Top McCain Advisers Lobbied For Airbus... Contract Was Altered Last Year
Senator John McCain has some serious explaining to do.
-- Top McCain advisers lobbied for the Airbus tanker contract.
-- Airbus was not even in the running in the beginning.
-- Airbus was thinking of scrapping their bid for the DOD tanker contract because they did not see themselves meeting the capability metrics
-- The original contract was altered last year to favor the larger Airbus tankers over the Boeing planes.
-- The contract was awarded to Airbus over America's Boeing Company
Here's some more information: Over the past few years the Department of Defense has awarded defense contracts to European firms for the Presidential Helicopter, Coast Guard surveillance aircraft, Army helicopters, many other programs and now today the KC-30 tankers.
Is this the best policy for America?
Airbus and Northrop Grumman's KC-30 larger design won the prize after alterations to the original contract. (BBC photo)
Top advisers for the McCain Campaign lobbied for European Airbus tanker contract that was awarded last month. Boeing officials were outraged that the $35 billion defense contract was awarded to a foreign competitor.
The AP reported:
Top current advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign last year lobbied for a European plane maker that beat Boeing to a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract, taking sides in a bidding fight that McCain has tried to referee for more than five years.Boeing officials announced yesterday that they would protest the contract. Boeing is upset that the original contract was altered late last year to include larger tankers like the one that is produced by Airbus.
Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign. A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman.
EADS is the parent company of Airbus, which teamed up with U.S.-based Northrop Grumman Corp. to win the lucrative aerial refueling contract on Feb. 29. Boeing Co. Chairman and CEO Jim McNerney said in a statement Monday that the Chicago-based aerospace company "found serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal."
The AP reported:
The company argued that the Air Force changed its method for evaluating the two tankers even after issuing a request for proposals. These changes allowed a larger tanker to be competitive even though the Air Force originally had called for a medium-size plane. Air Force officials have indicated that the larger size of the tanker offered by the EADS/Northrop team helped tip the balance in its favor.This award to Airbus already soured local Boeing employees against McCain-- A scandal would sour thousands more.
"We didn't think they wanted a bigger plane," Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems unit, said last week. Albaugh said this is why Boeing based its offering on Boeing's 767, noting that "we were discouraged from offering the 777," a bigger aircraft that would have been more comparable to the winning bid.
Once Boeing files its protest, the GAO will have 100 days to issue a ruling. A protest could delay execution of the tanker contract by nearly a year, according to Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, a think tank.
Ed Morrissey has more on the defense contract at HotAir.
Previously:
Outrage!... US Firms Infuriated Over Military's French Aircraft Deal
Why Did DOD Change Their Rules to Give Contract to Airbus?
posted by Gateway Pundit at 3/11/2008 06:09:00 AM
32 Comments:
It's ok, though, because McCain is a "conservative."
By the way, did you want something that flies with that McCain Burger?
Can you say "bought and paid for?"
Just so everyone knows, the a330 from airbus is a flying corrosion trap. So, it figures that kick backs or whatever you call them are in play?
I suppose the a330 is a nice toy. And for this old retired Navy Airedale, that is the AF's goal in life. Gotta have them hi-tech toys.
The specification and performance requirements were probably changed.
After listening to Asst. Sec. Peyton and the AMC commander blow smoke up my you know where, giving the announcement, it gives me pause to wonder.
My apologies and sympathies to future enlisted mechanics who will have to maintain this sub-standard airframe.
GM Cassel
AMH1(AW)
USN RET
I appreciate the attempts to analyze the issue, but the most important thing is being left out: the NG/EADS contract was the cheaper, superior contract. A no-bid contract would've left us with Boeing- a more expensive contract, less effective contract that still shipped 20% of its jobs to Europe.
If the US company couldn't compete, the solution isn't to blame competition but perhaps to look at how US corporate tax and regulation harms our ability to do business. Or... bottom line, Boeing expected the contract and since they didn't try to maximize, they didn't deserve it.
The NG tanker KC-45A was built in July 2007 and flown in September 2007 with 73 tests and 200 flight hours to date. Boeing's KC-767AT? Never built, flown, or tested.
Suggested reading on the issue:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004051.html
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1234.shtml
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/both-clinton-and-obama-foolish.php
http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3071
Juan McAmnesty, that old, viagra chomping, foul-mouthed RINO strikes again!
Even if Boeing was guilty of a little wrong-doing, it is still in the national interest to supply the armed forces with domestic engineering and manufacturing. Get it RNC? Get it RINO's? Get it "free trade fetishists"?
RINOs? I definitely disagree with McCain on several, several issues, but favoring competition is a basic tenant of capitalism and denying that is certainly not in line with what Republicans should stand up for.
