Skip to comments.Lobbying Muscle and Green Agenda Blinded Boeing to Reality
Posted on 01/31/2013 11:52:13 AM PST by jazusamo
With the revelation that All Nippon Airways replaced defectivelithium ion batteries 10 times,Japan Air Lines replacedquite a few, andUnited Airlines replaced multiple batteries, in the months preceding the smoke emergency that grounded their Dreamliners, is there anything that can be said about the technology that can overcome its now-horrible reputation?
Boeing has worked on the 787 for 10 years or so, with an ample amount of time to determine what kind of battery technology would be functional with thesuper-efficient jet with exceptional environmental performance. Had the Chicago-based manufacturer and its airline customers concerned themselves more with achievable plans that built on proven fossil-fuel designs and economic sensibility rather than appeasement of environmental activists, and the accompanying millions of dollars in government subsidies for such, they might not be burning through millions of dollars in costs and lost productivity due to idle airplanes right now. Thats in addition to the public image hit they are taking.
There are those who will pooh-pooh the idea that Boeing overreached in its pursuit of green technology, and will argue that the aviation industry always seeks to lower its costs (like any business), especially the biggest ones: labor and fuel. This is true, but when it comes to what powers their aircraft, in a true free market not distorted by government giveaways, businesses such as Boeing would certainly err closer to the tried-and-true rather than the experimental. But because of those massive deformations in the marketplace, behemoth Boeing is in the business of political ingratiation as much as it is in the business of making aviation and aeronautical equipment.
Corporations, including Boeing and the major U.S. airlines, are under morepressure than ever to adoptsustainability practices that include efforts to reduce carbon dioxide, despite the fact that has little to do with effects on global climate. Green investors such as Walden Asset Management and Calvert Investments buy stock in the companies and then exercise influence as activist shareholders, joining outside environmental pressure groups to sway company decision makers without regard to whether their agenda aligns with profitability goals for the overall stock ownership.
In the case of Boeing, such initiatives are an even larger magnet for government relations minions to chase politicians and cabinet agencies to get pieces of the subsidy pie. The company is already lobbied up to gain contracts and protect interests in obvious places like the Department of Transportation and the Department of Defense, so a regulatory push to promote green technologies is just another opportunity to influence the decision making in Boeings favor.
Boeing is renowned for its ability to get what it wants in Washington. At the Center for Responsive Politics Boeing ranks as a heavy hitter, which means it is among the 140 biggest overall donors to federal elections since the 1990 election cycle. So donations from its political action committee and employees are significant. For the 2012 campaign cycle, Boeing staffers and entities gave more than $3.1 million in contributions, ranking it 82nd overall among giving from corporate entities (according to CRPs compilation of federal data).
Boeings lobbying acumen is even stronger, spending over $15 million in 2012, placing the company 12th for such expenditures, according to CRP. More than $16 million was spent the previous year. Overall Boeing has spent nearly $172 million on lobbying since 1998, exceeding $10 million for the first time in 2007, and never spending less than $15 million in any individual year since then.
What does Boeing lobby for? Everything. A review of its federal disclosure form for the 4th quarter of 2009 President Obamas first year in office shows the company lobbied on the issues of aerospace, aviation, budget and appropriations, defense, environment, financial institutions, foreign relations, health care, homeland security, intelligence, labor, tariffs, taxation, trade, and education. Boeing shows intense interest in nearly every appropriations bill, tax change, foreign relationship and regulatory issue that affects its bottom line.
State and local governments are not left untapped either. In 2001 former CEO Phil Condit announced Boeing would relocate its headquarters from Seattle, where it was founded in 1916, and put it up for grabs ultimately in an auction between Chicago, Dallas and Denver. The Windy City and the State of Illinois wound up the winners with a handsome bid of $63 million in incentives, far exceeding its competitors.
In fact, Boeing is such a master at tapping the public purse that they teach others how its done. In 2004 former vice president of state and local government relations Robin Stone, at a meeting of the State Government Affairs Council, co-taught dozens of corporations government relations executives how to extract incentives and tax breaks in a presentation titled, Turn Your State Government Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow. The cash-cow workshop advised government relations executives from some of the largest U.S. corporations, including Walmart, Proctor & Gamble, Bank of America, and Microsoft, to provide government with justification [a] quid pro quo for granting incentives.
The man who made the co-presentation with Stone, Michael Press of Ernst & Young (which helped Boeing vet the cities in the headquarters search), said the purpose of the talk was to instruct corporate lobbyists to not view their government-relations departments as a necessary administrative cost center, but rather as a source of value. But one North Carolina lawmaker knew what was meant.
Cash cow? You got that right, said N.C. Rep. Paul Stam, a Republican. They look at [government] as just turning on the spigots.
So as masters of the government manipulation game, Boeing views the demonization of fossil fuels (and commensurate regulations that have driven up their costs) and the promotion of green technologies not as challenges, but as opportunities. The lobbyists get their marching orders and go to work. Thus we see on Boeings federal disclosure forms that they intervene on measures such as the FAA Reauthorization Act, Export-Import Bank Issues, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Expansion, Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on Alternative Simplified Research Credit, Temporary Bonus Research Credit for Energy-related Research, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus), and Trade related aspects of climate change. And that is just a small fraction of Boeings lobbying interests.
So its no surprise that the European Union asked the World Trade Organization in October for permission to raise $12 billion in tariffs on U.S. goods and services (Wall Street Journal, subscription-only), due to damage it says is a result from subsidies to Boeing (a similar case is being pushed by the U.S. against EU-based Airbus). The WTO determined that at least $5.3 billion in both state and federal subsidies were awarded to Boeing between 1989 and 2006.
