The American Spectator

Ret. Marine| 1.28.10 @ 6:41AM

Trust comming from a CONgresscritter, you just made my morning. Yeah, and maybe if We the People had an actual American representing this great Nation, many more American citizens would have confidence in our system of Governance too. Bad apples abound.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 1.28.10 @ 7:10AM

Mr. Hillyer: That is another wonderfully written article. However, ponder this statement. Washington is corrupt. Need I say more?

JeffZ| 1.28.10 @ 8:15AM

Most of the scandals Rep. Tiahrt is citing are well known, a quick search of the web would provide plenty of evidence. Canadian government officials were bribed by Airbus in the 1990s to purchase A320s. This case is still under investigation. Saudia Arabian offiicals were paid a $1 billion bribe to purchase Eurofighters, which EADS has a greater than 40 percent work share in. India and Singapore charges involved the sale of helicopters and so on. Mr Hillyer could have easily verified why Rep. Tiahrt was making these charges if he bothered to do a quick Google search. Instead he just throughs out the baseless accusation which is clearly untrue. He could have said the scandals were irrelevant, old hat, or anything else, but saying they aren't true and there is no basis just exposes the weakness of his arguments.

Mr. Hillyr also fails to note his own connection to the EADS tanker bid, since as a former corospondant for the Mobile Register he has his own past history of support for EADS and their bid to build and assembly plant in Alabama. Also, given that EADS stock is 30 percent controlled by holding companies either owned or controlled by the French government, making EADS effectively a government controlled corporate entity, Mr. Hillyer should probably be honest here and represent himself as what he is. A registered agent of a foreign power!

Ryan| 1.28.10 @ 8:29AM

Neither side seems to be the good guy in this issue. I live in Warner Robins, GA and have family who work or worked for NG and know a handful of people on base familiar with the process.

NG's "ready now" plane wasn't as ready as they were stating it was; Boeing is simply trying to fight to get the contract back through legal channels rather than the bid process. Both will create jobs in the US, and both have decently-designed planes.

The initial bid process WAS screwed up from the beginning.

All the situation is, is two big corporations fighting over a giant government contract and trying to keep the other from getting it to make money.

That's it.

St. Thor| 1.28.10 @ 8:43AM

Way to go, Republican idiots! Now you can bet that the corrupt, lying clods known as Democrats will find something that will cost Tiahrt his seat in Congress, maybe some jail time, and crow about what a bunch of corrupt scum Republicans are. The dinosaur media will chime in, and we will have more years of Democrat stupidity and theft.

2Anglico| 1.28.10 @ 9:22AM

Government "bid process" guarantees one thing: he who is willing to put up with the most bs wins!

pete the mediocre| 1.28.10 @ 10:04AM

I do not know a lot about this situation, but I do know Todd Tiahrt. We were in college together back in thee 70s. I know him to be a decent, Christian man with strong conservative values.
Jeffz is correct, there is plenty of documentation supporting Todd's allegations. For Hillyer to attack this good man is inexcusable. Have you forgotten the gipper's 11th commandment?

MOS was 71331| 1.28.10 @ 10:16AM

Hillyer is wrong in his statement "The scandal eventually led to the resignation of Boeing's chairman." The only sense in which the scandal "led" to the B chairman's resignation was that the scandal caused that particular chairman to be appointed. One of the B responses to the scandal and the possibility of being ineligible to pursue any government contracts was to bring back a retired company officer, Harry Stonecipher, with a reputation for high ethical standards, to lead the company. Stonecipher then had an affair with a company employee and resigned when that affair became public knowledge. (Stonecipher's paramour was an engineer whose vice presidential position may have resulted from Stonecipher's preferential treatment, but her job had nothing to do with the tanker competition.) The affair and the bidding scandal had nothing to do with one another.

jim chevigny| 1.28.10 @ 10:25AM

Bribes by foreign companies are standard practice. For Hillyer to take exception to this accusation is for him to show how remarkably naive and uninformed he is in this area.

The US companies, when competing internationally against foreign companies, are immediately at a competitive disadvantage.

Typically when American companies are the winners in an international competition, it is because they have a unique product the foreigners do not have. GE and IBM are examples.

