So, Bush's Defense Department gives a massive tanker contract to Northrop Grumman and the European firm EADS. In doing so, it shunned Boeing, which bid on the contract.
This action is perverse on so many levels, it's hard to know where to begin.
In handing out the contract—worth between $40 billion to $100 billion—for the construction of Air Force refueling tankers, the Bush administration claimed that 25,000 jobs would be created in Alabama and other southern states.
That assertion obscures several key points: Far more jobs—44,000—would have been created had Boeing received the contract, with more than 300 suppliers in 40 states benefiting, according to Boeing. At Boeing plants, those jobs would be highly paid and the workers would be members of unions. The 25,000 jobs Bush claims the contract creates involve far lower-paying jobs assembling parts made overseas. And they're not union jobs.
Since he's taken office, many of Bush's attacks on unions have been overt. But far more insidious are moves like this one, that surreptiously undermine the fundamental premise of the union movement: People who work should earn wages that support themselves and their families.
And look who was instrumental to pushing through this un-American deal: the senator from Arizona, John McCain. Time magazine reports McCain wrote letters and pushed the Pentagon to change the bidding process so that EADS's government subsidies could not be considered when deciding to whom to award the contract. This placed Boeing, which receives no subsidies, at a clear disadvantage and conflicts with U.S. trade policy.
Defense expenditures are supposed to comply with federal Buy American law provisions, which require purchasing certain products from American companies when possible. But this administration has granted more waivers of the Buy American provisions than any administration in history.
Time also reveals that two current advisers to McCain worked on the deal for Northrop and EADS as lobbyists. They gave up their lobbying jobs when they came to work for McCain’s campaign, but a third lobbyist, former Rep. Tom Loeffler (R-Texas), lobbied for EADS while serving as McCain’s national finance chairman. OpenSecrets reports that McCain received $28,000 in contributions from EADS’s American employees, including CEO Ralph Crosby, Senior VP Sam Adcock and lobbyists representing EADS.
In Seattle, where much of the work for Boeing takes place, workers are outraged. Says Garth Fluart, member of Machinists (IAM) Local 751:
I do not understand why American work in a time of a recession is getting sent overseas. It doesn't make any sense at all to me, my family, my friends that are overseas fighting a war right now in Iraq. And for them to say this is going to be a good thing for jobs in Alabama. Are you kidding me?
Fluart and other members of Local 751 start each union meeting in South Seattle by pledging allegiance to the flag.
Along with the Machinists, members of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) also work at Boeing. Says IFPTE President Gregory Junemann:
By turning our backs on American workers, we have certainly missed a prime opportunity to reinvest American taxpayer dollars in our own workforce. Our tax dollars are still at work, but in this circumstance, they are working to the benefit of foreign workers, not U.S. workers.
IAM and IFPTE combined represent 55,000 workers at Boeing.
Boeing would have performed much of the tanker work in Everett, Wash., and Wichita, Kan., and used Pratt & Whitney engines built in Connecticut.
Richard Spevak, a member of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace/IFPTE Local 2001 (SPEEA) in Wichita, speaks for many working people when he says:
I’m so mad I could spit. As an American taxpayer and worker, this is the most blatantly stupid thing our government has done. I feel truly betrayed by the U.S. government.
SPEEA members played a big role in designing the Boeing tanker.
Boeing plans to formally challenge the decision. The company said it will ask the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to review the contract award.
UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles, who directs the union’s Aerospace Department, points out that neither EADS nor Northrop Grumman has ever built a tanker with a refueling boom. Boeing, on the other hand, has been building refueling tankers for the U.S. military for more than 75 years.
So once again, the Bush administration has taken a major action based not on facts, but on extremist ideology.
The AFL-CIO Executive Council is calling on Congress to defund the contract, as well as conduct a full investigation into the circumstances under which the contract was awarded to a foreign contractor. The Executive Council also urges all the presidential candidates to condemn the contract and call for it to be overturned. We also have an action here, where you can send a message to your representatives in Congress, urging them to overturn this decision.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
From lurk to ZE?