The job protectionism is unfounded... the Boeing deal would've had jobs overseas, parts built overseas, too. The NG/EAGS deal has 48,000 direct and indirect jobs nationwide, none transferred overseas, and even a specific assembly and militrization plant in Alabama with 1500 jobs.
"Even if Boeing was guilty of a little wrong-doing, it is still in the national interest to supply the armed forces with domestic engineering and manufacturing."
That's the start of falling civilisations. Clenching on things you currently have in your grasp and never letting go.
Choosing better options didn't hurt anyone. If Airbus offer offsets Boeing that's it.
Less jobs at the moment are always better than corrupting own military. Economy is no about jobs but needs and products.
Make "only domestic companies" rule and in a decade you're starting to go into war with inferior equipement. Not only possible positive ifluences of foreing tech are blocked - but also domestic companies are getting lazy and sloppy.
It's not like you can indefinetely stay on the top spot alone.
Hawke, Nice to see there are still some voices of reason out there. Sheesh, it's been a long time since I read so much opinion stated as FACT.
I'm disappointed Gateway Pundit seems to be suffering from the same kneejerk reaction without checking out the facts. As a regular reader I'm surprised at that.
Sorry RINO's....as an long time Air Force vet (on the current KC-135 Stratotanker), I have to agree with the fellow above that it is in the national interest to maintain engineering and manufacturing skill-set domestically.
The US is more than just an economy. Constantly searching for the lowest big, cheapest labor is a fool's errand, that once again overlooks our common, national interest. This is Jorge Bush's and Juan McAmesty's philosophy of exporting our industy and importing tens of millions of illegal alien workers from Mexico, India, China, etc.
This nation was founded on INDEPENDENCE of the individual and of the country. Becoming overly DEPENDENT on foreign nations and companies is the path to subservience, world government and the dissolution of our founding principles.
I don't believe this Airbus deal will stand. Either it will change to Boeing or the two will each provide a portion of the tanker needs.
The de-industrialization of our country is reaching dangerous proportions. When critical skills such as steel making, tool making, auto, airplane, boat, train manufacturing is completely gone, we will then be ripe for the velvet glove of the UN and their world buerocrats and their englightened plans for all of us.
Boeing uses clad aluminum, more expensive... less corrosive. McCain's aids have lobbied for Airbus. Guess if we want more of the same we can vote for McCain.
Excuse me, but Alabamians are VERY happy with this deal. Thousands of jobs will be brought to the Mobile area because of this deal.
It was reported on Fox that Boeing was not able to fulfill their CURRENT orders much less this order.
Alabama is a great state in which to do business. Washington state...well figure it out yourself.
Go McCain! and Roll Tide!
All too typical of Gateway Pundit's attitude toward McCain, unfortunately.
The hilarious thing is that Ed Morrisey's article linked on this page is everything your treatment is NOT -- namely, fair and dispassionate and balanced.
As a moderate Democrat who will happily vote for McCain because he, unlike Obama or Clinton, is SERIOUS about defeating Al Qaeda, I would advise Gateway Pundit and similarly disgruntled conservatives to get over themselves and stop trying to sabotage the only candidate remaining in the race who can be trusted with the responsibility of being Commander in Chief!
Even before the $10 million "lease" scam Boeing tried to foist on us, that company had built a record of government products delivered late, overbudget, and nonfunctional. I'm sorry if that offends some people's sense of "nationality", but too bad. That's MY taxpayer dollars in that contract, and I want the best for my money.
My apologies to all the Union political hacks who won't see a cent of graft from Boeing... tough luck, guys.
We all make a similar decision when we purchapse our cars.
So the military bought a Toyota instead of a Ford. And you want to hang McCain because the military bought what it thought is a vastly superior product?
Just watch. The Dems are going to grab this as an opportunity to cut the Pentagon budget. That's what they always want, but they usually have to worry about being tagged "weak on defense".
Republicans (especially McCain) better be ready to take them on when they start moving military funding to domestic social programs.
"engineering and manufacturing skill-set domestically" - So it's okay to take a product that only has 7 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force wanted instead of one that has 20% more overseas parts, still brings jobs here, still keeps the sensitive military aspect in the country, and also provides 20 of the 26 for 10 billion less for a product that's flown and tested rather than something that doesn't do what it needs to and costs more?
GM Cassel: I tried to research your claims about the A330 "corrosion trap" but couldn't find much besides other comments of yours on other blogs. I'd love some sources about corrosion, the differences between aluminum vs cadmium plating, and exactly what this means for this particular project as well as any sort of military spec differences in the structure there may be. I'm not than happy to see you on this point, but I'd love to do so with some data and links backing it up. Thanks for your follow up!
Hawke - the specs were changed AFTER the McAmnesty steamroller against Boeing. Thus, the newly revised specs were brought more in accordance with Airbus' strengths.
