Posted on 02/29/2008 7:13:12 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Air Force decision awarding a $35 billion aircraft contract to a team including the European parent of Airbus landed like a bomb in Congress on Friday, drawing howls of protest from lawmakers aligned with the loser, America's Boeing Co.The Congressional delegation from the Seattle area said they were "outraged." Kansas Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt vowed to seek a review of the decision "at the highest levels of the Pentagon and Congress" in hopes of reversing it.
Boeing has big facilities in both Seattle and Wichita, which stood to gain from the long-term project to build up to 179 aerial refueling tankers. Although Boeing was favored to win the contract, the Air Force awarded it to a partnership between Northrop Grumman and Europe's EADS.
Conventional wisdom was running so strongly against Northrop-EADS in some corners of Capitol Hill that Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office issued a statement late on Friday declaring Boeing the winner. It was swiftly retracted.
Lawmakers from Alabama, where Northrop and EADS plan to do some tanker work, were effusive in praising the Air Force.
"I thought all along that the Northrop Grumman-EADS proposal was the best," Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, told reporters. He said the contract would bring nearly 7,000 jobs to the state.
On the disappointment of Chicago-based Boeing's allies, Shelby said he understood. "If Boeing had won this contract ... I would have been concerned about it."
As for Tiahrt's vow to seek a review, Shelby said, "The Pentagon and the Air Force have made their decision and I think it was for the right reasons and I'll stand by that."
The decision was sure to result in a debate, with a formal protest also possible, said defense consultant Jim McAleese.
The tanker deal will give EADS a huge boost in the U.S. defense market, making it the second biggest foreign supplier behind Britain's BAE Systems, analysts said.
"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refueling tanker -- a tanker assembled in America -- by Americans," said Alabama Republican Rep. Jo Bonner.
Bonner represents Mobile, Alabama, where assembly work on the aircraft will be done, although it will largely be constructed in France at facilities of EADS' unit Airbus.
Airbus, with large facilities in Toulouse, is Boeing's arch-rival in the global commercial airliner business.
Wichita's Rep. Tiahrt said, "I am deeply troubled by the Air Force's decision to award the KC-X tanker to a French company that has never built a tanker in its history.
"We should have an American tanker built by an American company with American workers. I cannot believe we would create French jobs in place of Kansas jobs."
Tiahrt said he will seek to have the decision reviewed by both the Pentagon and Congress. "At the end of this laborious process, I hope the Air Force reverses its decision."
Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, along with six other lawmakers from the state said in a joint statement: "We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military.
"We will be asking tough questions about the decision to outsource this contract. We look forward to hearing the Air Force's justification."
(Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, editing by Richard Chang)
Europe is one giant union. The difference is that Europe values its business and supports it (subsidize) while America hammers it business and never supports it. Airbus can make all the promises they want, they’ll be bailed out in the end.
Your hyperbole doesn't help your position. You are coming across as a hysteric. I am certain that is not your intent.
Congress will no doubt come to a political solution and split the order between the two companies so that in the end we’ll wind up with fewer aircraft with less capability costing more money that we would had we left the order with Northrop-Airbus.
This may come as a shock to you, but the military, while it wants the lowest cost, also wants the "best value" even more. My evaluation, as a defense contractor, is that Boeing is suffering from "Victory Disease". They figured they were entitled to this contract, didn't bother to meet the requirements because "they knew better than the warfighter, what he/she needed" and besides, they could wrap themselves in the flag and justify being "given" the contract.
NG read the requirements and offered the best value, not the cheapest, a more modern and capable airframe. Boeing chose to pawn off an old, off-the-shelf, marginal solution. They chose poorly. I hope they can learn from it.
Yes, and the folks hyperventilating on this thread will then scream bloody murder because of the waste and such. Boeing tried to pawn off a marginal, off-the-shelf solution, with a half-assed proposal. That smacks of arrogance and they got what they deserved!
If I am coming across as very concerned about this issue, it is because it is a very important issue in my opinion for this country. I do not have a ‘mantra’ I have backed up my points. I have a right to my opinion which is very simple. Free trade in its’ current inception is bad for the country and this year for Republicans. Believe me, the Dems will hammer McCain on this issue.
The contract award to a foreign competitor will cost the Repubs Ohio in my opinion and the presidency. I am a conservative so I don’t support McCain anyway. My views are reasonable and far from hysterical.