If Mr Hillyer needs proof, I suggest he open his own business and compete against foriegn companies.

Bribes, payoffs, etc are simply an accepted way of doing business for these companies - period. End of story.

Ray| 1.28.10 @ 11:44AM

The way our government addresses procurement necessities has always amazed me. Since the end of WWII, They always sem to perfer a single contrator, a single source, over multiple sources even though the military perfers mutiply sources to ensure that supply isn't interrupted. It's far better to have multiply suppliers than just one.

What happens of a single supplier finds that it's production capabilities are reduced or halted? The military suffers, that's what happens. With multiple suppliers, the threat of supply interruption is nearly eliminated.

Here's an idea: Have two or more companies supply the tankers, even if they use a single, common design. That only makes sense! After all, that just what we did during WWII, and look how well that worked!

Jeff| 1.28.10 @ 12:30PM

Regardless of what the congressman said or did not say, AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS SHOULD NOT GO TO FOREIGN COMPANIES FOR THE AMERICAN MILITARY.

Ryan| 1.28.10 @ 1:45PM

Why? What if they make as good as - or a better product - for a better price?

John - TMF| 1.28.10 @ 2:28PM

Because. Military means WAR stuff. If there is a war, and you by the stuff that you conduct the war from someone else, how do you A) replace it when it gets damaged? B) Fix it when it inevitably breaks? C) Get it if the foreign nation that produces the Weapon (and Tankers are integral parts of critical weapon systems) and decides that it isn't going to sell you that product anymore you are er um... screwed.

It is fine to purchase designs and form shell corporations to manufacture small arms here. FNH and Baretta come to mind. SIG and H&K have also done various levels of manufacturing here. So if Europe tells us to pound sand because they don't like what we do, FNH can still manufacture M240's and such.

The N-G shell game with EADS was aways a logistical nightmare that would never result in very many aircraft ever being assembled (not manufactured in Alabama.) I suspect that a few years in and a few massively expensive airframe part shipments later and Toulouse would be delivering largely completed aircraft to Alabama to have minor equipment and fuel boom attachment done there.

Frankly, I cannot see any business reason why any rational company should build aircraft in Alabama when it can assemble said intercontinental aircraft in existing faculties and supply chains much more cheaply; then fly the largely complete aircraft to the delivery point.

My suspicion is that is exactly what would happen as costs and problems increased over the early life of the contract. The US Air Force would have no choice but to go along.

The AIRBUS Tanker deal was dumb. It will always be dumb. Because one does not hire a prostitute to conduct a marriage.

Think about it.. it works. If N-G wants to compete, let them actually design and manufacture an airplane HERE, in the US. Grumman used to be the "Iron Works". It manufactured some of the greatest aircraft in aviation history. It is sad to see it reduced to a used car salesman.

r/TMF

John - TMF| 1.28.10 @ 2:31PM

Lest anyone not believe what I said about political pressure and cooperation from foreign suppliers...

I need only say: F-111 strikes on Libya. Our marvelous allies in France (Toulouse anyone?) refused our overflight rights for the shortest distance from the UK to Libya.

... Something to be acutely aware of... isn't it?

Regards again,
The Mighty Fahvaag

Richard| 2.1.10 @ 5:37AM

First of all: Bombing Libya was a case of bullying, which most of Europe did not agree with. Secondly even if they would have been allowed to cross european airspace, the mission would still have failed because of lousy planning and lousy weaponry.

Tony in Central PA| 1.28.10 @ 1:59PM

A big part of this problem is the outsourcing of our industrial base.

Curtis| 1.28.10 @ 2:36PM

Lockheed and Boeing are both FUBAR, its part of the requirements if you want to go fishing for government contracts. For each piece of dirt on one, you can find a piece of dirt on the other. Both have played fast and dirty both here and abroad in attempts to get contracts.

As far as "American Jobs" go; all the planes both sides produce, have large quantities of their parts produced outside our country. Its' like buying a Chevrolet today; the doors were made in Canada, the engine in Mexico, and the Transmission in Korea. Final Assembly and "Made in America sticker" installed in Michigan.

As far as the planes themselves go; The 767 air frame is a relic, Boeing should have offered a newer, more advanced air frame. They offered the K-767 as a last run so they could delay closing that assembly line. Airbuses A330 is over sized for the role, its larger price tag and size risks excluding it from smaller airfields closer to the action.