Or zed?
“tanks” tula!
A Bush rarely makes a decision without there being benefit to a Bush. Look for payoffs.
This is actually a significant concern. Northrop Grumman has been involved in building a new fleet for the Coast Guard. The problem is that most of these have been found to have major design and structural flaws because NG hasn’t done much of this before.
From Buy American to bye bye American jobs.
One good thing is if our fellow citizens are not counting on an income from MIC. Perhaps they might just decide it’s not such a good idea to keep building the weapons of mass destruction with tax dollars.
Anyway, shorter Bushco: Americans, if you want a job, get a passport.
I believe that in the same week Bush did this 68,000 jobs were lost in the US. Nice going, Mr. Prez.
Tula,
I do so enjoy your Thursday posts. Always enlightening.
This contract going, effectivly, to Airbus really pissed me off. Manufacturing has suffered so badly over the last 8 years in this country I worry that it may never recover.
You got it, ES!
And it’s not as if the definition of “Buy American” under that act is difficult to achieve. IIRC from the acquisition classes I had for DLA, the definition is 51% of the components have to be made in the USA to fulfill the strict letter of the term.
hugh’s list: item #304?
And US includes the Marianas and Guam, where pretty much anything goes, from forced abortions to slave labor. So really, how hard can Buy American be?
This is the kind of news that should make headlines all over the MSM. Is it? Sadly, No.
Just imagine the caterwauling if Barack or Hil were involved in this outrage. America would be shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! All the editors would wring their collective little appendages apologetically while bleating…”were just reporting the facts folks…the public needs to know what the candidates stand for” but IOKIYAR.
Spitzer or Wright anyone?
And look who was instrumental to pushing through this un-American deal: the senator from Arizona, John McCain. Time magazine reports McCain wrote letters and pushed the Pentagon to change the bidding process so that EADS’s government subsidies could not be considered when deciding to whom to award the contract. This placed Boeing, which receives no subsidies, at a clear disadvantage and conflicts with U.S. trade policy.
Let’s just make sure “100 years” doesn’t become president. Please.
Great point, thanks, Badwater.
Was this deal that screwed Boeing even cost efficient, or did Shrimpenfuhrer/McCain just decide to screw unions and award another contract to um “friends of theirs(?)?
Payoffs to who? List the suspects. It gets intriguing.
The Repukes support Capital and Capital has no national boundaries. Congress, starting with Newt G & Trent L., and continuing under Tom D & Bill F. has allowed not only defense companies to move overseas (KBR), encouraged new factories be built overseas with tax incentives, but allowed the sell off of defense contractors such as United Defense (Carlyle Group) to foreigners (BAE Systems).
While the tanker contract was obstensively “competitive” too many DoD contracts under this regime have been single source or sole source; these were much more rare in the past.
One excuse for awarding the contract to Northrop was Boeings fine for document theft and hiring an Air Force procurement officer assigned to the contract. Northrop is no piker in shady dealings with DoD or foreign contracts. In 1990 Congressman John Dingell, D-MI, called Northrop “a continuing criminal enterprise.”
Tula - You are a wonderful ray of sunshine.
Why do I still get surprised by Bush/Cheney perverted thinking? When has it not been perverted? Never. They are consistent. If it’s evil to the core, they will do it. If it is cruel to others, they will do it. If it brings terrible harm to Americans, they will do it. These guys are just rotten to the core.
What actually keeps me surprised is the bottomless pit of their perverted thinking. They make someone like Ted Bundy come off like a local amateur. If a person is low life they attract themselves to others who are low life - like your grandmama said, “Birds of a feather flock together.” Or, “Level of being attracts level of live.”
If you have difficulty sinking that far down into the slime, it is difficult to come up with the next evil thing they devise. So, most of us will remain in a shocked (but not surprised) mode. We just can’t sink that low to devise evil without becoming evil ourselves.