Often I wonder how a free trader can view the wreckage of manufacturing in Buffalo, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia etc and still believe, free trade is good for the country. I think the belief in free trade against all evidence is really a kind of faith-almost a religion.
I don’t buy that. Airbus bought GOP votes in my opinion. According to free traders American products are always inferior.
How would you like it if I were to accuse you of being a DU member, or a fag? I have no evidence or circumstantial proof of that, so I wouldn't accuse you. You have no evidence of my being a "free trader" except that I don't mindlessly toe your party line.
As far as I am concerned, our exchange is over and any further comments from you will be ignored. You have my contempt, however.
I don't think so. I think Boeing will shut down the 767 line if it can't get any more commercial order orders for it. The line has been running at about the minimal economically sustainable rate of 12 per year just to keep it warm for the KC-45. Boeing really shot itself in the foot with the leasing scandal. If that hadn't happened perhaps Boeing would have already built most of the initial 100 767 tankers and the USAF would have already been able to start retiring the KC-135E's. Perhaps the KC-30 is the best tanker available four years from now from a new factory built in Alabama, but the existing 767 line had the spare capacity five years ago. The point of the leasing arrangement was to decrease the upfront acquisition costs and get more tankers built more quickly. As a pure KC-135 replacement at existing bases, the 767 is probably superior due to the need for minimal changes to hangers.
I did not call you a ‘free trader’. I merely observed that this belief in free trade against all evidence smacks of faith-almost a religion. Also, I was unaware that being called a free trader was an insult. I disagree with people who believe in free trade in its current inception. I fail to understand why you would be so insulted. However, please accept my apologies, it was not my intention to insult you.
We delivered to Japan last month. We DO have planes flying. Sorry, your info is incorrect.
Get your head out of the sand :>)
Most of the places you mentioned are not right to work states. The unions have shot themselves in the foot by making manufacturing more expensive and not allowing flexibility in work rules. Manufacturers in right to work states have incentives to keep their labor force happy while being more productive. For the most part, Texas has only had one major recession since the end of World War II. That was in the mid 1980's when oil and gas prices plunged as new production came online as a response to the Arab oil embargo and resulting high prices in the 1970's.
Cindy,
Fortunately America is first in this bid. I live in Tacoma, WA. and have heard all the union whining I can tolerate on this decision. The fact is that Boeing FAILED to provide a quality bid - they just offered a cookie cutter aircraft on the 767 airframe. The Northrup-EADS aircraft is a superior aircraft in every category.
The Japanese agreed to a mininum modification tanker based in the 767-200ER.
The Boeing 767AT is based on the in-development 767-200LRF with new engines, new cockpit, upgraded boom.
They may look alike, but at most they are identical cousins.
Thank you Perdogg for posting the facts. I cannot believe so many so-called conservatives on this forum fall for the union’s BS.
They may look alike, but at most they are identical cousins.
The 767LRF is really a 767-200ER fuselage with 767-400ER cockpit, wings, and landing gear. The proposed 767AT would have had 767-300ER landing gear, probably due to the fact that tankers tend to land at a rather low weight so they didn't need the heavier duty landing gear. The problem with the 767-400ER wing is that Delta wanted a domestic replacement for its L-1011 fleet and could park at the same gates. This compromised the 767-400ER performance so it really wasn't competitive with the A330 for most potential customers. The tanker proposed by Boeing would have been capable of lifting as much weight off the runway as a 767-400ER but with a plane with not much more empty weight than a 767-200ER. This would have allowed them to lift more fuel than the tankers delivered to Japan and Italy.
I'd say Boing failed to meet the "satisfactory quality" requirement of Title 41.
I'm going to watch if General Electric offers a special smaller front fan version of the GENx engine specifically for the KC-45A. This will cut fuel consumption compared to the CF6-80E1 now used on the A330 models.
What's wrong with the GENx already developed for the 747-8?
With essentially the loss of a 179-plane production order of what amounts to a military version of the 767-200LRF, there is no real incentive to build any more 767 derivatives, especially since Delta Airlines has pretty much bought all the 767-400ER’s they need to replace the L1011 and any future widebody twin sales to Delta will be either the 787-8 or 787-9.
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.