As far as a "Split buy" goes, that jacks up the operating costs tremendously. Two sets of spare parts, two different training pipelines for pilots and maintainers, two different repair depots for rebuilding and large scale repairs.

A competitive initial split lease would have been nice, each company builds a squadrons' worth. the two squadrons operate side by side, review performance and user feedback to determine a winner, sell the losers' otherwise decent planes, and give the winner the production contract. But we've already been waiting a good ten years or so. How much longer can the KC-135 fleet hold out before tankers start falling out of the sky?

Thom| 1.28.10 @ 5:30PM

" How much longer can the KC-135 fleet hold out before tankers start falling out of the sky?"
Another 34-40 years based on their average airframe hours. The last 707 airframe KC-135s will be 80 years old when they leave service and based on the expected buy of airframes that will in fact happen at this rate.

TRUTH| 1.29.10 @ 5:38PM

so what you are saying is that BOEING products last and last and last.

Thom| 1.28.10 @ 5:36PM

"As far as a "Split buy" goes, that jacks up the operating costs tremendously." If I buy 10 Fords and 10 Chevys does my operation cost really go up that much over just 20 Chevys, no. The Admin cost for each different part set is trivial compared to the cost of the supply chain. At the end of the day you still got 20 airframes to support. If your thinking here was correct most airlines would be flying one or two models at best. Not exactly the way it is with the exception of A Tran and Southwest.

Thom| 1.28.10 @ 6:06PM

"A330 is over sized for the role, its larger price tag and size risks excluding it from smaller airfields closer to the action."
And smaller and lighter than every other widebody commerical jet that flys into and out of these same airports on a regular basis. The A330 has better runway performance fully loaded than the 767 bid and much better runway performance carrying the same load as the 767 bid. The 767 bid cost more not less than the A330. Tarmac/aprons are "cheap" concrete compared to reinforced runways thus the often stated claim that the A330 can’t operate in places the 767 bid can is false since the A330 can land and take off in less runway than the 767 bid. The higher operating cost of the A330 is offset by 5 A330s being able to carry what fuel 6 767 bid birds can or 8 767 birds when used in the “cargo” role. Of course the same is true when you compare the larger and heavier 777 against the A330 if you ignore the cost difference. Unless Boeing boosters here think everyone in the Air Force involved in this process are complete morons they aren’t going to even consider an airframe that can’t go where they want it to. Just as the larger commercial jets have lower per seat cost the larger bird is going to win the basic transportation problem of getting the most where it is needed the fastest for the least money. The Air Force does not want a single purpose tanker that sits on the run way 80 years waiting for surges of hundreds of short ranged fighter jets half way around the world and can't do much of anything else as is the case with the 707 airframe. The dual role nature of the bid serves a larger Air Force interest in not having to use a tanker to move fuel only and then have to use the limited number of C-17s they have to move all the cargo and personnel support that goes with these surges half way around the world. That is exactly what they do with the KC-10 now which weights 95,000 lbs more than the A330 and needs 10,000 foot runways to get off of.
If ethnic concerns and allegations are going to be the deciding factor here we aren’t going to buy any commercial airframes. Boeing came within a hair of having the C-17 cancelled due to delays and cost overruns. Their foreign 767 Tankers orders were years behind schedule and over cost. Their 787 is years behind schedule and a true multination product being both designed and built all over the world which begs the question of why they would do that in the first place? The obvious answer is the correct one. Design and build the 787 here and few airlines could afford it. These kinds of things are almost never as straight forward at the emotional response make it out to be. A little research on what the two birds can actually do would enlighten some here.

JeffZ| 1.28.10 @ 8:42PM

Wow, that's quite a mouthful. Of course you are ignoring a great deal facts. The takeoff performance is slightly better for the A330, but because of it's lager size it can use fewer runways. Boeing would say half as many, Airbus hasn't commented on the issue, but the number of usable forward bases is more important than squeezing an extra 20,000 lbs of fuel into the air. Also, given that this isn't a commercial airline and USAF tanker's almost never offload their fuel fuel offload the arguement that a KC-30 would cost less than a KC-767 because fewer are needed is fallacious. The USAF will buy the same number of frames and fly them the same number of hours. If the 767 burns 24% less fuel per flight hour, well it costs 24% less. Arguing that the USAF operates the same way UPS does is simply false, the same goes for cargo which accounts for less than 3% of all cargo missions it is a false and dishonest arguement.