Looks like we are destined to watch their every move and keeping alert to their diabolical deeds and doing what they hate most - exposing them to the sunshine. They love the dark and melt into a cesspool in the light.
Consolidation of the aerospace industry will make awards to foreign aircraft manufacturers more likely in the years ahead, rather than less. There was only one company in this country with the resources to build such an airplane as this tanker based on an existing airframe. Twenty years ago, there were at least three, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Lockheed. Ten years ago, there were at least two.
While there are irregularities in the bidding process that should definitely be investigated, this is the wave of the future.
Thanks, Mr.Cbl:
It’s a hard sell sometimes because of lot of people don’t understand why the United States should be engaged in so-called old economy areas like manufacturing, but the fact is, a manufacturing base continues to fuel a middle-class life for many in those jobs and in the communities that benefit when people have well-paying jobs.
correction@20 The T got deleted somehow. That should be Tula. I’m really not an idiot, Tula.
Don’t forget, it was McCain’s 2003 amendment that made this deal possible in the first place. Many of the Senators who are crying foul on the Boeing deal voted for McCain’s amendment so they have no room to bitch.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/.....tsourcing/
John McCain has a death wish.
I can’t believe that it’s possible for that amount of money to be spent without congressional approval.
I don’t think ANY company should get this countract.
The fact is we simply do not need these tankers.
What are they supposed to be refueling?
Not to mention sending everything abroad, just ruins pride and culture IHMO. I mean even with farms, I don’t want my freaking strawberries or Apples from other countries, because our local farms make pretty good produce and have for 100s of years.
BTW. You realize Tula, that in signing this petition I will now be subjected to another nauseating letter from Holy Joe Lieberman?
These kinds of pork barrel spending are precisely why we have such waste fraud and abuse.
Who said we need these dam planes? Who verified the need for these planes?
And why do you assume that jobs in the EU for the EADS are non union?
You’re not looking forward to a letter from the future VP?
What is the fine for document theft about?
Ow. That’s a painful thought. We really appreciate this, mui1 !
ROFL.
Bite your tongue. McCain will never, ever be president.
Let’s save $40-100BB and put in SCHIP and Schools.
How about that sort of American jobs!
That’s okay, if you let me post it on one of your threads.
They’re meant to replace aircraft that are older than their pilots - KC135s. The air force has quite a few of them. I think this is one of the reasons Boeing has been crying foul on this contract - the aircraft chosen to replace the KC135 is quite a bit larger, which isn’t what the contract seemed to be calling for.
So you can all share the pain of having a *senator* like Holy Joe.
This is like a contract to replace … ungrade… make safe… the missiles in the silos pointed at Russia.
Why do we need the KC135s?
What are they refueling?
Post away on one of my blogs–it should get a crowd fast…
They’ll be refueling the same aircraft on the same missions, obviously. Whether we really need that kind of military is a whole other question that we really need to be discussing as a nation. As long as we’re keeping this one, though, we need tankers.
No linky, but IIRC, most of our in-flight refuelers are 30-40 years old. Heard a report on it awhile back…It seemed to me that if we’re going to have such things, then it was a legitimate acquisition.
“In the 1991 conflict with Iraq over its occupation of Kuwait and the 2003 war against Iraq, all coalition air sorties were air-refueled except for a few short-range ground attack sorties in the Kuwait area.”
I don’t approve of the appropriating for any short range fighter jets.
Completely idiotic mission and beyond wasteful.
They stole/bought proprietary documents from Lockheed & were fined $17,000,000.00
This is the kind of rube goldberg thinking that the MIC has gotten us into.
We don’t need the tankers and we don’t need the fighters.
If we do… we can scale back 10 times.
I knew who you meant, but thanks for the fix, QuakerGirl!
