Posted on 07/03/2005 2:18:26 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser
Mica Strikes Again You Airlines Better Buy US-Made, By Golly
Speaking of security, there was an interesting news story involving the very congressman whose committee is responsible for oversight of the TSA. Apparently, he believes that there are other areas that need to be made safe from foreign invaders.
In this case, it's our airliner manufacturing industry. Which, by they way, now consists mostly of Boeing, Boeing, and, of course, Boeing.
John Mica (R-FL) is one of those politicians who has a gift for substituting bluster, blather, and great one-liners for hard results. Mica is like a '57 Chevy with no muffler and a chromed-up six. All show and very little go.
He's been outspoken about the failures of the TSA, but hasn't done anything to hold the agency or its leaders accountable. To the contrary, in front of the C-Span cameras he does a great impersonation of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, standing up for all that's good and right, and tearing into the TSA. But in other venues, he actually praises the clowns running the agency. And he has never demanded anybody at the TSA be fired.
Now, Let's Buy American, Even If It Isn't. But the good congressman also wants to be known as the guy who stands up for the American aircraft industry.
This past week, one of Mica's greatest legislative triumphs finally became law. He put a provision into some legislation requiring US airlines to "reveal" to passengers where the airplane they're sitting on was built. In fact, according to news reports, this vital information must be located on the emergency procedures card in every seat-back pocket. Right next to the barf bag.
What a comfort this will be to the passenger trying to get to the nearest exit in an emergency. You can just see the lively repartee as people scramble to the doors... "Gee, Marge, doesn't it feel so patriotic that we've crashed in an American-made airplane!..."
Mica's intent, probably, was to shame airlines like United and Frontier and jetBlue from buying any more of them furrin-built airplanes. Oh, the embarrassment those carriers must feel, now that they gotta reveal that that A-320 was built in, eek, France! Or the A-319 came from some Third World plant in, yuck, Germany.
John, We'd Like To Invite You To Visit Reality. Mica really needs to get out more. Like into the real world. He's obviously totally unaware that we're now in a global economy.
Let's take a look at Boeing's latest offering - the 787 Dreamliner. Let's go the whole route, and reveal where the plane was really built. Not where it was screwed together, but where the thing was actually constructed from bare metal. (Or in this case, bare metal and lots of composite stuff.)
Surprise to Mica. Guess what, the 787 ain't no All-American, baseball-and-apple-pie made-in-the-USA product.
The fact is that building an airliner is no different than other products in today's global economy. A laptop computer, for example, may have components that, when taken all together, may represent over a hundred border crossings. The cooling fan may have been made in Taiwan, but the assembly it's attached to is made in Mexico, the plastic case it gets installed in comes from China, the final assembly is in the Philippines, and the packaging and shipping of the completed unit is in the US.
So, where is the thing "made?"
If the the intent is to identify which is the country of origin, there isn't one. Neither is there such a thing in regard to an airliner. Somebody ought to tell that to Rep. Mica before he attempts any more legislative high jinks.
Is This What Congress Is Concerned With? It's time for a drug test when a congressman wastes the time and energy to a) contemplate such stupid legislation, b) goes through the motions to insert the provision, c) gets the FAA involved to waste time assuring compliance, and d) is actually proud of such jingoistic nonsense.
The whole thing is the legislative equivalent of writing stuff on the mens room wall.
Perhaps it's no coincidence that on Mica's website, under the page containing "Accomplishments In The 109th Congress," it simply says "Under Construction."
Indeed it is.
Injecting more cold reality into this nonsense, Mica might be distressed to know that even the final assembly of America's newest airliner isn't an exclusive red white and blue affair. For example, that big plant in Wichita - you know, the one that built B-29s in W.W.II, and where major parts of the 787 will be glued together - well, it's now Canadian-owned.
The cost to the airlines to comply with Mica's grand legislation was just over half a million bucks. That's according to the FAA, who we trust will be doing random checks of seat-back pockets to make sure no airline is trying to hoodwink the public.