Additionally, Boeing did not run over budget on the C-17 that was McDonnell Douglas, also, Japan has their tankers where are the terminally late KC-30s for Australia? 18 monts late and counting. And the 787, why don't you talk about the A380!

Buy American, it just makes sense to buy the tanker that best meets your needs, produces more American Jobs, and will save the taxpayer the most money over it's lifetime. At an average fuel cost of $100 dollars a barrel the 767 would save over $20 billion over a 40 year period. The advantages of the 767 over the A330 are many, while the A330's sole advantage is it's bigger! If the USAF however, doesn't need a bigger tanker that's no advantage at all.

Thom| 1.28.10 @ 9:38PM

Jeffz, you are entitled to your opinion but you haven't proven anything you said and frankly you don't know what you are talking about. I've heard the propaganda from both sides but news flash, we have almost 30 years of data on the 767 design and almost 20 on the A330 design. As to how the Air Force operates when it matters get a clue here. The guy who gets there first with the most at the lowest cost wins. We aren’t flying 707 cargo aircraft any longer, we aren’t going to wear out the existing KC-135s from use, and the main reason to start replacing them is cost to maintain a 45 year old designs. They are going to keep flying these things for almost another 40 years because there isn’t a choice. The first 15 year contract will replace less than 200 of the 700 plane fleet. You don’t seem to think that additional flight and ground crew cost matters for the extra aircraft required to do the same “work” when hundreds of these aircraft are “surged” half way around the world. You assume the same number of airframes is going to be bought regardless. You are dreaming if you think that in the current state of financial affairs. We aren’t replacing anything on a one to one basis today and haven’t been for two decades now. If you don’t think the Air Force operates under some cost/benefit ratios for normal peace time operations you are sadly misinformed. Everyone has a budget to stay on. I have firsthand knowledge of design considerations/changes going into billion dollar items for the military and cost savings over the life of the item were front and center and not trivial numbers.

jeffz| 1.29.10 @ 9:54AM

Given the lack of any facts in your response I would say I have proven plenty. They guy who gets there with the mostest? Well that is going to be dictated by space requiremens wherever there happens to be, and given the much smaller size of the KC-767 and the ability to get more booms in the air, the A330 would lose again here. A KC-30 is even larger than a KC-10 yet lifts 110,000 lbs of fuel less. It's a passenger liner, not a tanker, it is totaly unsuitable to the role of tanker, and fewer crew and ground crew? Besides if total fuel offload is your only criteria a KC-777 would wipe the floor over a KC-30, a 777F could carry 150,000 lbs of fuel more than a KC-30.

As far as the flight and ground crew arguement, Huh!!! the USAF will employ the same number of crew and ground crew regardless of which aircraft is purchased. Again, we are not talking UPS here, stop using false analogies!

Glenn Yates| 1.28.10 @ 7:05PM

http://www.wordwizard.com/phpb.....mp;t=19755
My grammar skills won't stand up long to direct fire,
but it seems to me an overstatement that concerning is never an adjective.

Glenn Yates| 1.28.10 @ 7:05PM

http://www.wordwizard.com/phpb.....mp;t=19755
My grammar skills won't stand up long to direct fire,
but it seems to me an overstatement that concerning is never an adjective.

CalMark| 1.28.10 @ 7:43PM

America should build its own crucial defense assets. In an era of long-range combat jet airplanes, tankers are crucial defense assets. Therefore, an American company should build them. Boeings has a long, illustrious--and ongoing, Mr. Hillyer!--history of large military aircraft. Why are you and so many "free market" types so eager to give that up? This argument smells of the "phony objectivity," a la McCain '08 and other surrenders, that non-liberals affect to show their open-mindedness.

