The European Figleaf
By choosing Boeing’s “paper airplane,” the United States is only hurting itself in the long run.
The Boeing Corporation’s reaction to winning the Pentagon contract to build a new tanker aircraft for the Air Force says much more than any analysis: Boeing expressed surprise on Thursday evening that it had won.
And rightly so: Airbus not only offered a superior product, but one that was already flying in many places around the world. Boeing’s tanker aircraft currently exists only on paper. Besides that, the Pentagon had already made a clear choice in favor of the Airbus product back in 2008.
The fact that Boeing won the “contract of the century” comes as a surprise to no one other than Boeing. The bottom line here is that Boeing is an American company, and that counts for more than meeting a hefty list of technical specs. The official excuse of “favorable long-term costs” is just as far-fetched as the reason for re-advertising the 2008 contract (catalog inadequacies).
In the final analysis, the United States is hurting only itself with this decision. Foreign companies in the future will hesitate to put money and resources into Pentagon contracts that are likely to end up being awarded on the basis of economic patriotism. And less competition will mean rising prices — a fact those in the lofty land of capitalism should know by now.
The Boeing Corporation’s reaction to winning the Pentagon contract to build a new tanker aircraft for the Air Force says much more than any analysis: Boeing expressed surprise on Thursday evening that it had won.
And rightly so: Airbus not only offered a superior product, but one that was already flying in many places around the world. Boeing’s tanker aircraft currently exists only on paper. Besides that, the Pentagon had already made a clear choice in favor of the Airbus product back in 2008.
The fact that Boeing won the “contract of the century” comes as a surprise to no one other than Boeing. The bottom line here is that Boeing is an American company, and that counts for more than meeting a hefty list of technical specs. The official excuse of “favorable long-term costs” is just as far-fetched as the reason for re-advertising the 2008 contract (catalog inadequacies).
In the final analysis, the United States is hurting only itself with this decision. Foreign companies in the future will hesitate to put money and resources into Pentagon contracts that are likely to end up being awarded on the basis of economic patriotism. And less competition will mean rising prices — a fact those in the lofty land of capitalism should know by now.