William A. Alexander – 3/9/08

This page was last updated on March 9, 2008.

What are they thinking?; William A. Alexander; Beaver County Times; March 9, 2008.

Mr. Alexander has written at least 28 letters (See the archives for more examples.) since December 2004, and all but two (one fawning over Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA] and another critical of local funding for JROTC) bashed Republicans for something. Despite this record, Mr. Alexander is a Democrat/liberal who wants us to believe he’s really a Republican. Though this letter doesn’t do any Republican bashing, I wouldn’t be surprised if this letter serves as a jumping off point for a future bash letter.

Below is a detailed critique of the letter.

“I was stunned to see that our Air Force generals have given a $40-billion contract to Airbus, through a paper partnership with Northrup [sic] Grumman Corp, to supply the next generation of Air Force refueling tankers. The deal possibly could be expanded to more than $100 billion.”

[RWC] What is “a paper partnership?”

“These refueling aircraft are larger than a Boeing 767.”

[RWC] Not exactly. They are just about the exact size of a 767 since that’s what Boeing used in its bid, and the Airbus A330 is a direct competitor of the 767.

“Airbus is owned by European Common Market members and controlled by France. It receives high subsidies from the countries that own it and has never had a profitable year.

“Airbus was originally started to compete with U.S. commercial aircraft when there were American commercial aircraft manufacturers besides Boeing. At that time, European nations wanted a European-made aircraft that they could buy for their mainly government owned commercial airlines rather than U.S.-made planes.”

[RWC] Mr. Alexander is mostly correct in these two paragraphs, though France does not control Airbus – or its EADS parent – as he alleges.

“The parts of the planes will be made in Europe and Asia, mainly France, and shipped to Mobile, Ala. In Mobile, a new plant staffed with new employees will assemble these huge aircraft.”

[RWC] Mr. Alexander seems to be fixated on France. I’m no expert on A330 production, so I don’t know if most of the parts are made in France. In any case, the standard A330 parts will continue to be made where they are, but final assembly will be done in Mobile as Mr. Alexander says.

The idea that the KC-45A’s will only be assembled in the U.S. is incorrect. According to Northrop Grumman, “The KC-45A tanker will support more than 25,000 jobs in the United States.” and “The KC-45A U.S. supplier base will include 230 companies in 49 states.” NG indicates the KC-45A will be about 60% U.S. content, which includes the General Electric engines to be built in the U.S. Since all aircraft today are the product of global suppliers, I don’t know how much of the Boeing aircraft would have been U.S. content, though I suspect it would have been higher than 60%.

“Anyone that has been involved with start up of new plants with new employees will agree that this is a substantial undertaking for relatively simple and proven assembly lines. To do this with something this complicated, with the extreme level of quality control required due to the product’s size and end use, will be a long and arduous undertaking.”

[RWC] Mr. Alexander is reaching. This process takes place every time a new aircraft model is introduced.

“I have contacted my senators and congressman to try to get this contract stopped. If you agree, I hope you will do the same.

“With our economy, there is no way a Defense Department contract for this size for Air Force refueling planes, to be used in time of war, be given to a company that is not part of the U.S. economy. What a blow to our ‘Buy American’ effort.”

[RWC] On the “Buy American” comment, Mr. Alexander failed to note that as a result of the deal, Airbus will also begin production of commercial A330-200F freighters at the Mobile plant.

Did you note what concern is missing from Mr. Alexander’s objections? Mr. Alexander expressed no concern about the potential transfer of sensitive U.S. military technology to foreign countries. On this topic, NG says, “No sensitive military technology will be exported to Europe. For the KC-45A program, a commercial A330 jetliner will be assembled by American workers in EADS’s facility in Mobile. The aircraft will then undergo military conversion in an adjacent Northrop Grumman facility. All of the KC-45A’s critical military technology will be added by an American company, Northrop Grumman, in America, in Mobile Ala.”

Here’s what Mr. Alexander failed to mention. Boeing actually won the contract way back in 2003. Unfortunately, the deal began to look bad quickly when a Congressional Budget Office review claimed the lease agreement resulted in the U.S. paying far more than it should for the aircraft. Further, an investigation found a Pentagon procurement officer actively involved in the negotiations was at the same time negotiating for a job at Boeing, which she got. The procurement officer was convicted and served nine months in prison, the Boeing CEO resigned, the Boeing CFO was fired and served four months in prison, and Boeing paid a $617 million fine. As a result of all this, the Pentagon cancelled the deal with Boeing.

The question is this. Should Boeing have received the KC-45 contract instead of Airbus? Though I would have liked to see Boeing get the deal, I don’t know all the details and what eventually led the Pentagon to choose Airbus. What I do know is that in the first go round, Boeing apparently tried to screw U.S. taxpayers.