Thom| 1.28.10 @ 9:17PM

CalMark, I completely agree but let us take your argument to its logical end point and apply it equally inside and outside this country for a moment.
Boeing hasn’t built a tanker since the 60s. Their current 767 is years behind schedule and way over cost, as was their C-17 and is the 787. The last tanker the Air Force bought was a DC-10 variant and the Air Force wants some of that capability in a smaller air craft and cheaper airframe. Does Boeing have an airframe between the 777 and 767 size and capability like the A330? No. Maybe they will have one in ten years when they get the 787 production up to speed.
If our Allies who, have bought in total thousands of F-15s, F-16s, F-4s, F-5s, A-4s, F-104s, F-101s, C-130s, Sikorsky, Bell, MD, Boeing helicopters, AWAC, M-4, M-24, M-47, M-48, M-60, M1 tanks, M113 APCs M-109 artillery systems, war ships, missiles, bombs, small arms etc were to take the same attitude many here express what shape do you think our military industrial complex would be in today? Our weapon systems have dominated the arsenals of our allies for decades yet we expect them to “buy American” just because while we snob them?
This is some of the big ticket items we lose if we carry your argument to its logical end point in retrograde.
Gone the German designed 120 MM M1 tank gun. Gone the British 105 tank gun that was beat out by the German 120 MM tank gun. The last American tank gun win was the 90 mm in the M48 Patton in the 50s and every tank gun since then has been either British or German designed. Ask the Iraqis about how well the German design performed going through sand dunes and passing through the T-72 behind.
Gone the M240 (Mag58), Mini Saws Machine gun. The M240 is the best machine gun in the world. Our M60 MG is a poor adaptation of the German MG42 which they still use. The Mini beat out both the Colt design and H&K. Beating H&K wasn’t easy since they pioneered the concept of a “Squad Automatic Weapon”. Gone the SS109 bullet designed for the SAWs. All designed by the same foreign company.
Gone the French Dauphin light weight helicopter which fit the requirements needed to operate off our older and smaller Coast Guard Cutters and was certified to operate over water.
Gone the British designed armor for the M1 tank. Take that and the 120 MM German designed tank gun away and you got a very expensive T-72 left.
Gone the M9 pistol (no loss there).
Gone a host of specialized equipment that goes inside many of our weapons systems that are either designed or built oversees.
Now to the “tanker” thing. There are two commercial aircraft builders left in the Free World, Boeing and Air Bus. Boeing is a monopoly here, Air Bus there. Boeing bought its last domestic competitor here (McDonnell Douglas) and between the two of them drove Lockheed out of the commercial business (its L-1011 Tristar being beat out by the DC-10 and the Boeing 747) and ultimately out of the large military aircraft business such as the C-5 and C-141s. Boeing owns both the domestic commercial business and military transport/tanker business now. It has not domestic competition left. Boeing’s dominance of the commercial aviation business for decades drove the British and French commercial builders to consolidate into Air Bus to survive and thus we end up with essentially two monopolies on different continents. Perhaps you like paying monopoly prices? Microsoft and Intel are pretty much close to being that in the US and Intel is in real hot water due to its monopolistic practices here and in Europe. I can’t speak for anyone else but I’m not really fond of sole source monopolistic prices be in my computer software or my tax dollar supported Defense Contractors. It all comes out of my pocket and as I pointed out Boeing has a well established record of not being able to deliver aircraft on time and at cost since it became the sole US commercial aircraft builder.
It will take over 35 years to replace the current fleet of tankers on a per gallon payload basis with either of these designs. The entire 700+ 707 based KC-135 fleet was built concurrent with the use of the 707 in commercial service and in a fraction of this time. The 767 design will be 60-65 years old when the last 767 is built should they get the contract and more 767 will have to be built to do the same “work” as the A330 design. The last 767s to enter commercial service will happen before the first KC-767 is delivered. More airframes, more flight crews, more ground crews equals a higher total cost of ownership for a design that has been in service for nearly 30 years now. By the time the last KC-135 is retired there will be at least three different tanker designs in the inventory regardless of who wins thus this argument that a split contract is going to drive up support cost is pointless given two different variants of the KC-135 now, the KC-10 and what will be either the 767 or A330 design on top of this with decades of overlap in service. No way around this.
Last point, this “tanker” while very important in the scheme of things is not a “war bird”. It is a commercial cargo airframe with military com gear, SAM defensive systems and refueling gear added. At 200 million plus a copy, more expensive than the F-22s we are discontinuing, it is important but not in any shape form or fashion in the same league as a true military system. Equating this to something with military grade weapons, sensors or other critical components is disingenuous at the least. Our allies are flying, driving, firing a whole lot more of our stuff and we will ever be doing the same of theirs by a huge margin. The F-22 is going down the tubes despite two foreign nations wanting to either buy versions of them or co-produce them for their use. It’s a two way door and if we snub our nose at our Allies when their stuff is actually better, as illustrated above we are just going to accelerate what many of you think you are protecting. There is a lot less “American” in stuff you call American than many of you want to accept. If Boeing can’t design and build the 787 here that should be the wake up call for some to look a little deeper into the situation rather than stick your head in the sand and scream “buy American”. Your screaming isn’t going to change anything at all with regard to this situation.

