Could Boeing’s loss be McCain’s as well?
Will Boeing’s loss of a major government contract hurt John McCain in Missouri?
The aerospace firm - and its St. Louis based defense-unit - took an enormous hit last week when the Pentagon announced that Boeing, despite being the favorite, had lost a $40 billion bid to supply the Air Force with fueling vessels.
Instead, the contract went to a European company, EADS - known for its Airbus line of jets - and a U.S. partner, Northrop Grumman.
So what’s that go to do with the GOP nominee for president?
Five years ago, Boeing had a $23.5 billion deal in place to lease the fuel tankers - planes that can gas-up other planes in midair - to the military.
McCain - who was in town for a fundraiser on Monday - questioned the proposal. He led criticism that it would actually cost more to lease the tankers than own them outright.
That helped expose a far more stinging scandal for Boeing: That the firm offered a Air Force procurement office, Darleen Druyun, future employment while she inflated the price of the tanker contract.
Both Druyun and the Boeing executive that offered her the job, St. Louisan Michael M. Sears, admited to federal corruption charges.
McCain, since early on in the campaign, has trumpeted his involvement in exposing the Boeing lease plan, claiming that he saved taxpayers billions.
But now that the contract has been re-bid several years later, many of those jobs that would have gone to Boeing will now go overseas to EADS. And that could quickly become a liability for McCain in St. Louis and other cities with Boeing facilities.
Here’s what AP writer Matthew Daly wrote in a recent analysis:
McCain has run ads touting his role in fighting “pork” such as the tanker project and cited the deal in a recent GOP debate.
“I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal,” he said.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoing the thoughts of many congressional Democrats, sees McCain’s role in a less positive light. She said the earlier tanker deal was “on course for Boeing” before McCain started railing against it.
“I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it,” Pelosi told reporters. “Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be - this work may be outsourced.”
Even Boeing’s Republican supporters are critical of McCain.
“John McCain will be the nominee and I will support him, but if John McCain believes that Airbus or EADS is the company for our Air Force tanker program he’s flat-out wrong - and I’ll tell him that to his face,” said Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash.
Missouri’s senior senator, Kit Bond, has entered the fray, writing a letter last week to a Air National Guard, questioning the process behind awarding the air-tanker contract.
But Bond has not, publicly at least, joined the crowd upset with McCain.
McCain in Frontenac on Monday
This is such a stretch, you lefties need to take care you don’t tear a ligament. McCain blew the whistle on a clear rip-off. Now, Boeing lost a competitive bid. But somehow, it’s McCain’s fault. Of course, if they had gone forward with the deal, you’d blame the corrupt, free-spending Bush administration.
To let the military brass move that contract with all of its jobs and money for the most part overseas borders on unforgiveable…..and the military brass wonders why some people are unsupportive? I’m sure this blunder will win it a lot of support (insert eye roll).
This could cost McCain a handful of votes here in Missouri. In a “toss up” state like Missouri, a handful here and there could mean the difference between winning or losing the state.
Perhaps more than a handful, Robb. Is anyone at Boeing-St. Louis happy with McCain over this situation? McCain’s problem is that he appears to have gone out of his way to ensure a competition in a situation in which no domestic competitor existed. And it doesn’t help McCain that some of his most preeminent staffers were lobbyists for EADS earlier on. Characteristic of a senator culpable to the hilt in the Keating Five scandal (which also cost taxpayers billions of dollars, by the way).
The protest should be interesting. Jim Albaugh did seem legitimately baffled by all the bigger-is-better talk in the wake of the award to EADS. As am I: How difficult runways and fuel conservation ceased to be an issue for the USAF is itself an issue.
McCain also restructured how contracts were awarded but I don’t know the details. Maybe the PD could report, but it did indirectly hurt Boeing. Plus, Boeing is behind on their new airplane and border security system.
First, what happened to the rules that you can’t use a real person’s name. Yes, #2, that’s you.
Nick, it is more than exposing past bad deeds that have folks upset with McCain.
He is stating that it is better to give a DEFENSE contract to a foreign vendor, who might be a little cheaper, than to go with the home team. Tha’t s not such a stretch to the thousands of folks in St Louis who work in that industry!
McCain stated yesterday that contracts should always default to the lowest bidder. While I wouldn’t want falsely inflated bids, I would think that the money McCain touts to save is really a net loss when you consider lost tax revenues from lost jobs.
