Heraldnet.com
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 10:42 am
LocalNorthwestNation & WorldPoliticsSpecial ReportsPhotosColumnistsMultimedia 
Herald Editorial Board

Bob Bolerjack,
Opinion Editor
bolerjack@heraldnet.com

Carol MacPherson,
Editorial Writer
cmacpherson@
heraldnet.com


Allen Funk,
Herald Publisher
funk@heraldnet.com

Kim Heltne,
Assistant to the Publisher
heltne@heraldnet.com

Send letters to the editor by e-mail to letters@heraldnet.com, by fax to 425-339-3458 or mail to The Herald - Letters, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206.

 
WEEK IN REVIEW
Monday


Lynnwood woman knew area's stories long before ...
Everett rethinks boutique wineries
A tidy lawn could be law in Lynnwood
Sunday


Marysville family comes together amid devastati...
Monroe Correctional Complex to lessen security ...
Extra patrols will be watching for drunken driv...
Saturday


Olympics are in the air
Everett police officers cleared in 2008 shootin...
Edmonds woman leaves gift of millions
Friday


Budget squeeze may close beloved Trafton school
Endgame near on airport flight debate?
Aaron Reardon laments political sparring with c...
Thursday


4-car police pileup in Everett under investigation
Edmonds educator, famous announcer dies
Bill would suspend limits on tax hikes
Wednesday


Citizenship classes: All for a better life
Many Snohomish County kids haven't had second d...
Snohomish County jail thrives under sheriff's m...
Tuesday


Mukilteo kids’ cards help Haitians
County Council increases scrutiny on Reardon
Pentagon report a good sign for Everett's Navy ...
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Editorials   Print This Article  Email This Page  Subscribe Now! facebook digg reddit del.icio.us fark stumble

 
ADVERTISEMENT

 
HAVE YOUR SAY
Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor.
You’ll need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another.
Send it to:
E-mail: letters@heraldnet.com
Mail: Letters section
The Herald
P.O. Box 930
Everett, WA 98206
Fax: 425-339-3458
Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson (cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472).
 
Published: Sunday, March 2, 2008

Air Force has a whole lot of explaining to do

This isn't over yet.

The U.S. Air Force's stunning announcement Friday that it had chosen a European manufacturer over the Boeing Co. to supply 179 aerial refueling tankers raised far more questions than it answered. Boeing and Congress, among others, must demand that every such question be addressed thoroughly.

Beyond the obvious "What the #$@&! were they thinking?[""], we'd like to know:

n Why would the U.S. military hand Europe a huge economic stimulus package? Especially to a company -- EADS and its Airbus subsidiary -- that the U.S. government has repeatedly accused of taking unfair and illegal government subsidies that allow it to launch new commercial lines free of the market risks Boeing is used to taking.

By handing Airbus a $35 billion victory, the Air Force will also give it a better competitive foothold in the commercial aviation market by helping it establish a manufacturing operation within our own shores -- in Mobile, Ala. That's where some engineering and assembly of the Airbus tanker would take place, but make no mistake: the bulk of the KC-45A will be built in Europe. These will not be American planes. That's why in Paris, EADS CEO Louis Gallois is proclaiming the deal a "fabulous victory."

n Given the dollar's weakness against the Euro, how is buying a European product cost-effective for U.S. taxpayers?

n How can we be sure that this isn't a "makeup call" from the 2003 tanker scandal involving Boeing and Air Force officials?

n How did the Air Force's recent decision to change criteria it used to assess rival bids affect the process?

n Size apparently mattered, according the Air Force's description of Airbus' larger A330 platform. Accordingly, was Boeing given ample opportunity to base its tanker on the larger 777 rather than the 767?

n Creation of U.S. jobs wasn't a factor in the decision, Air Force officials insisted Friday. EADS and its business partner, Northrop Grumman, apparently thought it would, though. How else to explain the effort to sweeten its bid by having final assembly take place in Mobile? Without that carrot, does anybody really believe the decision would have gone the way it did?

This is one of the largest U.S. military contracts ever awarded, and it's probably just the first of three similar orders for tankers over several decades. A strong, experienced and innovative American company with a highly skilled American workforce shouldn't have its bid tossed aside in favor of a foreign competitor without a thorough, compelling and convincing explanation.

We look forward to that.

Other Advertisers
TODAY'S TOP JOBS
 View All Top Jobs 
Top Cars
Top Homes

ADVERTISEMENT