John - TMF| 1.28.10 @ 8:32PM

Ok... I'll bite just a bit...

If this is such a great deal and the A330 is so amazing an aircraft that it hauls freight, JP-8, and trims toenails.. I'll offer a counter proposal. And it would mean even more jobs.

If this is such a great deal then Northrop-Grumman should purchase the manufacturing rights, plans, machines, dies, jigs, and infrastructure to build 100% of the A330 Tanker here in the US.. Just like FNH, or Baretta make its US firearms here.

That means 100% of everything from fuselage sections to wings, engines, landing gear, tail sections... avionics, EVERYTHING gets manufactured here.

There would be a reasonable royalty paid for the license to manufacture the plane here to EADS, no one wants to steal it.

But if this is a GREAT deal. It would be a GREAT deal when the aircraft roll off the US assembly line made of US parts, manufactured in US plants, with US labor and management.

I'll even go one better than that. Keep the damned unions out of it and build the sub assembly plants all over the Right to Work South. We can do the Toulouse Guppy Shuttle here in the states... plus we have cheap rail transport to boot.

If N-G wants to quit being a front man for a Euro-swindle that's the way to do it, and I doubt too many people who currently favor Boeing on national security grounds would have a problem with it, either.

BTW - the current plan makes the Alabama assembly plant just a big model kit maker's workshop. The parts assemblies all come from Europe, except the boom kit... which looks like it might actually be a Boeing licensed product...

What a mess. "Free Traders' " have a utopian vision not much different than the "One World Government types" when it comes down to it.

CalMark is right in his first statement. "America should build its own crucial defense assets."

Very simple very easy... It's either completely built here or its a NO SALE.

r/TMF

Thom| 1.28.10 @ 9:49PM

John - TMF, when Boeing licenses one of its major designs, at least 100 billion dollar contract out to Air Bus your suggestion might have some merit but given how many thousands of license produced US designes have been co-produced overseas do you really expect Air Bus to turn over the entire production run when we haven't done the same for Europe in the last 6 decades?

I don't have a problem with the entire production run being built there but we don't do that even for our own domestic designs. There is a valid reason for that and you just can't dismiss it with the emotion of the matter.

123xyz| 1.28.10 @ 10:23PM

"6 decades" ??

Guess you haven't hear of the Marshall Plan, which essentially re-build the whole of Europe from the ashes of World War II. Had we not re-built those good folks, who knows what would have happened. Nevertheless, we did, and a few decades after, we have them as fierce competitors.

Yet, we cannot wave the Marshall Plan as they'd cry "American dominance." But, are we to let them overrun what is left of our industry, albeit by any means?

evolution| 1.28.10 @ 8:50PM

welcome ...click the site

123xyz| 1.28.10 @ 9:35PM

Isn't Quin Hillyer a good ol Southern boys shootin the breeze? Surely, he's making his ol Mobile friends happy.

