At this moment there is a diary at the top of the rec list by the usually commendable Governor Gregoire of Washington State. In between her mom and apple pie routine she blames Bush and Senator McCain for supporting the US Air Force decision to buy a European refueling tanker instead of the plane Boeing offer. Implicit in all of this is that somehow the American worker got screwed by the Federal government.
This my friends is a golden example of baiting and misinformation. The Governor is about to lose a large amount of jobs from her state, and she's trying just about anything to keep it from happening. That's fine, it's her job to do so. But coming here and laying out a massively distorted picture of what is going on is a disservice to this site, and is utterly contemptible in my view.
Boeing lost the deal, and for damned good reason.
More below the fold.
The 767 is an old plane, it was made obsolete by the A330, the airbus plane that the US Air force finally selected. Since 2004 Boeing has sold 74 767s, many if not most of them being cargo models (UPS uses the 767 and bought a load more when the A380 cargo model failed, without that the 767 orders would be much lower.) In that same time the A330 has sold 258 planes. Boeing is building their revolutionary 787 airliner right now BECAUSE the A330 is a better plane than the 767. If the 767 could compete on the free market then the 787 wouldn't have a reason to exist.
Both companies have their own stats as to which is the better plane, and both are REALLY convincing when you read them (they must pay their writers well for the quality spin the put out.) But it comes down to this. The A330 conversion carries more fuel, it flies farther, it can stay in the air longer, it carries more non fuel cargo, and it carries more passengers than the 767 conversion. You can make a case that the 767 is a better plane, but most aviation trade journals and blogs that I've read have at the very least said the air force made a perfectly defensible decision based on the aircraft merits alone. Many go beyond that and say the Air Force made the right call.
But what about jobs? No doubt about it the decision to buy the 767 is TERRIBLE for the machinists in Washington, and it's really bad for the workers at Spirit in Kansas. (They make the fuselages.) However Airbus is going to be building the A330 tanker in the US from mostly European made parts. Specifically the plant will be in Alabama. Also many of the parts that go into the A330 are already built in the US, and those people would have suffered too if the Air Force had picked the A330. The US WILL lose some jobs on this specific deal most likely. But focusing on this one deal ignores the state of the international military arms sales industry.
The US buy weapons and weapon systems from EU states, they buy weapons and weapons systems from the US. However the EU buys FAR MORE gear from the US than vice versa. Boeing Aircraft has been the backbone of many European air forces for decades. You can make a case that the F-16 almost put SAAB and Mirage out of business. But it's not just big high profile sales like fighter planes. We sell our allies communication gear, optic equipment, almost anything a military needs, at least one of our European allies is certain to be a US customer.
That is EU money spent on US goods. The EU could just as well spend all that money at home and invest in their own industrial base. But they don't, they choose to make the cost effective choice and buy the superior American product.
If the US were to walk away from this tanker deal now all that would very likely change. It would be such stark blatant protectionism the EU would have no recourse but to follow suit. They have voters as well, and protectionist impulses aren't unique to the US. A canceled KC-45 contract at this point would be brought up in all future arms negotiations with EU states for YEARS. After all why should Germany, France, or any other EU country put the US on an even footing with domestic industry when the US wasn't willing to do the same.
That should be it, my whole argument, but it's not. Oh no, it's not even close. Boeing won this deal you see. The Air Force already awarded them the contract. Heck I think planes should have already been delivered. But there was one small glitch. The head procurement officer for the Air Force retired almost immediately after the deal was signed. She went into private industry. Specifically she landed a high paying job at Boeing. It was the most vile type of graft and corruption, and Boeing was a highly willing participant.
Investigators found out about this, who knew the Bush admin still had any left, and they canceled the award and put the contract out to re-bid. The officer in question went to jail, and IMHO several people from Boeing should have done the same. THAT is why McCain has been beating on Boeing for years over their procurement. It's his bread and butter PR tool, good ol John, defender of the public funds.
So when you attack McCain for this, understand that you're playing right into his hand. He WILL NEVER back down on this, b/c it's a winning hand for him. If anyone in the press gets the nerve to ask why he's being so unAmerican about this deal he just has the list the MULTIPLE laws Boeing and the Air Force broke in the original deal, and say that he's good ol John, the anti-corruption guy. He then cites 100 experts that say the American made KC-45 is a better plane than the 767 and better value for the tax payer.
Governor Gregoire knows all this, but she doesn't care, she wants to have the Democratic party to go to war for her pet company in an election year over a LOSING issue when it comes to the presidential campaign. She knows this, and like I said she apparently doesn't care.
And I just watched a whole pile of kossacks get baited into being an astroturf army for the Governor. Based on half facts, and carefully spun stories.
Not a good day in my book. Not good at all.
Edit: It's been correctly pointed out that this diary is in dire need of links. Sadly transportation type periodicals have yet to catch free web fever in many cases but here is what I've got from free sources, and I apologize for Aviation Weeks attrocious font.
http://www.aviationweek.com/...
On some of the reasons Boeing lost.
http://www.aviationweek.com/...
On the general corruption story from 2004.
http://www.aviationweek.com/...
On the old deal from 2003 that Boeing would have won if they weren't so damn corrupt.
Job numbers are going to take a little more time, so I'll throw up these background articles now.