All this proves is that once again, the MSM will not attack mccain. Simple. And, it reenforces the Fact that if some way is not created by which the MSM is forced to report this kind of information to the public, the election results will be a forgone conclusion.
Well, what happens is the jets, especially fighters, use a disproportional amount of fuel just getting in the air and up to altitude-so they refuel ‘em as soon as they’re up, so they can have max fuel on the mission.
What you’re discussing is a holistic program of disarmament…what I am discussing is the rationale for a single military acquisition inside the current paradigm.
I don’t think that is “Rube Goldberg” thinking. Not sure what that means, but it sounds very negative.
Hey Lou Dobbs will you discuss this or Mr. Wright??
Let’s see. Jobs go to Alabama. Crappy jobs. Just like most of the jobs in Alabama but jobs none the less.
What happened recently in Alabama? Something about an ex top official.
Something about Rove and Abramoff. Something about money being made by sending an ex top official to the federal pen.
Fuckery all around.
Boeing got fucked, the unions got fucked, we got fucked, BAU, QED.
Fucking pigs.
Manufacturing is a major sector of a thriving economy not to mention any solid economy needs diversity just like your investments. The strength of manufacturing is that it has tremendous diversity within itself.
When there are only a few professions/industries workers can enter, rarely does it suit the talents of many people. Like nursing. We’re told there is a great need for nurses so enter that profession. What the government fails to mention is that once a qualified student tries to get accepted by a nursing school, they are turned down because there aren’t enough teachers (I think the shortage is about 40,000 teaching nurses). Not every nurse qualifies as a teaching nurse.
When a generalization is made such as “off-shore manufacturing”, all the consequences are not considered. It reminds me of “trickle down economics”, it just magically gets to the workers and everyone benefits. When did the “m” word become the stepchild? Sending it away has been going on for decades and, no, it’s not because of unions. I know of nothing more this country needs that a diverse manufacturing base.
As for government contract firms like NG and their ilk, since they don’t really compete in the market, they can produce pretty inferior products at high prices and get away with it. It’s who you know and not your merits.
Bush’s War on American Workers continues….
How about the security angle? How can we be 100% sure that there are not any devices, programs, whatever that can be activated externally at some point by the outside contractors? Isn’t it possible that all the enemies we’ve been making since the Gulf Occupation would use whatever means possible to strenthen their own hands in case of future wars against us?
I just asked Mr. Dobbs to tell the American people about this.
I love Mr. Dobbs. He is, well, so Dobbian. /snark
outsourcing manufacturing outsources security.
Why do George Bush and McShame hate America?
Well we won’t find out from the old-school corp media, they’re too busy talking guv pecadillos and one man’s pastor.
Instead of talking about whether Obama’s speech will resonate with the American working class, maybe they should ask ‘em how they feel about this issue.
Tula,
You honor me with your reply. Sorry for the delay I was loading a 400 lb. slug of stainless steel into a Computer Numerical Controled lathe for a 2 hour cycle. Yes, I am a proud American Machinist and have been for 30 years.
Most people, and I dare say that includes most here at FDL, do not understand that manufacturing was our greatest resource. It fueled an ever expanding GDP. The change to a service based economy means there is an ever growing number of suppliers chasing an ever dwindling amount of cash. Without the steady stream of new money supplied by the robust manufacturing sector we are begining to see the results.
The damage done by allowing a contract for military aircraft to go off shore is not resricted to Boeing. The Alcoa ingot mill in Rockdale, TX will not supply. Nor will their rolling mill in Davenport, Iowa. Tooling suppliers will not supply. Truckers. The small shop I work in makes highly sophisticated electronic embedded load measurement equipment, some for Boeing. For us not on this job. It truly makes me sick.
Two important points:
1. If Boeing is the de facto “only company able to win large airframe contracts for the US government”, why don’t they just charge 1 Trillion or so per airplane? Why bother with a competitive bid? “We’re Boeing, nobody else can make planes for the US Government, hand over the cash. Lots of it.”.