Vern| 1.28.10 @ 10:56PM

This is not all about the tanker deal. What Tiahrt is doing is another example of what is wrong with politics in this country. Tiahrt is a former Boeing manager in Wichita KS and now represents the congressional district containing Wichita. He is now running for US Senate and obviously Boeing is a major contributor to his campaign. Eight years ago, an experienced aviation executive in Wichita convinced Airbus UK (a subsiderary of EADS) to locate an engineering office in Wichita. Since the grand opening of this office (in which Tiahrt personally attended), the office has steadily grown to over 200 high paying engineering jobs. Airbus North American Engineering has been able to grow due to the heavy layoffs at other aircraft companies in the Wichita area including Cessna, Hawker Beechcraft, and Boeing. In 2005, Boeing sold their entire commercial presence in Wichita to Spirit Aerosystems. Where as Spirit Aerosystems main customer is Boeing, Spirit also has retained contracts from Airbus for manufacturing and engineering for the new A350. Meanwhile, Boeing Military remains as the only presence in Wichita and more layoffs in engineering are on the horizon. Airbus North American Engineering has recently announced the opening of an engineering in-service headquarters in downtown Wichita which would entail more investment in the community and over 80 more high paying jobs.

So why is Tiarhrt heavily criticizing a company that is directly responsible for a large number of high paying jobs in the district he represents and is planning on expanding even more in the future and is favoring a company that has been reducing their presence in his home district?

Is this an example of a politician that is representing the best interests of his campaign donors over the best interests of the people he represents? Sad...

JeffZ| 1.29.10 @ 9:47AM

And Boeing is the largest direct Aerospace employer in Alabama. With nearly 3,600 employees. Even if NG/EADS won the KC-X bid, Boeing would remain the largest aerospace employeer in Alabama. So what are Senator's Shelby and Sessions doing ciriticizing Boeing? It's one thing for Tiart to ctricize EADS which as a very small office and some suppliers in his district. It is quite another thing for Alabama pols to criticize the largest aerospace employeer in their state. Something smacks of liberal double standards and hyprocrisy in your reply and Hyler's article. Beoing employs over 150,000 people in the US in total, EADS North America directly employs a few hundred. So if you and Hillyer are so concerned about the evils of criticizing large Aerospace employers what are you doing ctricizing Boeing when they employee at least 2 orders of magnitude more people in the US than EADS does. It just an example of individuals in the US selling out to foreign company over the the best interest of the US to obtain a couple of bucks, or of European pro-EADS commenters comming up with pathetic sales pitches, for a corupt European defense contractor, Sad . . .

Oldefarte| 1.29.10 @ 11:01AM

Great article, Quin, as usual!!!! To the subversive morons above who are critical of same, I have no doubt that they are from the US Department of Justice clandestine staff grouping formed by the current administration to combat unflattering and detrimental editorials/blogs in the media generally with disguised public comments refuting same. AKA Holder's/Obama's Boys! As one private person [and Alabama citizen] with no connection to either Quin Hillyer, EADS,etc; let me state the blunt facts of which Quin diplomatically painted his prose picture of. This situation is pure and simple, POLITICAL CORRUPTION as practiced by the current group of Chicago mafia style goons that are running this country. EADS originally submitted the winning [and best for the US Air Force] bid, which, if accepted, would have resulted in these tankers being built in Alabama by its professionally experienced NON-UNION workforce. When Obama was elected, this winning bid for
Alabama was effectively flushed down the political toilet; since Obama, Axelrod, Emmanuel, Garrett, and BOEING's corporate headquarters are located/reside in Chicago. Boeing gave tons of campaign money to Obama's election campaign; and therefore, the final curtain was pulled upon EADS and Alabama [which has historically supported Republican political candidates and is located in the unfriendly (to Democrats) region of the SOUTH]. Game, set, and match, as they say in tennis! There is no way in hades now that EADS and Alabama stand a chance of getting even a part of this contract due to THE CHICAGO WAY!!!!!!

Ryan| 1.29.10 @ 11:44AM

No doubt that union politicking played a role, but to pretend that either side is blameless is dumb. The issues with the tanker bid go MUCH farther back than the Obama administration.

troisoiseaux| 1.29.10 @ 8:51PM

Oldefarte is quite inaccurate by commenting,"EADS originally submitted the winning [and best for the US Air Force] bid, which, if accepted, would have resulted in these tankers being built in Alabama by its professionally experienced NON-UNION workforce. When Obama was elected, this winning bid for Alabama was effectively flushed down the political toilet;"

That "winning big" was "flushed" during the Bush Administration. Matter-of-fact, the GAO report came out in June 2008, and Sec. Gates restructured the selection staff and made his announcement on June 20, 2008.

