WhackyNation

The Boeing Airplane Company is caught up in a dilemma that never should have happened. Blame it on short-sightedness or just plain stupidity on the part of the United States Air Force in permitting a foreign company, Airbus, even to take part in the selection of a company to build a crucial military tanker.

The contest over such an important military product should have been limited to an American company. Why in hell did the Air Force even consider farming out such a crucial product to a foreign government? I am not saying the contract should have gone with a contest to Boeing — but it should have been awarded to an American company.

It is not just a question of favoring a home company to build the tanker for security reasons. It is also a huge economic issue that will cost the American economy billions if the contract is permitted to stay in the hands of a conglomerate run by the European company, Airbus.

If the Airbus position is sustained by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Airbus would build a massive assembly plant in Alabama to turn out the huge military tankers. But – get this point — Airbus would also use the new Alabama production plant to turn out more of its A330 commercial wide-body parts.

Thus, we will have seen the easy entry of a foreign airplane builder directly into the economic mainstream. Talk about multi-billion-dollar handouts! In addition, Boeing has told the Seattle Times that “44,000 jobs are at stake across the country, including those at suppliers and on the 767 line.”

If you were horrified by that one, read this additional report by the Times:

Unions representing Boeing workers and supporters in Congress — including the Washington State delegation — have loudly accused the Air Force of selling out national security and jobs in favor of a bid they say is bolstered by illegal European government subsidies.

There you have it — still another reason to reject the Airbus bid and restrict bids on crucial U.S. military products to home companies. Airbus has had an enormous advantage in selling its products because billions in subsidies from European governments have given it a great edge in selling planes at rates American companies cannot match.

The Air Force apparently changed “the rules of the game” after the competition was under way. It indicated to Boeing that it “preferred a smaller aircraft, so Boeing decided not to offer its larger 767.” Obviously, the same information was not supplied by the Air Force to Airbus, which favored a much larger plane.

Boeing’s smaller version of the 767 was better suited “to operate out of austere airfields near combat zones” — which, it seems to me, is a most significant factor and should have steered the Air Force’s interest toward the Boeing entry. Boeing has had many more years of experience than Airbus in building military planes of all sizes.

If the GAO persists in rewarding the tanker contract to Airbus and its affiliates, I think Congress should retaliate by refusing to approve funds in the Air Force’s annual budget for the new tanker.

The Mainstream Republicans of Washington have passed the following resolution for members of Congress:

A MOTION supporting withdrawal of federal appropriation for the Airbus tanker and supporting a new competitive contract for the building of certain military hardware.

WHEREAS, the United States Air Force recently awarded to Northrop Grumman Corp. and European partner Airbus a $35 billion contract to build airborne refueling planes, rather than the Everett, Washington-based Boeing facility, and

WHEREAS, there are serious, credible allegations of improprieties of the procurement process, including midstream-changes in the Request For Proposal (RFP) not communicated to all bidders, and

WHEREAS, the awarding of this multibillion dollar contract, to be paid by American taxpayers to Airbus’s parent company, the European Aeronautic Defense and Space company, could ultimately mean the loss of thousands of local and state jobs and thousands nationwide at a time when such highly skilled and well-paying jobs are greatly needed to spur economic growth, and

WHEREAS Airbus has never built a tanker in cooperation with Northrop/Grumman, has no factory to build a tanker and has not hired or trained the skilled workers necessary to do this work, and

WHEREAS, much of the infrastructure and many of the skilled laborers and engineers that would be needed to build parts for the new tanker in Mobile, Alabama, do not yet exist, as opposed to the facility in Everett, Washington, which is ready, willing and able to build the American-made tankers immediately, and questions remain as to whether these additional costs were considered in the Award, and

WHEREAS, a Machinists Union-member-built Boeing tanker would have provided nine thousand jobs in Washington state, more than forty-four thousand family-wage jobs in the United States and added $400 million to our state’s economy, and

WHEREAS, the Airbus tanker’s substantial size will require additional billions of dollars in construction costs to expand air bases and landing strips and to construct new hangers, and

WHEREAS, the Boeing Company has formally protested the decision and asked the Government Accountability Office to determine if the tanker acquisition process, including the cost analysis, was unfair and flawed, and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mainstream Republicans of Washington:

A.  Mainstream Republicans of Washington urges the United States Congress to take action to halt the procurement of Airbus EADS-made tankers to be used by the United States Air Force, pending completion of the GAO review of the process.

