2008 Woodie Awards
Northrop-Grumman, EADS is the best choice for America
Hannah Skewes
Senior Reporter
Issue date: 3/24/08 Section: Opinion
Almost every person in Mobile knows about the Air Force KC-45A Tanker contract being awarded to the Northrop-Grumman and EADS team. This is probably because the assembly of the jetliner will be carried out in Mobile, creating more than 1,500 jobs locally. But the problem isn't here; it's in the national headlines and in Washington, D.C. Misinformation is flying around like gnats.
The contest was between Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. Boeing's main argument is that they believe that the contest was tilted in Northrop-Grumman's favor, that their aircraft is smaller and that the Air Force did not specify a desired size. They also claim that their aircraft is more economically beneficial. In short, they're whining because they lost the bid, and the company is already knee-deep in trouble left over from former CEOs. Also, in 2003, the company was sued by Lockheed-Martin with allegations of industrial espionage.
Boeing filed a formal complaint on March 11. I don't blame them for fighting the contract because the company is faltering. What I don't understand is how politicians in Washington and the national media can jump on such a rickety bandwagon against Northrop-Grumman and EADS. Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all wagged a finger at the Air Force and said that an "American" company should have been awarded the contract. First of all, Northrop-Grumman is the primary contractor, not EADS. Northrop-Grumman is based in Los Angeles and as far as I know, fits the description an American company.
Most of the underlying frame will be assembled in France, but the plane will be completed in Mobile and in North Carolina with General Electric. Boeing's tanker proposal included using parts from Japan, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada. All modern defense aircraft and jetliners are constructed by supplies from a global market. Boeing is not exempt to that fact. Northrop's tanker is supposed to use more than 60 percent of "American content," according to the company's Web site.
The contest was between Boeing and Northrop-Grumman. Boeing's main argument is that they believe that the contest was tilted in Northrop-Grumman's favor, that their aircraft is smaller and that the Air Force did not specify a desired size. They also claim that their aircraft is more economically beneficial. In short, they're whining because they lost the bid, and the company is already knee-deep in trouble left over from former CEOs. Also, in 2003, the company was sued by Lockheed-Martin with allegations of industrial espionage.
Boeing filed a formal complaint on March 11. I don't blame them for fighting the contract because the company is faltering. What I don't understand is how politicians in Washington and the national media can jump on such a rickety bandwagon against Northrop-Grumman and EADS. Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all wagged a finger at the Air Force and said that an "American" company should have been awarded the contract. First of all, Northrop-Grumman is the primary contractor, not EADS. Northrop-Grumman is based in Los Angeles and as far as I know, fits the description an American company.
Most of the underlying frame will be assembled in France, but the plane will be completed in Mobile and in North Carolina with General Electric. Boeing's tanker proposal included using parts from Japan, United Kingdom, Italy and Canada. All modern defense aircraft and jetliners are constructed by supplies from a global market. Boeing is not exempt to that fact. Northrop's tanker is supposed to use more than 60 percent of "American content," according to the company's Web site.
Be the first to comment on this story