I'm afraid so many of you RINO's, neocons and assorted non-conservatives, in your zeal to win the White House are simply party members and ideologues who can't look to the national interest or any interest beyond what the text book says about "free trade". How naive. How short-sighted.
The Airbus craft is larger and will be restricted to the longest runways thus reducing it's capability to operate under rough, more "primitive" conditions, like those found in the "Crapitstans" of the world.
Free Trade Uber Alles!
I'm really enjoying all the links and references to factual data, good job everybody! Long live blind protectionism!
Found another of Cassel's comments and a refutation over here:
http://steeljawscribe.com/2008/02/29/flightdeck-friday-kc-x-announcement-due-today/
Check out comment 3 by "Industry Leader" if you're interested in learning more about that point of view.
Boeing paid the piper for their buffoonery. If they had not been corrupt in the first place this may not have happened.
As to lobbyist, from Hillary to Bush and Obama to Romni you have lobbiest hobnobblin and packin on all of these candidates backs. That is the nature of our political machinations. It always has been.
Boeing subs out to multiple contractors all over the world. They've been bloated, inefficient and corrupt. Why not tell the whole truth Gateway?
What is John McCain's side? Here we go...
http://blog.thehill.com/2007/10/31/mccain-promotes-role-in-ending-corrupt-boeing-deal/
Frankly, I'm not in either camp. If Boeing won, great. But they need to win the competition legitimately and clean up their act. The argument this is about local jobs is not entirely accurate either. As local jobs will be created all over the country, just not by Boeing.
To hint at John McCain corruption without a scintilla of evidence while leaving out important information on Boeing's corrupt deals and firings, is less than good blogging that I expect here, even if it is St. Louis jobs that may be on the line.
Any wonder why Toyota, Honda, Hondai and many others have built manufacturing plants here in the south? And beat American corps?
The Bloated leaders at GM and Ford for example? Sorry, but they've been lazy, caught off guard with poor management. Ross Perot said as much over 15 years ago in severe warnings at the time. He heavily criticized GM for their terrible planning and treatment of employees by executives. That is why they're losing market share today.
Same for Boeing and their attempt at corruption leading to firing and loss of contract. Why compete when you can buy it?
Boeing has been and can be a great company. But tell the whole truth about them please and why the original contract was lost. It was due to corrupt deals by Boeing.
It is sad this has happened. But competition is a good thing. And the law stands. Frankly, I'd like to see all jobs stay here, but that is not reality today. This technology is not super secret as far as I know, standard tech, except for any parts I'm sure will be made here.
But Boeing built is own broken bridge in an attempt at 30 billion fleecing of Americans. Or, maybe Gateway, you have evidence otherwise?
I'm willing to see opposing arguments.
More background on the corruption. Two people went to jail as a result of backroom deals.
As the article linked below ask, "What was McCain supposed to do, look the other way...???"
http://blog.thehill.com/2008/03/11/mccain-didnt-go-in-the-tanker/#more-5560
Honestly, this post misrepresented fully what happened to the contract, Boeings corruption and the military individuals. McCain sent a strong signal.
The insinuation that he caused Northrup/Gruman to win the new contract unfairly is just an assertion without any evidence. Only that lobbyist work for politicians sometimes. Gee.
If Boeing want to go for review, fine. I'm all for them getting a fair hearing. And maybe they can deliver a fair deal without buying out our military leaders?
"The NG tanker KC-45A was built in July 2007 and flown in September 2007 with 73 tests and 200 flight hours to date. Boeing's KC-767AT? Never built, flown, or tested."
Sorry, but the plane has been built. In fact, the Italians have just received one of the KC-767 which just came out of the Portland paintbarn a couple weeks ago. You may have a point that it's not an AT model but biggest difference is that it's an LRF rather than an ER. Also Boeing has tested a long time ago on what they had wanted to be on the 767 platform.
Now, we are giving the French the capability to hold our platform hostage at their will and that isn't good. Ideally, it would be better if we had went with a mixture of a tanker fleet like we did with the KC-10 Extender working along side with the KC-135.
From what I understand, they are buying 170 from Northrup for less money then Boeing would have charged them to lease 100.
Northrup also said the new contract would add about 48,000 jobs directly and indirectly in the United States.
I can't argue the merits of each product but I can argue the merits of competition versus the awarding of no bid contracts.
Maybe if all those people in WA State (Boeing's former HQ) didn't vote for traitors like Bin-Laden-admirer Patty Smith or Baghdad Jim McDermott, I'd feel sorry for them.
"Sorry, but the plane has been built. In fact, the Italians have just received one of the KC-767 which just came out of the Portland paintbarn a couple weeks ago." You're correct in your next statement that...