B.  The staff is directed to forward this motion to the Honorable George W. Bush, President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee, and each member of Congress from the state of Washington.

Boeing corporate is based in Chicago, Illinois.  Barrack Obama is representing Illinois in the US Senate.

Question: where was Obama during the tanker debate?

The answer: nowhere.

So, all you Obamamaniacs out there, you have to realize that this pathetic back-bencher in the US Senate cost the Northwest economy tens of billions of dollars and 9,000 jobs.

What you see in this Marxist black segregationist is beyond me.  Wake up, fools!

Should Americans in general and Puget Sound citizens in particular be raising hell over the decision by the Pentagon to award a $40 billion contract for military tankers to a company, Northrup Grumman, which is, in reality, just a puppet for the European firm, Airbus?

I’m inclined to say, “Hell, yes, they should be raising hell!,” despite the claim by some Pentagon officials and Air Force generals that the European-engineered tanker “provides more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more availability, more flexibility, and more dependability” than Boeing’s competing design. I think that remains to be proved.

My immediate question and the most important one is this: Why in the world is the American military preferring to have foreign countries build an extremely important cog in its Air Force? That’s exactly what will happen if Congress permits the contract to remain with Airbus and its subsidiary, EADS.

If the Pentagon decision is sustained and not reversed by Congress, it will mean the loss of at least 2,000 new jobs in Boeing plants. It will also mean that the tanker-production franchise Boeing has held with the military for 50 years will come to an end, and that Boeing will cease building the 767 when orders are filled by 2012.

The jobs that will be lost in the U.S. will subsequently go to Europe and particularly to Toulouse, France, Airbus’ base. It will also mean that America’s air arm, one of the principal mainstays in its security system for the nation, will henceforth be dependent in large part on the manufacture of crucial Air Force elements in a foreign land. That factor alone is outrageous to me and I’m sure it will also be to most Americans.

Questions concerning the contract award abound. For example, if the Air Force wanted what it now refers to as a tanker that “provides more passengers, more cargo” and all the rest, why in Hell didn’t it stipulate such needs when it invited the aircraft industry to submit plans for a new tanker?

Not only should Congress probe the tanker award and the system the Air Force used to call for a new tanker. It should also lay the groundwork for all future military needs, whether they be aircraft, tanks for ground forces, the various vehicles used in campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all other types of equipment. Frankly, the entire tanker issue has the smell of political intrigue and even some internal prejudices against Boeing. A full-scale investigation should be undertaken by Congress.

We’re told that the year 2007 was exceptional for air safety throughout the world and that the year saw what the Associated Press called “the lowest number of crashes in 44 years,” quoting an independent watchdog group, the Aircraft Crashes Record Office based in Geneva, Switzerland.

The organization said its records showed there were 136 serious accidents in 2007, the fewest since 1963. It also reported that 965 people died in crashes last year, a decrease of 25 percent from the previous year, 2006. It also called the July 17 crash of a jetliner in Brazil, which killed 199 people, the worst single accident of the year.

Europe had no major accidents in 2007, according to the Geneva group, and North America had 34 accidents, most of them in the U.S. A majority of the air crashes involved small, propeller-powered aircraft. The group also reported that larger jets accounted for only 25 percent of the accidents.

In addition, the Geneva organization said the number of people killed in airline accidents in the U.S. dropped from 75 in 2006 to 66 last year. All of the statistics related to civilian air traffic. The group did not include any accidents or deaths related to military aircraft in the Middle East and the Far East.

