U.S. Air Force to fly Airbus

Boeing 767

U.S. Air Force to fly Airbus (not Boeing)

Anyone who thought the drawn-out battle to choose the new generation Air Force tanker aircraft ended with the Pentagon’s decision Friday to go with the Northrop-Grumman/EADS consortium likely has another think coming.

"This won't be pretty," Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., told The Seattle Times Saturday. "There will be a firestorm of criticism on Capitol Hill,” Dicks, whose Seattle-area district depends heavily on Boeing for its economic well-being, warned.

Although the loss of the $40 billion deal is not expected to result in any job losses at Boeing, the contract would have created up to 8,000 additional jobs and kept the 767 assembly line going well beyond 2012 when the last commercial 767 is finished.

It’s an election year in which the economy is in trouble and protectionist sentiments have been expressed by both Democratic presidential nomination contenders. Not only that, the leading Republican contender is remembered as the politician that killed the original contract awarded to Boeing in 2003, so it would seem the tanker issue will have pretty long legs.

"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers," said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., whose district includes Boeing’s Wichita plant. Leading Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hilary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have both been trumpeting protectionist policies of late but it’s Republican front-runner John McCain who might face the most scrutiny. It was pressure from McCain that scotched a 2003 award to Boeing for a total of 100 767-based tankers. McCain alleged favoritism in the bidding process and the Pentagon rescinded the contract in 2004.

Now there are allegations the most recent bidding process was changed to favor the Airbus/Northrop Grumman bid. In the end, it may well be the U.S.-first sentiment that dominates the chorus of discontent.

"Obviously, Congress is going to react to the American public," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said. "You can put an American sticker on a plane and call it American, but that doesn't make it American-made." Which aircraft will do the best job for the best price does not seem to figure into the current debate.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

-----------------------------
An alternate view by Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, Ret.):

“One can understand the American Pride issue that the plane would be made by a U.S. company; one can understand a backlash attitude given the fraudulent Boeing Lease deal and its $600+ million fine; and, one can understand the "jobs" issues and everything else.

But think for a minute. For decades the U.S. has been selling military products to Europe worth hundreds of billions of dollars, F-4s, F-16s, F-111s, KC-130s. We literally equipped most of Europe for decades. No one complained then, and we were proud to sell our products to our European allies. U.S. products were better and less expensive, and in most cases European nations were not able to manufacture their own products, but things change and we are where we are.

Europeans design and build excellent products, so it should come as no surprise that AIRBUS was a viable competitor. They have the industrial capacity, the technical expertise and it has become "cheap" to manufacture products in the U.S. given the decline of the dollar vs. the Euro. Remember all the foreboding talk? Guess what? Production goes to the place where it is least expensive to build, any surprise that the Gulf Coast got it?

As for Unions vs. Business, both bear the responsibility for jobs going overseas. Both have been greedy; unions want higher wages, more benefits - and companies want more profits. Unions and America loses when jobs go overseas, so the solution is to WORK TOGETHER!!! Some would say, "Fat chance." But, I for one have hope that one day everyone will open their eyes and figure out that it would be better to work together than to die on the vine.

Has anyone thought that rather than blame the Pentagon that is by law required to award contracts to the lowest qualified bidder, and then sit here and yell at one another, that it might just be a good idea to shut up and insist that legislators and administrations work to foster a healthier economic environment in the United States?

Does anyone really believe that taxing businesses into the grave is going to preserve American jobs? That is, unless the government does the Socialist act that certain candidates are advancing.

Anyone have his brains turned on out there?

If we can just keep illegal immigrants from scooping up all the jobs, the contract will be a huge economic boon to the region, foster better relations with our European allies and provide an excellent piece of equipment to the Air Force.”

Excerpted from:
“Dollars Coming Home to Roost”
March 4, 2008
Col. Bob Pappas (USMC, Ret.)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1386811
----------------------

Response from Marty D.: In recent years, there has been a perennial effort in the House of Representatives to favor American companies in defense contracts. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, has tried several times to insert legislation into the defense authorization bill to prohibit the Pentagon from awarding contracts to foreign companies that receive government subsidies, such as EADS. But each time he has been thwarted in the Senate, where Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Warner (R-Va.) and others have successfully challenged the language.

----------------------

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

Posted March 3, 2008 08:59 PM
Read more on Aviation ~ U.S. Armed Forces