 |
On May 10, Sen. Maria Cantwell met with unions from across our state to discuss why that decision was wrong for national defense, wrong for Boeing workers, wrong for our economy, wrong for taxpayers and wrong for the environment. Present were representatives from unions such as the Machinists and the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace that are directly impacted by the decision as well as unions not directly affected but who understand that the economic impact of Boeing extends into our local communities.
The process of having bids submitted before tax dollars are spent is meant to ensure that tax dollars are used wisely and that contracts are not awarded based on “who you know” but based on superior product, competitive cost and what is best for our country. Boeing, a company not known to challenge bids, has filed an appeal with the Government Accountability Office (gao). The gao is expected to make a decision early next month.
We all know that “contracting out” is often seen as a way to cut costs, but in the end can cost far more than doing the job with the employees you already have. In a real sense we have just made the decision to contract out a key part of our national defense. What happens when ng/eads decides that they don’t support our military mission and they don’t want to supply us with spare parts?
The risk that we will have key military assets dependent on a non-u.s. company leaves us vulnerable. This concern has a precedent. In 2003 when we went to war a Swiss company withheld parts of our jdam weapons system. We can’t risk that again.
The awarding of the contract to a non-American company misses a chance to get a double impact from the tax money. Spending it on an American company helps stimulate our economy, employs people working here and spending money here as well as fulfilling the goal of getting a new product for the Air Force. ng/eads has claimed that they will create jobs in the u.s. and yet the contract they signed doesn’t contain any guarantees that will happen. Airbus, a subsidiary of eads, has had a history of questionable claims of job creation. Senator Cantwell, along with three other senators, on May 9 sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Labor, calling on them to verify the job creation claims of ng/eads.
Over the lifecycle the cost of the ng/eads aircraft will be roughly double the initial cost, in large part because the ng/eads planes use 30 percent more fuel than the Boeing planes. Shouldn’t the Air Force be considering the entire cost to taxpayers when they decide which is the best deal?
Finally, we have the environmental impact of this bad decision. The Air Force consumes half of the fuel used by our federal government; the Boeing planes presented in the bid use 30 percent less fuel than the Northrup/ead planes.
Certainly last, but not least, our local government jurisdictions across Western Washington and the whole of our state’s economy has benefited greatly from Boeing successes. The tax dollars are irreplaceable. This original program came on the heels of 9/11 not only to provide a needed assist for our nation’s defense but also to help keep a wounded u.s. industry afloat. The plane that ng/eads will be producing is an Airbus, and the last time I checked, that was a European company.