Now that I have recited all the statistics from the A.P. and the Geneva group, I must say, once again, that I am not satisfied with the statistics, even though they show a decided drop in accidents and fatalities. Nor should Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers be satisfied.

For years I have been badgering Boeing and the other companies for not devoting more interest to making passenger planes — and all other aircraft, for that matter — safer than ever before. In fact, I would say they should not be satisfied until every year goes by without a single accident or death!

Is that possible? I think it is. If pilots and passengers in small planes can use parachutes to land safely when their aircraft goes awry and is about to crash, why can’t larger craft, including jet planes, also be equipped with a similar apparatus so that a troubled plane could float to the ground or even onto a body of water in order to save lives?

Science-fiction? Hardly. The aviation industry has come a long way since the Wright brothers flew their first experimental mission. Surely the many brilliant engineers and technicians at Boeing and other aircraft plants could devise a system to float a troubled jet to the earth safely to save the lives of the 200 or 300 passengers aboard.

Yes, I suppose I am a dreamer. But so are all the aircraft geniuses who are now turning out the massive jetliners in the U.S. and Europe. Safety should be their primary concern in building the airliners of the future — not speed, convenience, and seat capacity alone.

The world’s largest and most experienced aircraft manufacturer, the Boeing Co., has announced it is now into planning and production of a most unusual flying machine — an electric plane powered by a fuel cell, batteries, and an electric motor.

The company’s laboratories are also working on new designs for the passenger planes of the future, experimental aircraft for the military, and a variety of new designs for other passenger and military aircraft and space vehicles.

Boeing believes the development of the small electric-powered plane will eventually lead to the production of large passenger and cargo planes and even military craft powered by fuel cells and batteries. It is believed that fuel-cell planes will not only provide a much cleaner burning engine but that they will drastically reduce the cost of flight, a feature that will be cheered by the airlines.

As a longtime resident of Seattle, Boeing’s home city, I am happy for the big aircraft company and wish it continued success in the aircraft and aerospace field and many more years of increased income. But I believe the company has overlooked at least two bright ideas — “bright ideas” because they have been mine for several years now.

First, I have tried in vain to coax Boeing to put more emphasis on flight safety — far more emphasis than it has in the past. If a plane pilot can parachute from an errant plane and, thus, save his life, why can’t Boeing make large passenger planes with a large equivalent of the chute system that will bring a troubled plane down to earth slowly and safely, instead of crashing with a great many deaths, as has been the case up to now?

Given the ingenuity of Boeing’s large staff of bright scientists and engineers, I strongly believe that some kind of safety akin to parachuting could be devised, even if it meant a reduction in speed and fuel efficiency would be the result. Wouldn’t saving thousands of lives over the years be worth it?

Second, I believe the Boeing Co. should seriously consider a major change in its modus operandi. Instead of selling planes to airlines around the world, why not lease them to the airlines and supervise the maintenance and upkeep of each craft, all of it in return for a leasing fee that would more than pay for the cost of each plane in the long run.

With the addition of a chute-safety-type program and leasing arrangements, I am positive Boeing would insure its dominance as the world’s largest and most important aircraft and aerospace company for at least another century.

Boeing officials very cleverly waited for the appropriate date, 7/8/7, to launch its newest and most celebrated passenger plane, the 787 Dreamliner, which already promises to be one of its best-sellers, if not the best-seller in its history as the foremost plane-maker in the world.

Although certain mechanical refinements still remain to be made, the plane has chalked up a remarkable number of early sales and probably will break existing records for Boeing, which already owns the title of “world’s most successful builder of short- and long-distance aircraft.”

Plaudits have poured in from nations everywhere for the new Dreamliner, which apparently will eclipse the sales records of the previous big-sellers, the 727 and the 707. In the process, Boeing has retained its lead as the world’s major plane builder, despite the competition from Europe’s Airbus.