2. Boeing is being disingenuous saying that it will be creating domestic jobs. Look at the Boeing 787 aircraft! Boeing is a HUGE proponent of “outsourcing”. Do you think that because this is a military aircraft that they will not hesitate to have components (a large majority of components) come from offshore? At least NG/EADS is talking about the need to have some of the jobs here in the US!
Named for a cartoonist who would imagine ridiculously complicated ways of accomplishing simple tasks.
I don’t agree it’s Rube Goldberg, either. Aircraft design and foreign policy are both areas where requirements and possibilities need to be balanced against each other. I certainly don’t feel wise enough to know what our needs will be two decades down the line, which is the sort of time period transformation of a military is likely to take. Will China be more militant by then? It has the potential - it’s a vastly expanding economy that will soon be the largest in the world, and it needs resources. What will become of Russia?
Where have you been for the last eight plus years? Service jobs is where it’s at; you know janitors, window washers, waiters, etc. etc.;-} Just ask the economists.
Indeed, this is one of the biggest problems facing us. It’s not just corrupt politicians and war profiteering CEOs who a making money of the MIC….
It’s a whole lot of Americans just like these Boeing workers who are only squawking ’cause the didn’t get to build Boosh’s war toys.
There are a whole lot of other products the skill set Boeing has could be building from solar arrays to light rail. Gotta keep working in Congress until we get a critical mass of representatives who understand what must be done.
This ain’t it.
he had me at “real problem” :D
So there you have it, an economy becoming ever more dominated by military spending and ever more based on borrowed money to fund that military spending. And now most of the better jobs for the military production are exported. Hegemonic dominance of the world would ironically appear to be the road to national demise.
Is it possible that Boeing losing the deal had something to do with this?
Senator McCain and the Boeing Tanker Scam
you talk purdy ;)
One of those chicken and egg things, I think. McCain was a driving force behind ending that “tanker scam”. It sounded like a bad deal. But in light of some revelations about McCain’s own relations with lobbyists, one has to wonder where his motivation came from.
I tried for everyone of those jobs you listed and I flunked. My janitorial skills were hopeless, my window washing left smears, I dropped hot coffee on customers - me be fired.
Hey Tula!!!
It’s ironic how “overseeing” and “overlooking” are two entirely different things, isn’t it?
Yep–Bush sold out the unions…I think people at Boeing were stunned…too stunned even to react…
Hey Biodun!
Does anyone know of government contract workers making war stuff protesting against war?
I was known to do so when I worked in that arena.
Huh?! The unions have been sold out over and over and over for decades, by Republicans. Stunned? “Oh, this happens to others but not to me.”
I read the contract differently. A European firm with an American front got the contract for the good stuff, and is outsourcing the joe jobs to the US. We will probably see more of this as the dollar plummets and unemployment contains or depresses wages. The United States is far from being a Third World Country, but at the current and likely exchange rate relative to the Euro, it will be a good place to ship jobs. Probably some call center work from India, too, as their economy modernizes. Hey, it worked for them. Of course, the rest of the advancing world has a real education system.
Since you were on the inside, what is your take on the numbers of people against war and war products? Just some ballpark figure with Barry Bonds as the hitter.
Kinda busy today.
It’s been more than a dozen years since I’ve actually worked that arena but the numbers who agreed with me at the time were quite small. However, it does appear to have gotten larger in the last five years.
They didn’t care if they scrapped the ABM to build star wars. They didn’t care if Osama got away as long as they got to invade Iraq. They didn’t care if they destroyed the Brewster-Jennings networks as long as they could punish Wilson/Plame. They don’t care if they lose jobs as long as they can hurt unions.
Consistency. Got to give ‘em that.