Yessir, airlines are spending $500 large to put another tidbit of information on airplanes that will have absolutely no utility value whatsoever.
Kinda like Mica and his committee - on both sides of the aisle.
(c) 2005, The Boyd Group/ASRC, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Could you ping this to the Aviation Ping list?
Thanks!
... another tidbit of information on airplanes that will have absolutely no utility value whatsoever.
Notice the words completely unnecessary" and "...no utility value whatsoever".
Beware of "experts", or shills waxing poetic (or sarcastic, as the case may be) on their behalf. Anyone using absolutes attracts my immediate attention.
My BS meter immediately pegged for me on this one.
Just to be clear, I have loved aviation all my life, and look forward to my 500th flight with as much enthusiasm and excitement as my first, in anything from an ultra-light to a 747.
Having said that, I despise people who assume on my behalf that I enjoy being treated as a mushroom.
One can never "know too much" about his means of transport. Those who would rather not know can be likewise accomodated. It's a question of choice. I just take issue with the morons who feel entitled to make the choice for me.
Yes, I would like to know if a certain model is landing with shredded rudders, or shedding rudders altogether over New York.
I would also like to be aware of the "Foreign" commuter model whose "American" engines "seize" when flying above 37,000 feet and cannot be restarted, like most other jet engines. These invariably make a big hole in the ground.
Sure, politicians demagogue; that's what they do. But they are not the only ones who do it, and, occasionally, the subject of their attention contains something of value to many of us.
This whitewash job, intended to be humorous, is actually scary.
The subject of another post entirely, is the important distinction between "foreign made" and "foreign made to American design, specifications and quality control standards". Anyone who hides that distinction totally, sure isn't getting any brownie points from me!
I know of more shops here in the US that cut Airbus parts than they do Boeing ones. Other than the 380, Airbus planes are mostly American machined, just European assembled.
You make good points, but they have little to do with the law passed in this case. A note at the bottom of a card stating a "country of origin" has very little meaning, for the reasons stated. However, if you are concerned about the aircraft you fly on, there is more than enough public-source information available to determine whatever you want to know, in far more detail than can be printed on a card.
I understand your concerns about the Airbus 300 and the CRJ, but saying "Made in France" or "Made in Canada" will not add appreciably to your knowledge, especially given as little as the phrases actually mean.
Its very stupid legislation that does nothing but waste money. Should every plane have in each seat a record of its C and D check, and where it was performed, and where the parts from that came from? Again, this is completely unnecessary legislation, a waste of money and time from a Republican that should know better. He is just pandering to a bunch of gomers to try to look like some kind of patriotic dude.
As for Boyd, read up on the guy, he knows the biz, he is read by everyone in the biz, and unlike dimwit publicity seekers like Mary Schaivo, this guy knows of what he speaks.
It was directed at the response to the law; the response from the self-appointed high priests that exist in every profession. A rejection of the idea that is much too common today: That the consumer is an idiot, and should rely on "us high priests" to decide what is or is not important enough for you to know.
Yes, it's a stupid law. And yes, there is grandstanding. But the undercurrent of the response simply rubs me the wrong way.
Boyd is a critic, he is one of the best at exposing the silliness of the TSA and about stupid legislation. I don't mind the undercurrent, because he is correct to be outraged about Mica doing incredibly stupid stuff, he would be just as outraged if Mica was a Dem.
Thanks!
I can agree with that.
Same here. I honestly have to wonder what the addition of that particular information would prove, apart from the fact that airlines (when prodded) can actually shell out more money that they don't have. In Mica's view, is he hoping that someone will see that they're flying on a (perfectly safe) A320 and deplane, costing the airline millions just because it's manufactured in France? Sounds incredibly emotionally-driven and irrational to me. As someone else pointed out, that information is readily available in numerous public venues.
On a lighter note, if Mica is that concerned, maybe he can have the manufacturers stamp it into the bottom of the fuselage (a la die-cast metal toys that are 'Made In China'). I'd pay to see that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.