U.S. jobs paramount in tanker sequel

The latest round of bidding for a new $35æbillion fleet of refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force already is dangerously overloaded with baggage. It will be a miracle if a contract emerges in mid-2010 that doesn’t invite more protests and do-overs.

Some think the only hope is a “split-buy,” under which bidders Boeing and the team of Northrop Grumman/European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. each might build a dozen planes a year — but at the cost to taxpayers of perhaps $2æbillion a year more than otherwise. To his credit, Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposes a split-buy as too expensive.

There has been some praise for the latest competition, which will assess the bids on 373 mandatory features and scrutinize production and long-term costs. “While complicated, the new approach seems sound and far less vulnerable to abuse,” editorialized the New York Times.

“This proposal is a lot clearer and more straightforward, but the bad news is it doesn’t get rid of the outside problems, namely politicians,” aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia of Teal Group told the Los Angeles Times.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., already has tried to block funding over a pricing transparency issue, in the hopes of ensuring that the tankers will be assembled at a planned Northrop/EADS facility in Alabama; he’s expected to try again.

The rabid pro-Boeing politicians, including the Kansas delegation, have hardly been quiet either. But at least they have what seems an inarguable point: that the new tanker competition should take into account the recent ruling by the World Trade Organization that the Airbus A330, the basis for the Northrop/EADS tanker, benefited from $5æbillion in illegal European Union subsidies. That instantly creates an uneven playing field for Boeing in the tanker contest.

While we’re at it, as often argued by Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, why not factor in the government-funded health care that Airbus employees enjoy in Europe?

In this third round of a process that began almost a decade ago, at least one criterion has sharply increased in importance — to Americans, if not to the Pentagon.

How many U.S. jobs the bid can generate.

When the Air Force was shopping around for a lease on tankers in 2002 and 2003, the U.S. unemployment rate was less than 6æpercent. When the Pentagon announced a new deal early last year, only 4.8æpercent were looking for work. As rebidding got under way last month, the jobless rate stood at 9.8æpercent. The rate hit 10æpercent in July in Wichita, which was once forecast to see 3,800 jobs from a Boeing tanker contract.

Even those who have no problem with outsourcing a U.S. military contract to a foreign entity can see the value in shopping domestically this time. Of course, what constitutes a U.S. job can be tricky. As defense analyst Loren Thompson has pointed out, Airbus has variously said over the past four years that its product line is 45, 31 and 21æpercent American-made.

About the only things all can agree on is that the need for new tankers deepens by the day and that the selection needs to be fair and transparent. Until the Air Force finally can begin to take delivery on 179 planes, at a rate of about 15 annually, the men and women who are fighting two faraway wars must gas up with tankers older than their 48-year-old commander in chief.

— For the editorial board, Rhonda Holman