GovernmentExecutive.com

Threatening to derail the Air Force's selection of a foreign-designed air tanker to refuel military warplanes, a group of lawmakers led a Capitol Hill rally of American aerospace workers Thursday and pledged to shoot down the deal.

As the senators and representatives lined up at a news conference with Boeing Co. union leaders and engineers across the street from the Capitol, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., took the Senate floor to stoutly defend the Air Force's choice of a tanker that would be built by a consortium of Northrop Grumman Corp. and EADS, a European consortium whose Airbus airframe would serve as the tanker's skeleton.

While it remains unclear exactly how the huge contract for the 179 tankers could be repudiated, Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., whose district embraces thousands of Boeing workers, said the upcoming Defense appropriations process could provide the opportunity.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who led the protest, said the bipartisan opposition to the deal is weighing all of the options to short-circuit the Air Force's decision. One risky approach might be an attempt to abrogate any contracts between the Pentagon and Northrop Grumman-EADS -- an option that could send the dispute into U.S. courts and drag out the actual building of the plane by years.

Boeing is now seeking to overturn to contract through the formal protest it filed with GAO, which must issue a ruling by June 19.

At the rally, Murray and Dicks were joined by several other lawmakers whose states and districts could be harmed by Boeing's loss of the work. Others on hand to rail against the Air Force decision were Sens. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Reps. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan.; Jay Inslee, D-Wash., and Dave Reichert, R-Wash.

The protestors accused the Air Force of stacking the deck against Boeing and, as Dicks complained, "doing tricky things" to justify the award to Northrop-EADS. "They bent over backward to make sure Boeing didn't get it," he fumed.

Opponents of the contract argued that U.S. security is undermined when contracts for American weapons systems and technology are granted to foreign companies, and contended that defense dollars should not be spent abroad. "We need to keep our taxpayers' dollars here at home to help our country's economy," Murray said.

The construction of the planes could cost up to $40 billion over a decade. Boeing workers have said the loss of the contract could end thousands of jobs in Washington, Kansas and other states.

As the protest of the contract continued, Wicker was on the Senate floor extolling its virtues. Northrop Grumman's proposal, he maintained, represented "a better product and better value for the taxpayer." He noted that assembly of the plane, from major parts manufactured in Europe, would take place in Alabama and parts for it would be made in 49 U.S. states, including along the Gulf Coast in his home state.

He took issue with Boeing's estimate of job losses, insisting that the Northrop Grumman tanker deal "will create 48,000 direct and indirect jobs across our country," and complained that opponents have spread misinformation about the economic impact of the project.

COMMENTS

• Boeing's claim about job-loss for the US worker is pure fiction. Northrop Grumman will be building these planes at Brooks Field in Mobile, ALABAMA in the USA. Boeing is just trying to save face because they were overconfident they would just win this one, they didn't because their bid sucked. Ben Lee Posted August 10, 2008 4:37 PM
• Clearly there is a problem when the result of the RFP for replacing the KC-135 tanker is an aircraft that is larger than the KC-10 tanker, yet is far less capable as a tanker than the KC-10. Sure the 330 can cary more pallets than the KC-10, but the 330 carries more than 100,000 pounds less fuel than the KC-10 does. Was't the USAF seeking a tanker (primary mission) that could sometimes or also carry freight (secondary mission)? So why then replace the KC-135 with an aircraft larger than the KC-10, yet far less capable than the KC-10 as a tanker. The 330 won't fit in KC-10 hangers let alone KC-135 hangers. The 767 would have fit in most KC-135 hangers and parking ramps without modification. Where is the money going to come from for all the new tanker hangers and ramp expansions? Bigger is not always better. Wasn't this RFP to select a KC-135 replacement and not a KC-10 replacement. I think that is what Boeing was told and why they did not propose larger planes like the 777 and 747. Bill Posted April 25, 2008 2:17 PM
• The Airbus A330 IS an inferior airplane, and EADS/Airbus is an inferior company to do business with! In addition, Airbus’ business practices, financial health and lack of success delivering contracted airplanes, and their loss of commercial business by losing orders (Emirates Air and FEDEX in 2006, losing a total of 20 a/c orders cancelled) due to non-performance. This disqualifies EADS Airbus as a viable bidder! Also, draft RFP language referred to World Trade Organization disputes over subsidies that might have penalized the Airbus A330 derived KC-30/45. The WTO considerations were subsequently relaxed by the Pentagon. With this, I expected our congressional representatives to denounce the relaxation of the “WTO considerations” by the Air Force, and we should contact congress to that effect and reject EADS Airbus. Last but not least, the EADS/Airbus line of aircraft seems to have a propensity to shed their vertical stabilizers in flight. Recall American Airlines Airbus Flight 587 losing its vertical stabilizer on November 12, 2001 in New York? Also an Armenian Airbus lost its vertical stabilizer in flight about May 3, 2006 in Russia. These aircraft are expected to fly in close formation with other airplanes during refuelling. You can't do that in an Airbus - you'll lose your vertical stabilizer. And yet another reason not to buy Airbus, Jet Blue Flight 292 landed (9/21/2005) at LAX with its nose wheel steering locked hard-over at 90 degrees – the 9th such event for Airbus aircraft. You can't do that in a tanker! Boeing needs to get this contract, no doubt about it. Michael Posted April 23, 2008 10:21 PM