The one that hasn't been built is the one that we actually would've used based on the 767-200: "For the KC-X competition, Boeing offered the KC-767 based on the forthcoming 767-200 Long Range Freighter, with further improvements over the initial 767-200ER based KC-767."
So perhaps I didn't include the full story in my earlier posts about it not being built - I appreciate you providing the supplemental information to make sure everybody here is fully informed!
48,000 new American jobs? I'll believe it when I see it. I'll bet it'll be more like 4,800 jobs in Alabama, which will simply "militarize" an already French built airplane.
Nevertheless, your true believers in "free trade" have yet to answer my query as to whether nation, history, heritage, sovereignty and the national interest matter or is it just whoever offers the better cost? Let's face it, both aircraft are very good. But what of our national interest?
"Nevertheless, your true believers in "free trade" have yet to answer my query as to whether nation, history, heritage, sovereignty and the national interest matter or is it just whoever offers the better cost? Let's face it, both aircraft are very good. But what of our national interest?"
I think my first post in the comments summed it up.
If they were both the same in quality and in cost, I can see the decision to keep more jobs locally - the the fact is one contract clearly stood out and I'm not willing to eat up the difference of billions for a worse product for 20% US Jobs.
In my view it is not the responsibility of the Federal government to create jobs - if it was we wouldn't have private competition we'd just have the government run the industries and accept the added cost.
It is the job of the federal government to ensure our tax and regulation systems don't place undue cost on American companies doing business - they fail at that constantly. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world!
We need to fix that overall issue -if so maybe Boeing would've had a better shot at getting the contract that met as many metrics and came in with a better cost... but when it came to this contract and getting this job done, they went with what is apparently the best option for the best price.
Anonymnous Boeing Shill:
If you're so het up about "National Interest", why aren't you over on Boeing's website, berating them for corruption and attempting to foist a second-rate, overpriced POS onto the American People?
Worried about endangering your paycheck?
Or is it just that there are more IMPORTANT things than making sure the Air Force has the best tool for the job... like supporting a dysfunctional and criminal aerospace company, which is losing business to its own incompetence and is incapable of competing on an even playing field?
So let me get this straight, you are suggesting that MCcain has somehow pulled a fast one for corrupt reasons by lobbying for a better aircraft than what Boeing offered? Thing is Boeng was the one who broke the law just ask their CFO who is sitting in club fed right now with his room mate Bubba, MCcain probably did this to punish Boeing and you know what? THEY DAMN WELL DESERVED IT! Nope sorry not seeing the problem with this the Airbus is a far more capable aircraft.
Why Did DOD Change Their Rules to Give Contract to Airbus?
Oh I don't know maybe because the original one's were biased towards Boeing, maybe you can ask the government procurement officers sitting in jail right now about that after all they are the ones who took bribes from Boeing to bias the rules towards them after all. Come on dude use a little critical thinking here.
So Boeing couldn't fairly win the bid and now they want to influence political favoritism by half truths and hysteria.
Yeah, very American.
The contract was not even close. We are not talking about a third world country. France faces some of the same manufacturing regulations as the United States PLUS the hurdle of a weak dollar.
Perhaps you'd have better luck with the democrats as a Republican ideology should be fiscal conservatism, which means saving money in the federal government.
I don't know about anyone else but I don't want to overpay for the privilege of Boeings stock holders being all American.
Maybe we should just buy hammers for $436 or toilet seats for $640 again.
"like supporting a dysfunctional and criminal aerospace company, which is losing business to its own incompetence and is incapable of competing on an even playing field?"
In a word, wow. Just a year or two ago, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes and other financial organizations were all praising Boeing as cleaning Airbus's clock for the past several years. Gee, how the tune changes.
Former DOD offical Frank Gaffney and former CIA Director James Woolsey both say they are concerned about the outsourcing of US defense industries. Gee, I should believe the chroncially corrupt and heavily govt. subsidized Airbus? Ain't "repbulicanism" grand? Ain't "free trade" ideology grand?
Don't confuse me with patriotism, the national interest, "provide for the common defense" and all those old fashioned ideas, we need more so called "free trade" with companies who are heavily protected by their governments with VAT, tariffs and other special hidden rules and taxes, like Toyota, Airbus, Honda, Kia, Hyundi, VW, BMW, and all Chi-Com companies, period.
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/
I am amazed that this has even happened. We in America are our own worst enemies. We manufacture almost nothing anymore and our politicians just continue to have total disregard for the middle class. To be sending a defense contract overseas is absolutely absurd... and competition? Can you say "government subsidy" Airbus is not a private company. That is not "fair" competition. But as with our domestic auto companies which we do not support, no one will really care about this until unemployment or a low paying job is all that is available to them. Lets face it.... we are in decline and the political powers that be don't care.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home