In addition, this is a defense contract. Why would we want our end products being manufactured outside the US? Really, if the government can’t even “buy American” we might as well give up!
defense matters going with
I thought you right-wingers hated the French? How could you support such a contract/deal? *smile*
As I understood it, this contract was let on three different occasions in order to GET competition, after Boeing was the ONLY bidder twice. (someone please correct me if I’m mistaken)
If I were a Boeing executive, I’d be pissed, too — and I understand they’re filing a protest, through the proper channels, over this particular project and how it was awarded.
And I hope they prevail!
Jo is sleeping in today. Michelle Obama is allowed to tell someone to kiss off on here but I can’t say carp.
Your comment was deleted for saying crap?? That’s NOTHING compared to some of the language used in some of the other PD blogs!!
Wow! Talk about inconsistency!
It’s Official — Clinton Lost Texas
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/03/11/its-official-clinton-lost-texas/
Why does our government insist on continually pumping our tax dollars out of our country???
McCain
“I’ll give it to you straight my friends..Those jobs won’t be coming back! We need to retrain our workforce in America to green technologies.. ‘off camera prompt’.. (pause) It’s the wave of the future, just like the hula-hoop of yesteryear!” ‘Grin’ …
First off, McCain did not select NG/EADS, the Air Force did. All McCain did was to scuttle a deal to lease tankers for as much as it costs to build and own new ones. When that lease was up, it would have cost us much more to re-lease them again. The fact that this uncovered the hanky panky with the Air Force Procurement officer is Boeing’s fault. All this talk of blaming McCain is kind of like blaming the ref when you get caught commiting a foul.
As for the new procurement, there were strings being pulled on all sides. Shoot, Boeing was airing commercials in DC the week before the announcement saying how this was good for America and jobs. This was much too late to affect the actual decision. I think they already had a feeling that they had lost and were preparing the political ground to get this thing stopped in Congress.
Lastly, if it was so wrong to have a foreign company as a major subcontractor for this plane, then why did the gov’t permit NG and EADS to waste their money bidding this proposal. Was this all a hoax, with NG playing Joe Shmoe. Maybe we’d all be happy if Patriot fans lobbied the NFL to have the Superbowl overturned.
McCain
“This process was fair and open. My letters did not influence the results here..
HEY! Get off my lawn you little JER*! ..’off camera prompt’ ..(pause) ..mumbling.. Let us strike that from the record if I may! ..(grin)..”
McCain was a key player in the process but told reporters yesterday, “I never weighed in for or against anybody that competed for the contract. All I asked for was a fair process. And the facts are that I never showed any bias in any way against anybody - except for the taxpayer.”
If you don’t get it..read it again …
Here’s what happened.
The bids originally were to include info on government subsidies, with the intent being to find out how production would be affected if subsidies were stopped or decreased.
McCain got this requirement dropped, benefitting the foreign competitor. Seems it was a deal breaker for them, but not for Boeing.
It also smells pretty bad that several people who work in his campaign were lobbyists for EADS previously.
McCain can finance our 100 year war with Iraq by borrowing money from China to pay the French who build our military hardware….
That’s fair…except for the U.S. taxpayer.
I deleted the aforementioned comment by someone using a name that was obviously not their own. Commenters are free to use a range of monikers, just not one that posits to be somebody else.
I read where the military had two demonstrators from both Boeing and Eads/Northrop, and the military said the Eads model was far superior both in reliability and features. Boeing’s head got a little too big and they need to start focusing on making better planes vs. making a profit. The same mentality cost the Big Three (Ford, Chrysler, GM) billions. John McCain is a representative of our government, and represents us, both as citizens and consumers in the choices that are made. If Airbus/Eads/Northrop makes a superior product, myself and every other American should be behind his decision. I could care less about wether the plane is made in St. Louis, or by union members or not. Most Americans are now buying Hondas, Toyotas, etc. because their durability, styling, features, and safety have been superior to the American versions for years. So who can blame the government when they want the superior product as well?
The Boeing plane is superior and I think this will be the analysis in the end. The government with pressure from McCain was so worried about making this competetive that they skewed the competition towards Airbus. When things went against Airbus throughout they would threaten to pull out until they got their way. Why doesn’t the USAFmention EADS or Airbus in any of their press releases if they are proud of their choice? The Boeing plane is superior. It operates on less fuel, is more manuverable, and can land on runways throughout the world. Ask the pilots which one they want and the answer will be different than the choice made by the brass.
Being an Independant I am not satisfied with McCain or the USAF letting this bid on our defense go outside the good ole USA. Upsetting even more is that it goes to France which has forever gone against the USA in too many important situations. Not only will we be losing jobs and another industry to foreign country when our economy desperately needs uplifting but our own leaders keep forgetting to put their constituents first. Maybe it’s high time we get serious and not only put a new leader in the Presidency, but all the Senate and House as well!