Heraldnet.com
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 8:47 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
Cigarette causes life-threatening burns
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: Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Tanker deal leaves U.S. looking pretty foolish

In agreeing to buy refueling tankers from a European company instead of Boeing, the Pentagon has put the United States government at odds with itself.

U.S. trade representatives continue to pursue a case before the World Trade Organization, arguing that European government subsidies to Airbus violate WTO fair-trade rules. One particularly harmful subsidy -- which went to the A330, upon which the Air Force now wants its next-generation tankers built -- reimburses Airbus' startup costs should a particular model fail financially, allowing Airbus to launch new lines virtually risk-free. It's hard to imagine a more anti-competitive strategy.

Yet as one arm of the U.S. government rightly pursues remedies for such illegal activity, another -- the Department of Defense -- is agreeing to spend up to $40 billion in taxpayer money on a European company's ill-gotten gains.

"We look a little foolish right now, in my estimation," U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen said Tuesday after raising the conundrum with Air Force officials during a committee hearing.

And according to Boeing, which officially protested the Air Force/Airbus deal on Tuesday, the procurement process was "seriously flawed" in several other ways. The company claims the Air Force changed the rules during the process, resulting in "selection of an aircraft that was radically different from that sought by the Air Force and inferior to the Boeing 767 tanker offering."

The choice of the A330, which is larger than the 767, surprised most observers partly because it was soundly rejected by Air Force officials in 2002. Reasons cited by the Air Force then were that the A330 took up 81 percent more ground space than the existing tankers, without a commensurate increase in refueling capacity; that it would demand a greater infrastructure investment than the 767, and would "dramatically limit the aircraft's ability to operate effectively in worldwide deployment." What changed?

The General Accounting Office, which has 100 days to investigate the procurement process and rule on Boeing's protest, has that and plenty of other questions to answer.

Meanwhile, Larsen's observation is a good one: This case has left the U.S. government looking more than a little foolish. The government's trade-policy objectives shouldn't be undercut by one of its own agencies. Congress and the Bush administration need to get to work on that.

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

ADVERTISEMENT