance & Storage Group [the "Boneyard"] at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ that have been there for 20+ years - notably recent examples being a B-52H and U-2.
The phone number given on the website has not been obtainable since the company moved its HQ late-2018 - I tried calling repeatedly in April and May 2019 as I was going to offer to assist putting them in touch with ex-RAF Tristar experienced aircrew and groundcrew. They have clearly changed their number and don't want to be bothered with nugatory inquiries. The company has several other ongoing multi-$M contracts for special operations aircraft.
Any company that can contribute to the discussions at the Industry Day on September 12, 2019 is likely to be there. The only obvious attendees will be $TMPS and Omega.
In addition, we might see the "big boys" Airbus Industries and Northrop / Grumman - who are looking for a possible large USAF contract as well - turning up with long-term proposals for a contractor provided / contractor operated solution using a much larger fleet of new build aircraft but that is not likely to be a factor in an almost immediate contract.for the first 5-year term.
In addition, Airbus - if they attended - would undoubtedly be doing a sales pitch to $TMPS and Omega on options for purchasing / leasing new build aircraft to expand their fleets later:
- A330 MRTT - as used by the RAF and almost every other AAR capable nation.
- A400M MRTT - cheaper turboprop powered aircraft that is also a tactical transporter superior to the USN's old KC-130H/J.
I have now spent way more time on this than I intended but a lot of it will be part of the new brief later.
I don't intend to spend the entire holiday weekend debunking nonsense originating from the non-credible full-time iHub basher of $TMPS "pennypincher2002" - any further posts here giving any credence to his posts on iHub will be treated as "deliberately misleading" or "trolling" and deleted.
Please wait for the brief - the fbo.gov website is currently down for maintenance so I can't access the correct wording of the Industry Day announcement.
Just this once I will spend some time giving you my view on the points you have raised.
I do not believe anything adverse about $TMPS was discovered during the processing of the Omega protests.
I do believe that the USN was disappointed that the Omega protests delayed the start of the $TMPS contract for almost 4 months and hence why they are considering the fast-track approach of the ID/IQ MAC process.
During the discussion process, Omega will undoubtedly have pointed out that they have provided a reliable "on call" contracted out AAR service to the USN for over 18 years. Despite $TMPS having the superior capability - twice the off-load capacity and lower operating costs due to larger aircraft doing less take offs / landings in a year and hence less maintenance cycles - with both companies only being able to provide a small fraction of the overall AAR requirement, there is no reason why both should not be included in the contract.
Worldwide, there are currently only 2 companies - $TMPS and Omega - with aircraft available right now to provide AAR to the USN.
The #1 contractor in the world - Airtanker UK - was formed specifically to provide the entire AAR capability to the Royal Air Force on a $16.5 Billion 27-year contract and only has precisely the right number of aircraft in its inventory for that task - with a number of them earning revenue on civilian airliner route / charter flights when not required for a maximum military effort during hostilities.
As I already stated in the Trading Summary for August 30, if the USN proceeds with the ID/IQ MAC, $TMPS would earn much more than the $121M under the not yet confirmed as cancelled previous contract.
Payment on AAR contracts is by "lbs of fuel delivered" and the $TMPS vs Omega capability ratio is over 2:1 [deduced by aircraft capability].
Also, the amount of fuel that could be delivered under the MAC is now "Indefinite Quantity" [so not capped at a particular total cost of $121M]. Also the contract is potentially for 10 years not 5.
As stated previously, the $TMPS Tristar aircraft were maintained meticulously by the RAF until they were retired in late-2014. Subsequently, they have been maintained in airworthy "flyable storage" by a top notch UK company GJD Services which has authorized international airworthiness inspectors.
Any required spare parts in the future - over and above those included in the ex-RAF package - can be manufactured - $TMPS is an authorized US manufacturer of aircraft parts.
The amount of time the Tristars have spent on the ground at Bruntingthorpe - less than 5 years - during which period the engine have been run up to full power regularly - is insignificant when compared to the reserve storage periods the US DoD practices.
In recent years, the USAF has reclaimed aircraft from the 309th Aerospace Maintenance & Storage Group [the "Boneyard"] at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ that have been there for 20+ years - notably recent examples being a B-52H and U-2.
The phone number given on the website has not been obtainable since the company moved its HQ late-2018 - I tried calling repeatedly in April and May 2019 as I was going to offer to assist putting them in touch with ex-RAF Tristar experienced aircrew and groundcrew. They have clearly changed their number and don't want to be bothered with nugatory inquiries. The company has several other ongoing multi-$M contracts for special operations aircraft.
Any company that can contribute to the discussions at the Industry Day on September 12, 2019 is likely to be there. The only obvious attendees will be $TMPS and Omega.
In addition, we might see the "big boys" Airbus Industries and Northrop / Grumman - who are looking for a possible large USAF contract as well - turning up with long-term proposals for a contractor provided / contractor operated solution using a much larger fleet of new build aircraft but that is not likely to be a factor in an almost immediate contract.for the first 5-year term.
In addition, Airbus - if they attended - would undoubtedly be doing a sales pitch to $TMPS and Omega on options for purchasing / leasing new build aircraft to expand their fleets later:
- A330 MRTT - as used by the RAF and almost every other AAR capable nation.
- A400M MRTT - cheaper turboprop powered aircraft that is also a tactical transporter superior to the USN's old KC-130H/J.
I have now spent way more time on this than I intended but a lot of it will be part of the new brief later.
2
Tempus Applied Solutions Holdings, Inc. (TMPS) Stock Research Links
"Per Ardua Ad Astra" - "Through Adversity To The Stars"
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
A very apposite motto for those who trade successfully in the OTC market..
All posts are my opinion - trade at your own risk.