It is impossible to isolate out, or calculate, any subsidies that went specifically for the Dreamliner, especially on the federal level. But the State of Washington and some of its local governments dished out $3.2 billion-plus to prevent Boeing from taking 787 (called 7E7 at the time) production elsewhere, most likely where non-union labor costs would be lower. In 2010 Boeing did set up a second assembly plant in a right-to-work state, South Carolina, that won the company an estimated $900 million in state incentives.
As NLPC reported earlier this month, the much-delayed 787 has been promoted as a super-efficient airplane. It was designed in response to airlines demands for an energy-saving aircraft, that provides unmatched fuel efficiency, resulting in exceptional environmental performance, and as the London Telegraph explained it, represented the promise of greener flying.
Now the Dreamliner is idle and a lot of blame is being thrown at a battery that wasnt prepared to handle the tasks it was assigned to do. Unfortunately billions of dollars coerced from taxpayers, in an atmosphere that represented something far from a free market, were used to drown out common sense and distorted the simple customer-vendor relationship.
Interesting article by Chesser regarding the 787 Dreamliner battery problem, green energy faction, lobbying and subsidies.
We lost a space shuttle because NASA bowed to the same pressure and altered the composition of the foam insulation on the external fuel tank. It had been changed in 1997 to exclude the use of freon, which eliminated the preferred material chosen by engineers.
On the issue of the headquarters relocation mentioned in the article: I wonder if moving to a city that has had 40+ murders this month alone makes wonder if the $63MM was worth it? What happens if/when a Boeing employee or family member is killed? Will they remember why Dallas or Denver were such bad choices?
Excellent point...Fortunately this battery problem hasn’t caused a crash, as yet, but the incident that took place in Japan was real close.
Boeing has been working on the P-8 for six years and it doesn’t work, either. Like the 787, the P-8 was supposed to be “more environmentally sensitive.” That goal has been achieved; when an aircraft can’t fly, it is indeed more environmentally sensitive. The process is broken.
But American engineers fixed the problems and the 727’s are looked back on with great fondness by many.
I'm confident the Boeing engineers will fix the problems..and this to shall pass.
Didn’t we lose TWO shuttles to the loss of heat shielding due to the change in the composition of the glue?
Delta took a different approach to lowering fuel costs, they bought a refinery outside Philadelphia.
I agree, they’ll fix these problems but it’s going to cost big bucks and the battery problem is something they were aware of.
“...and will argue that the aviation industry always seeks to lower its costs (like any business), especially the biggest ones: labor and fuel. This is true...”
So one builds a more fuel efficient plane that more people will buy so they can make more money. I know they had a LOT of problems because of them parting out so much to other countries - but that was also done to promote the bottom line “Okay, your country can make the landing gear but you have to order 10 planes from us.”
I have NO IDEA why the writer brings this Lithium batteries into the fray when he blames Boeing for being “Green”. Perhaps they are lighter than other batteries? Run things that used to be run by the engine power? That would have been interesting to know - then one might be able to agree that they pushed the “fuel efficiency” thing a bit too far for current technology.
No, the first shuttle was due booster O-rings that were too cold to work properly. Also, the joints did not have sufficient o-ring redundancy, which was changed after the accident.
No, we only lost two. The first was the contraction of the O-rings in the SRB segments due to cold weather. The rubber was too stiff and the hot gasses just blew right through the sidewall of the booster at the joint the O-rings were suppose to seal. NASA wanted a launch outside of the given safety parameters and the engineers refused. Eventually they were forced to sign off on it under duress, but got the head idiots to sign and letter agreeing Morton Thiokol engineers were absolved of any blame.
We lost the last one not so much because of the glue, but the foam insulation tiles that lined the main fuel module. It came off at just over mach 4 and the supposedly too-light foam that would not be a threat to the space shuttle itself put a 3-4” hole in the leading edge of her wing, which of course burned right through her during re-entry.
Ah, you know what... I conflated the two because the 2nd one was lost on re-entry DUE TO a problem at launch.
He’s written about it in prior articles and LI batteries are lighter.
“As a complement to the constant push by the Obama administration and environmental groups to kill fossil fuels by artificially driving up their costs via regulations, they have promoted the increased use of electricity (as though fossil fuels have nothing to do with its generation) as a replacement. The implications of that have led to seemingly desperate, and still elusive, attempts (through billions of dollars in research and subsidies for Obama-crony green companies) to make storage of electricity viable. And with lithium-ion the major technology of choice for battery advancement, that too has become a concern for safety in a seeming trade-off for efficiency.”
The quick fix is asy, replace the batteries with older, proven technology.
Thanks! I use electrical equipment out in the field, and it sure is a lot easier to carry a few LI batteries in a pouch than haul around a large marine battery in a cart. (Or a backpack when terrain is rough).
I used to charge them up overnight - but now only charge the LI up when I am around so if there is a problem I can deal with it. It may not be a high percentage problem - but the risk of a fire in an airplane (or my house) needs to be as low as possible!
I suppose that they design things so tightly in the planes that there isn’t any extra room for putting in larger batteries either. I suppose it is difficult to add wiring or they could run a powerplant off the engines and distribute the electricity to the various battery operated parts. (Unless those batteries are there to run things in case the engines die....).
I imagine as soon as Boeing figures something out and comes up with a fix to save the Dreamliner....the machinists will go on strike.
They do have a history of problems and it's surprising to me they put them in a commercial airliner of the size and numbers the 787 has.
It's been suggested by others on previous threads they should be replaced by Boeing with nickel metal hydride batteries. I'm no engineer but it sounds logical because they don't suffer the possibility of meltdown. However they are heavier and the entire system on the 787 would supposedly have to be re-engineered.
Time will tell.
Meant to ping you to post #22.