Although its headquarters left Seattle for its new address in Chicago — a move obviously designed to take greater advantage of international business — the Boeing Co. occupies a very special place in the hearts and minds of the people of Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. And deservedly so.

However — and there always is a “however,” isn’t there? — I would hope that the world’s foremost creator of passenger aircraft will soon pay special attention to an issue I have been posing for some time. That issue is the need for all aircraft builders the world over to pay greater attention and do more research on the need for greater safety in air travel.. I’m referring, of course, to the occasional aircraft accidents that have taken the lives of passengers in every region of the world. My contention has been that, since pilots and travelers in small planes can parachute to safety whenever something goes awry and they are about to crash, why can’t similar precautions be built into the large passenger planes? If flyers can parachute to safety, why can’t troubled planes do the same?

A skeptic might quickly say: “Oh, there’s no way the parachute idea could be employed on a 727 or a 747.” My answer is that Boeing has solved many other problems in the Age of Flight, and I believe its bright engineers and designers could come up with a way to land even a 747 to prevent a deadly crash.

I realize that a built-in safety apparatus might add weight to a passenger liner and that extra weight is something Boeing and other aircraft makers have constantly worked on eliminating. But isn’t the safety factor far more important than the “extra weight” that increases the price of a new plane?

Boeing has prided itself all these years on its ability to solve all problems involving air liners, and I’m convinced the crash-prevention safety problem is one it could solve if it devoted more time and manpower to the task. Saving lives would make it all worth it.

Despite the fact that the Boeing Airplane Co., born and bred in Seattle, decided a few years ago to move its headquarters to Chicago to take advantage of being closer to business deals in the industry, Seattleites have retained their admiration for the world’s largest and most important producer of airliners.

One of the reasons for that admiration, of course, is the fact that Boeing continues to employ thousands of skilled aircraft workers in the Greater Seattle area. But there are other reasons for the love affair, not the least of which is Boeing’s leadership in the nation’s Space Age.

For example, the region applauded mightily about a dozen years ago, when Boeing’s Space division won a fierce competition to redesign the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s space-station program situated at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

The selection of Boeing was not only a plus for the American space program in general. It will also mean that the U.S. is going to get to Mars, Venus, and to other planets a lot sooner, thanks to the longtime excellence of Boeing in the field of flight and its dedication to perfection in the Space Age. When it comes to flying, no other company in the world can match the Seattle firm.

Boeing has been immersed into Space Age technology for many years, and it has been doing a great deal of astounding experimental work in its Seattle plant and at its subsidiary plants in other parts of the U.S. Long before it won the competition to redesign the Houston center, it had been preparing for the day we’ll be in space to stay — and in large numbers, maybe with permanent colonies.

However, I hope the choice of Boeing for the Texas contract will mean a lot more. N.A.S.A. had been foundering a lot in recent years, with several snafus and expensive delays in space projects — and, unfortunately, poorly managed programs that produced millions of dollars in waste.

Also, one must hope Boeing will produce the accurate technology that will work to banish N.A.S.A.’s scare stories on the so-called “ozone hole.” Remember that canard? Despite the assurances from the world’s leading climatologists, N.A.S.A. staffers, basing their judgments on flawed computer theories, spread the false alarm that the world was in dire straits because the hole in the ozone was widening at a fast pace, letting in perilous ozone. What a fairy tale that was! Notice that even the extremists have quit sounding the ozone-hole alarm.

Perhaps the presence of Boeing on the Space Age scene is directly responsible for the fact that N.A.S.A. has quit sending out those flawed press releases in the past ten years or so. It’s quite evident that the “Boeing Age” in the Space Age has finally set N.A.S.A. straight and induced it to rely on scientific measurements and facts, instead of Chicken Little press releases.

I am also compelled to point out one more distinct advantage in the decision to award the new contract to the Boeing Co. That advantage is that a private company has assumed leadership on an important space issue, taking the play away from an entrenched government bureaucracy.