Posted on 02/26/2011 8:05:55 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Boeing labor union credits Obama for Air Force tanker win
Published: Saturday, February 26, 2011, 5:00 AM
By George Talbot
The European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. will meet with top military officials on Monday to learn why its bid for the U.S. Air Force tanker contract fell short against rival Boeing Co.
The details of that 10 a.m. CST meeting at the Pentagon could dictate whether or not EADS will protest the award
The selection of Boeing’s KC-767 tanker, announced Thursday by the Air Force, stunned observers on both sides of the high-stakes competition for the $35 billion deal.
EADS, the parent company of Airbus, had proposed to assemble its planes at a $600 million factory to be constructed in Mobile.
As EADS looked for answers Friday, Boeing celebrated its win. In comments that reinforced the notion that politics may have played a hand in the decision, a top official from Boeing’s biggest labor union credited President Barack Obama with delivering the victory to the Chicago-based company.
Rich Michalski, general vice president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, said he was convinced that EADS was poised to beat Boeing for the coveted deal.
Michalski said the union, which helped carry Obama to victory in 2008 and could be vital to his re-election next year, took its case directly to the White House.
During a conference call with reporters following the Air Force announcement, Michalski commended Obama for responding to the union’s message.
"Anywhere we had a chance to speak to this administration, we did," Michalski said, according to Politico.com. "He listened to the people, and he understood this $35 billion in defense funds will be put to good use."
Michalski was asked why he would praise the president, considering that the White House pledged to stay out of the competition. Michalski responded that he was not naive.
"Presidents make a difference, and we all know that," he said, as reported by Politico. "It’s his Cabinet. He sets the tone."
Those comments fueled allegations by U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, that "Chicago politics" influenced the Air Force’s decision — a not-too-subtle jab at Obama, who shares the same Chicago hometown as Boeing.
Defense analyst Loren Thompson, who backed Boeing’s bid in the competition, said price — not politics — was the determining factor in the contest. But, he said, Obama "dodged a bullet" with a key constituent when the Air Force picked Boeing over its European rival.
"It’s a little hard to claim organized labor as your base...if you’re also going to give a $35 billion contract to a foreign company," Thompson told Politico. "If Airbus had won, it would have become a huge political controversy."
While the announcement played well in Boeing country, it was met with disappointment overseas. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the contract represented an opportunity to expand trade relations between the U.S. and Europe.
"The chancellor...took note of the decision with regret. From the German point of view, this is a missed opportunity to deepen the transatlantic partnership," a spokesman for Merkel said Friday.
Obama, meanwhile, welcomed a delegation of Democratic governors to the White House for lunch Friday. The group was led by Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire, a prominent Boeing supporter whose state will secure thousands of aircraft assembly jobs as a result of the tanker contract.
On Sunday night, according to McClatchy newspapers, Gregoire will return to the White House for a black-tie dinner, where she’ll sit next to the president and give a toast in his honor.
Isn’t ‘solidarity’ great. /s It feel like we’re in Poland.
Wouldn't that be illegal?
The Fix was in on this when GAO upheld the Boeing protest a year ago. That’s why Grumann pulled out. I don’t know why EADS wasted their time. They wont protest because they will know it would be futile. The losers here are the people of the Gulf Coast and the American people who will once again be at the Mercy of the Machinists Unions in WA to deliver this plane on time and within the cost promised. Don’t bet on that happening and one day Boeing will be coming back for an extension and forgiveness from some of the fines for being late.
“The losers here are the people of the Gulf Coast...”
That’s actually what your statement is really all about: Those people wanting government money.
I could say the same thing of all the Boeing people if Boeing had lost: “The losers here are the people of Washington, Okalahoma, South Carolina, Georigia, and Colorado.”
EADS is NOT a US company and the US DoD should only buy products from primary vendors that are, unless a US supplier is simply not available. Those are American taxpayer dollars and must go to American companies. If you want European products then move to Europe.
I wonder what would happen if our allies said the same thing?
M1 tanks for our allies? Nope.
US made missiles? Nope.
F-16s, F-15 and F-35 fighters? Nope.
This is a no extension no addition contract. Either Boeing provides the tankers at the agreed price or they lose money. It was reported as a high risk contract that could destroy Boeing, but what do the unions care about that?
Pray for America
I’m afraid, however, that when Boeing schedules begin to slip and costs begin to escalate, they will be “deemed” too big to fail and the U.S. taxpayer will get stuck with the bill.
“This is a no extension no addition contract. Either Boeing provides the tankers at the agreed price or they lose money. It was reported as a high risk contract that could destroy Boeing, but what do the unions care about that?”
Boeing is like GM and Chrysler - too big to fail. Besides, Boeing probably has stronger support on both sides of the aisle than any other company. If Boeing is losing money, the contract will be renegotiated. You can take that to the bank.
:):)
This is a fixed fee contract and not one of the old “cost plus” contract. There are fines for being late and and any overruns by the contractor must be paid by the contractor and not Boeing. Given Boeing’s history, if you expect them to be on time and within cost, you’re dreaming. You can bet they will come begging to the Government to give them extensions and cost /fine considerations which they will get because they will have the AF in a corner with no alternative. Your argument about a US Vs. a European company only rests on the location of the Corporate Heeadquarters. Boeing will outsource to foreign suppliers every bit as much as EADS would have. At least EADS already has a place flying and would have built it in the US not subject to Union work stopages.
And I was castigated yesterday for basically stating what the unions themselves have verified!
I would never to that to a fellow Freeper.
Once you get 3-4 years into production, the Air Force becomes dependent on Boeing and will agree to cover cost overruns even though the contract says Boeing must. What is the Government going to do? Let Boeing default on the contract and start over again? Wont happen. This is an old racket and Boeing knows how to play the game. That is why they priced it so low. They will never lose a dime, no matter how late they are and whatever overruns they experience. They will ask for and receive “Contract Modifications” which will pass completely under the radar.
That wont be the language, but you are close, It will be called a “MOD Order” or “Contract Modification”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.