Boeing Wins $35 Billion Tanker Contract
 |
||||
|
||||
The Air Force has given a major boost to U.S. job creation by awarding a $35 billion contract to build the next generation of air refueling tankers to Boeing Co. The announcement was made at the Pentagon late this afternoon after the financial markets closed.
Boeing was locked in a competition with European-based EADS, which builds the Airbus, for what is the largest contract in Air Force history. Some 26,000 Boeing workers are represented by the Machinists (IAM) and SPEEA/International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 2001 represents more than 24,000.
Boeing said the tanker win would mean a total of 50,000 good union jobs across the country. The Air Force delayed the awarding of the tanker contract until after the November elections.
The Air Force has tried for nearly a decade to replace its aging fleet of Eisenhower-era tankers, the equivalent of a flying gas station.
Tanker Contract Delayed Until After Election—50,000 Jobs at Stake
 |
|
When some voters cast their ballots next week, their decisions will determine whether nearly 50,000 jobs in 40 states are created. The U.S. aerospace company Boeing is locked in a competition with European-based EADS, which builds the Airbus, for what is the largest contract in Air Force history. If Boeing’s bid wins, the company will immediately create tens of thousands of good union jobs to build the tanker. The Air Force has delayed the awarding of the $35 billion tanker contract until after the November elections. With some key members of Congress up for re-election, the choices voters in Washington and a few other states make will help determine whether Boeing or EADS gets the tanker.
WTO Rules Airbus Subsidies Are Illegal
The World Trade Organization (WTO) today confirmed what U.S. workers and aerospace manufacturers have been saying for years: The subsidies the European Union (EU) and its members give to the Airbus are illegal.
In a decision released today, a WTO dispute panel found that $20 billion in aid provided by certain EU nations for new Airbus aircraft over the past 40 years, as well as other subsidies, caused adverse effects to the interests of the United States aerospace industry and therefore violated WTO rules.
About a third of Airbus’s development costs come from European governments in the form of loans that are repaid with interest only if the aircraft is a commercial success.
The 1,050-page report on Airbus was published today by the WTO on its website. Broad outlines of the report have been known since March when a preliminary ruling was sent to the parties involved. Click here to read the full report.
Lexington Institute Finds Tanker Bidder EADS Breaks Trading Rules
 |
|
If the U.S. Defense Department awards its $35 billion air tanker contract to European-based EADS over U.S-owned Boeing, it would reward a company that breaks international trading rules, says Loren Thompson of the nonpartisan Lexington Institute.
The contract for the tanker was rebid after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2008 upheld Boeing’s protest of the original contract award. First, EADS and its partner Northrop Grumman said they were dropping out of the bidding. But this spring, EADS announced it would bid alone for the contract.
Here’s what’s at stake. Granting the contract to Boeing would create at least 50,000 family-supporting jobs, save taxpayer dollars and protect fair trade laws. But, if EADS wins the contract, most of the jobs would be in Europe. The few thousand jobs created here under an EADS contract would be low-paid assembly jobs with no union representation.
Is U.S. Air Force Flying Cover for EADS in Tanker Fight?
|
|
With 50,000 jobs at stake in the $35 billion contract battle over a new generation of in-flight refueling tankers, the U.S. Air Force “seems determined to help European businesses rather than our own,” says John Wolcott, editor of the Snohomish County Business Journal.
Wolcott is the latest voice to weigh in about the long and controversial fight that has pitted U.S-owned Boeing with “50 years of experience in producing aerial tankers” against the French-based, European consortium, EADS/Airbus.
The stakes are high. Granting the contract to Boeing would create at least 50,000 family-supporting jobs, save taxpayer dollars and protect fair trade laws.
Tanker Bid Tests Who U.S. Trade Policy Really Helps
If the Obama administration is serious about rebuilding America’s manufacturing base, it should start by awarding the $35 billion Air Force tanker contract to the Boeing Co. and not to a European firm that has ignored trading rules in its bid, several experts say.
The tanker contract was rebid this year after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) upheld Boeing’s protest of the original decision to award the contract to French-based EADS/Airbus and Northrop Grumman. After EADS dropped out, leaving Boeing as the only bidder, the Air Force extended the deadline for bids by 60 days and EADS submitted a new solo bid.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pointed out the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in March that Airbus had received illegal subsidies to make the A330 aircraft, which EADS will use for the tanker competition.
Don’t Listen to Sarkozy: U.S. Tanker Contract Should Create U.S. Jobs
 |
|
Today French President Sarkozy reportedly is lobbying President Obama to delay the U.S. government’s decision to award its $35 billion contract for the Air Force’s new refueling tanker. Sarkozy wants the contract for Northrop-EADS, a heavily subsidized French defense firm that recently pulled its proposal from the bidding process. Northrup-EADS now is mounting a huge public relations campaign to get the U.S. government to reverse what it regards as an unfair advantage for Boeing, which says the competition is fair.
If Northrup-EADS won the contract, most of the jobs would be in Europe. The few thousand jobs created here under an EADS contract would be low-paid assembly jobs with no union representation. Meanwhile, there are some 17 million jobless workers in this nation, and as leaders of two AFL-CIO constituency groups point out, granting the contract to Boeing would create at least 50,000 family-supporting jobs, save taxpayer dollars and protect fair trade laws.
Tanker Contract: Corporate Serfdom or Quality Jobs?
 |
||||
|
||||
The governors of Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama are pushing the U.S. Defense Department to award in 2010 a $35 billion to $40 billion tanker contract to European-owned EADS/Airbus rather than U.S.-based Boeing Corp.
In doing so, Republican Govs. Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal and Bob Riley are seeking to pit worker against worker, North against South, as a ploy to cover what’s really at stake: family-supporting jobs.
See, these governors loooove job creation in their states—as long as those jobs don’t pay much. Or offer affordable health insurance and retirement security. And especially as long as those jobs aren’t union.
If Boeing is awarded the contract for the refueling tanker aircraft, 44,000 family-supporting production jobs will be created across the country. In contrast, the few thousand jobs created under an EADS contract would be low-paid assembly jobs with no union protection.
State Fed Leaders: Air Tanker Contract Should Go to Boeing
 |
|
Awarding the $35 billion contract for the Air Force’s refueling tankers to Boeing Co. is the clear choice for “investing in American workers, American knowledge, American security, and America’s future,” the presidents of 10 AFL-CIO state federations say in a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The letter, sent last week, urges the Pentagon to consider the impact on the U.S. economy and national security in deciding which company should receive the lucrative Air Force refueling tanker contract.
In September 2008, Gates, who also was George W. Bush’s defense chief, announced he was canceling the competition for the refueling tankers and leaving it to the next administration to decide. Gates said the competition between Boeing Co. and European-based EADS/Northrop Grumman was “too controversial” to be settled during the last four months of the Bush administration.
