If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Posted on 11/21/2006 4:18:39 PM PST by Paul Ross
Hunter To Hold Line On Buy America, Block EADS Bid To Make Tankers
Defense Daily 11/21/2006
Author: Jen DiMascio<
In his new roles as ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and presidential candidate, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) intends to "hold the skirmish line" on provisions that boost manufacturing in the United States.
That includes doing his best to block a team consisting of Northrop Grumman [NOC] and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. that is competing against Boeing [BA] to replace the Air Force's aging tanker fleet. Airbus is a commercial subsidiary of EADS.
"I will fight strongly to see that tens of thousands of aerospace jobs are not sent to France to manufacture Airbus as the next tanker for the United States Air Force," Hunter told Defense Daily in a brief interview yesterday. "That's an area that I'm very concerned about. The prospects of that would be a tremendous transfer of aerospace jobs from our country to another country, which hasn't been particularly helpful in our Iraq operation."
One issue with regard to the tanker competition has been a draft request for proposals (RFP) that asked the bidding industry teams indicate how best to deal with the lingering trade issue between the United States and the European Union (EU) (Defense Daily, Sept. 29).
Both Boeing and Airbus have accused each other of benefiting unfairly from government subsidies and tax breaks that defray the costs of their respective aircraft development.
From Hunter's perspective the issue is clear. "I would like to see simply a ban on any in this competition on the company, which has a fairly large government subsidy," he said.
But beyond the subsidy, he said his philosophy is that because American taxpayers foot the bill for the costly aircraft, "I think compels us to utilize American production when it comes to creating that tanking capability," Hunter said.
He will work for that point of view by offering amendments and amending the chairman's mark, when it aligns with the majority.
Hunter is likely to face stiff competition from the Senate in the effort to block the Northrop Grumman-EADS tanker bid by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), another likely contender for the 2008 presidential race.
McCain, along with Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), have pressed the Office of the Secretary of Defense to remove language referring to the WTO dispute in the draft RFP, saying that the language inhibits a fair competition.
The Northrop Grumman-EADS teams plans to produce its version of the tanker in Mobile, Ala.
B.S.!
The language is in their only because EADS/AIRBUS is already violating "fair competition" with its 30% subsidy.
Sell-outs. McCain sold out lock-stock-and-barrel to EADS/AIRBUS. The other two to state pork-barrel.
Buy SWHC stock! Americans are buying firearms again!
I think that most Americans regardless of party affiliation would support Hunter and sincerely question the motivation of McCain and co. The only thing missing is a reliable and accurate media to disseminate and discuss this info.
Doesn't French stuff tend to fall apart mid-air? That would be my objection to the EADS purchase. But I do not favor protectionism.
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
If Duncan Hunter runs for and is elected President in '08, it could be the dawn of a new era in Washington - a President who actually wants to KEEP American jobs in America instead of giving them away to foreigners, a rarity these days in the GOP.
MCain is going to run for president, but this advocacy of a foreign company will not get any publicity from the MSM. SUSPICION=McCain got a "Generous Campaign contribution" from the principals.
Hunter is going to run too (He is my choice of all Republicans), and has a history of sticking up for America.
Some people here in Mobile are going to be real upset.
May the best and cheapest manufacturer win. I hope it's not the French, but if it is, that should tell us something.
You wouldn't mind China or Russia manufacturing our military equipment? Foreign manufacture of military equipment is a fools errand, and it doesn't take a very smart person to figure out why. You are right about the last part of your statement...."that should tell us something"....but what it tells me is any leaders that propose this don't truly have the security of the USA in high regard. Globalism is particularly dangerous when it comes to the manufacture/maintenance of military equipment.
What a load of crap.
You don't block the free market, waving a bunch of flags won't help you get votes Duncan.
So you should be against the AIRBUS/EADS bid which takes full advantage of the plane being used being FULLY SUBSIDIZED for its development. That is EUROPEAN protectionism. Anybody truly for free trade would then demand that the subsidy be eliminated from the bid.
Suppose EADS is going to build the tankers in the U.S. and suppose they fly longer, are faster, and hold more fuel than the one Boeing is offering. Would you still object?
What free market would that be? EADS????
Not from a traitor he won't.
One of the first things you learn in Engineering is that "best and cheapest" are countervailing forces. You can't have both.
"There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey. " John Ruskin
Suppose EADS builds a tanker and sells the vulnerability information to Al Qaeda? Would you object?
Uh, don't swallow the EADS Kool-Aid.
Suppose only 10% of the plane will be "built in the U.S."? [The facts]
Would you still support it?
As for being able to purportedly fly longer, faster, hold more fuel...don't believe it. Anyways, That is not how they are competing. They are competing almost exclusively on their subsidized price. That's it. As to efficiency... the 757 is on a par with them.
And They have nothing which can compete with the other respective options, the 717, the 777, nor the new 787.
All built without any U.S. subsidies...
Are you for the "free market" or not?
I thought not.
Then Boeing has nothing to worry about.
Regarding the 717, I don't think it meets the specs. Re. the 777 & 787, I don't believe Boeing is offering the Air Force that option since the orders are full for the next several years.
Regarding the amount of the Airbus assembled here, guaranteeing the reliability of spare parts would obviously be a factor in any competition.
Regarding subsidies, it's about time the European taxpayers footed some of the bill for their defense.
The location of the corporate headquarters should have nothing to do with this decision.
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.