As someone else once said, in the history of not giving a shit, there hasn’t been anyone that ever gave less of a shit than Bush and Co.
tula—read your post, but not the comments, yet. so don’t know if this was brought up.
i heard that part of the ’snookery’ was that EADS was the only one that submitted plans for the specific type of plane that gov’t wanted, and that boeing hadn’t been told the same requirements, so their plane isn’t what they wanted, so their submitted bid reflected that.
i heard that was one of the points that boeing was using in their claim.
rond at 64—if you come back, couldn’t find it.how about a little clue on what date that article was from?
loooooooooooong list and many choices.
You can’t look at this without taking a wider look at the sorry state of the U.S. defense industry. A combination of industry consolidation, lack of oversight and a steady revolving door allowing people to go from general to lobbyist in one fell swoop has given us a defense industry which has almost become incapable to delivering a product on time or on-budget, and has considerable trouble producing weapons systems which work.
Lead times on these projects has stretched to, quite literally, decades: the Osprey and the C-17 each took about 20 years to go from design to deployment. The F-22’s cost has ballooned to near $137 million a pop, and the F-35 continues to be behind schedule and above cost. Add to this the numerous, and already mentioned, failures in ship building, the $10 billion dollar failure which was supposed to be the Future Imagery Architecture, and $340 billion projected cost for the almost useless Future Combat System and you have a portrait of an industry–and an industry/government relationship–for which the word “dysfunctional” is barely adequate.
Which is all to say: I wasn’t surprised that Grumman and teh Yuros got this bid, as I think it’s beginning to don on even the pointy heads in the Pentagon that U.S. defense contractors really can’t deliver product any more. If Boeing had won this contract, we may have seen new tankers in a decade or so, for three times to proposed cost. Grumman and Airbus will probably have the things done on time, and on-budget.
I also think we will see more of this in the future. It has already happened with small arms and crew-served weapons for our infantry and special forces troops, who use Italian pistols and Belgian machine guns and automatic rifles. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Air Force’s next bomber come to fruition as a joint venture with European contractors.
Our tankers are perhaps the most heavily used assets we have. Every U.S. deployment depends on them, as most combat aircraft don’t have the loiter time they need to be effective without air-to-air refueling.
You guys can have no idea how insular, insulting and plain arrogant you all sound. I spent several years of my life working on getting the deal that put Boeing Apache helicopters into the British Army BECAUSE THEY WERE BEST. Lots of work in the USA on that.You are not even considering the possibility that the European design might have been better than Boeing because, well it’s not American is it?
I also worked briefly on the UK programme for tankers, and believe me the Boeing offering simply isn’t quite as good. That’s not to say I mind Boeing making as much fuss as they want to try to overturn it, that’s business and politics, but it doesn’t stop your views looking pretty unfriendly, and making you sound as if you care as little for the rest of the world as the neocons.
By the way pacifists and others who don’t want to spend money with either Grumman or Boeing for tankers are excluded from this rant. I do understand what you are saying even though I don’t agree with it.
Hey catch up dpny. The F35 (JSF) is being developed collaboratively!
Pedantically speaking, you’re right. But the design and engineering was done in the U.S. By collaboratively I meant that I wouldn’t be surprised to see the next Air Force bomber partly, or even mostly, designed and engineered by a European company.
Thanks, dmac, this point hasn’t been brought up. If anyone knows anymore about this, would be great to hear.
I don’t recall the specifics but did read a report on how Boeing’s proposed plane was more in line with the current size and the size requirements either got changed or the NG group unilaterally changed in their bid to a larger model.
I’ll see if I can find a link
Pedantically speaking, the engineering managed in the US but carried out in several sites, very much including the UK. I wasn’t snarking, F35 really has quite a lot of international design collaboration. I think the process you foresee really is under way.
I saw a mention of something like this: future force posture foresaw deployments in the Pacific, nearer to China and SE Asia, which required more range.
From a Yahoo article
Then we’re basically in agreement. I was under the impression that the majority of the engineering was done here, but I could easily be wrong. Either way, I stand by my statement. I just don’t think Lockheed or Boeing are capable of doing their jobs anymore.