And in making this comment, readers can conclude, Oldefarte's his thought processes are driven by rhetoric and political propaganda rather than pragmatic analysis of requirements.

Oldefarte| 1.30.10 @ 1:31PM

As you're acting 'STUPIDLY' [ as a D of J counterblogger for your bosses at the White House]; I suggest that you [trosoiseaux and Ryan] and everyone else read the following:

www.cambell.edu/faculty/dwthor.....-paper.pdf

Oldefarte| 1.30.10 @ 1:34PM

www.campbell.edu/faculty/dwtho.....-paper.pdf

123xyz| 1.31.10 @ 8:42PM

Dear OldeFarte, Yes, the document is a good rundown of the events. To quote from p. 23, " On Wednesday 18 June [2008], the GAO issued its long-awaited ruling on the merits of Boeing’s protest," ..."the GAO faulted the Air force for not fairly evaluating the proposals and the planes with respect to key performance criteria."

Therefore, your document collaborates my criticism of your comment, "When Obama was elected, this winning bid for Alabama was effectively flushed..."

It's not an ideological criticism, it's a criticism of an inaccuracy.

Then it follows, your ramblings about how "Chicago" Democrats in Boeing HQ territory led to the Northrop-Grumman/EADS win being "flushed down the political toilet," is totally unfounded.

This anachronism has "flushed" your argument down the toilet.

Oldefarte| 1.30.10 @ 1:54PM

The following is from the Mobile [Alabama] Register:

The smell of politics infuses tanker debate

Thursday, September 25, 2008

DEFENSE SECRETARY Robert Gates says that when the next administration takes up the tanker contract, the decision should be made this way: "Does the plane meet these technical military requirements and ... who will provide the taxpayers with the best deal?" Excuse us, but that's how we thought the tanker contest was supposed to be decided in the first place. If going with the best plane that could do the job at the best cost meant "changing the rules at the end of the game," as Secretary Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee, what were the rules to begin with? Now that Secretary Gates has given up trying to award the contract before the Bush administration leaves office, he's being chatty about what he thinks should and shouldn't be done about the contest between Northrop Grumman-EADS, which won the contest, and the Boeing Corp., which lost the contest but won the political war. He says he absolutely opposes splitting the contract between Northrop and Boeing because that would cost the taxpayers so much more money that the extra cost would outweigh the benefit to the military. And, it turns out that the Northrop-EADS Airbus-model tanker that would have been based in Mobile would have cost the Pentagon — and by extension, all of us — nearly $3 billion less than Boeing's KC-767. For each of the first 68 tankers, the Northrop KC-45 would have run about $184 million, as opposed to $226 million for the Boeing tanker, even though Boe ing's tanker was smaller. Secretary Gates is now expressing strong opinions on these issues, but he apparently didn't feel strongly enough to go ahead and make the decision himself. For the Mobile community, which has every reason to believe that Northrop Grumman made the winning bid in both technical requirements and cost, the Pentagon cave-in to Boeing's political pressure grows more galling by the day....
================
Also: wwwphx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?...&ID=11429938highlight=

123xyz| 1.31.10 @ 8:54PM

There's nothing new to learn from Mobile's disappointment on the GAO ruling. But, once again we see evidence the award to Northrop-Grumman/EADS was performed in 2008,
"Now that Secretary Gates has given up trying to award the contract before the Bush administration leaves office"

And, we expect rhetoric like, "the Boeing Corp., which lost the contest but won the political war."
Yet, is a rather independent assessment of the contest by the GAO considered "political?"

Oldefarte| 1.30.10 @ 2:02PM

Fess up, 'trosoiseaux' and 'Ryan'-----your real names are Barry and Eric, right????

Ryan| 2.2.10 @ 8:39AM

If you ever read my posts, you know that to be categorically false. I'm just trying to point out that the situation was far more complex and politically-driven, and we have to remember that there's a lot of propoganda coming from both sides with a HIGHLY vested interest.

fake watches for sale| 4.28.10 @ 11:39PM

hublot

jakcy| 1.20.11 @ 2:22AM

Fess up, 'trosoiseaux' and 'Ryan'-----your real names are Barry and Eric, right????

Converse| 8.12.11 @ 2:50AM

is good