This is having unintended effects: because of program cancellations and failures, the Blackhawk is the newest rotary airframe in our inventory, and it’s 20-odd years old.
One very major reason why weapons systems of all types wind up over budget and behind schedule is Change Orders where the customer decides they want something to be all things to all situations and load so much crap onto the plane, that it becomes virtually impossible to build.
And the companies promise all the world in order to get the contract so, yes both sides are complicit but maybe not for all the reasons you’ve laid out.
Nope. Boeing are claiming the USG increased their size requirements, but NG didn’t, indeed couldn’t unilaterally increase their size. Both offerings are derivatives of airliners. Boeing’s is based on the 767, and NG’s on the A330. The A330 is simply bigger than the 767.It’s a much newer design as well. Boeing may be a bit unlucky in the way the airliner market has gone.Following the A300 and the 767, Airbus went for a slightly bigger twin (A330), and a four engined design (A340) while Boeing built the 777, which really is too big for the tanker programme.
Both sides are definitely complicit, and apparently I didn’t make that clear. The problem also lies with the way the Pentagon manages the projects, which is about the least efficient way possible. The whole system is broken.
Yes, and that’s why your President will eventually fly in a helicopter designed in the UK and Italy, I’m proud to say.
I don’t think it is as bad as you suggest. International collaboration is complex and difficult, and does cost a bit at the outset, but it does share the pain of development costs. After far too many years in the aviation industry, it’s good to see the USA as a collaborative player. We Europeans have been doing it for years.
Good to see it’s the same the world over!
My dad actually works for one of the subcontractors on the new presidential helicopter, which is currently hugely over budget. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it cancelled in the next budget.
And the reason is the one Dakine01 suggests.
i don’t like it simply for the idea that ideological differences or sudden military excursions unforseen could disrupt or shut off supplies .. spare parts .. etc .. it’d be a hell of a mess if if the UE got submerged again .. and the suppliers of our airframes and such were “behind enemy lines”..or incapable of producing because of ideological disputes as to the goals of our gov’t .. much like squabbles over extradition treaties etc .. and yeah .. the answer is .. ‘wel lthe world is different now that it was in times past” .. to which my reply is .. who can predict the future with any reliability .. i simply hate the idea of being dependent on foreign concerns as a supplier of our military hardware .. the potential for complication is always lurking .. more or less .. with unforseen and unpredictable outcomes ..
parochial ..view .. yes .. i admit it freely ..
but then again there’s that idea that the current companies are less than desirable in terms of actually assembling and finishing a product .. on time .. within budget ..whether that is because of the client changing the design and mission parameters .. or whatever .. it seems to be a universal constant in this sector for the past thirty years .. regardless of how simple the initial deal might have been ..
still it boils down to this .. our manufacturing base.. in terms of military aircraft .. (actually in this case .. it’s civilian aircrsft adapted to another role eh) .. is hopelessly tied to and dependent upon the continuation of current and projected conflicts .. the phrase “endless war” comes to mind ..
yeh .. i know .. quaint considerations .. parochial views .. color me old school .. our war making/enabling machines base of manufacture and design should be based within our national boundries .. for quite natural and historically sound reasons .. i might add ..
i’m bigoted somewhat i suppose .. but i for one don’t like the idea of slaving our capacity for national defense and deployment to the whims of the average frenchman .. or his factories ..
silly me ..eh ??
Hi, All: We just posted an item on a rally by more than 300 Boeing workers and the Washington State congressional delegation, Gov. Christine Gregoire and others to call on the Air Force to get a reality check on their decision to send American jobs and national security and trade secrets to a foreign competitor in the form of the $40 billion re-fueling tanker contract.
Kathy Cummings from the Washington State Labor Council sent it to us here:
http://blog.aflcio.org/2008/03.....nker-deal/
Maybe we can go back to ‘French Fries and French Toast and French twists.’ Maybe Szarkoczy offered him a threesome.