Machinists Ready to Assist Boeing in Securing Air Force Tanker

We believe that Boeing's KC-767 represents a "win-win-win" for American, in that it's the best option for the war fighter, best option for the taxpayer, and the best option for the U.S. economy. We also believe that the new tanker procurement planned outlined by the Air Force today will prove our contention.
 
As the Secretary said in his comments, it's clear that the Air Force is looking for a "mature" and proven airframe: "This is not a Manhattan Project where new inventions are called for."
 
Boeing recently unveiled a great new website: www.unitedstatestanker.com. At the site you can learn about the need for a new mid-air refueling tanker, read about Boeing's history developing, building and improving tankers since the 1940s, read about Boeing's KC-7A7 tanker specifications and more.

We think this approach clearly favors the Boeing bid: Airbus is still trying to invent its first aerial refueling boom, which is a piece of military technology that Boeing pioneered. In addition, Airbus and Northrop Grumman are proposing to invent an entirely new kind of trans-Atlantic manufacturing process for their proposed KC-30 jet, using a brand new joint venture to assemble European jets in an American factory that has not been built, with a workforce that has not been hired, let alone trained. The Boeing alternative - using a proven, experienced workforce in an existing factory, supported by a network of established suppliers - is working for the U.S. Navy with the P-8A Poseidon, and it will work even better for the Air Force with the KC-767.
 
We're also glad to see the Air Force is taking cost of ownership into account. The KC-767 will be a more fuel-efficient aircraft than the KC-30, which means the Air Force will spend less on fuel to keep it in the air. In addition, the KC-767 is sized right, so that it will fit into existing hangers and use existing runways at Air Force bases around the globe; to deploy a KC-30, the Air Force would have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new hangers and airport expansions - projects that would only delay the operational deployment of the KC-30.
 
And we also like the concept of evaluating the competing bids in terms of 373 "must-have" requirements, while still allowing the bidders to compete on an additional 93 optional criteria. It seemed to us in the last round that a few influential insiders became enamored with the idea of using the larger KC-30 tanker as a cargo jet, which is clearly not a vital mission for aerial refueling planes. This new process will evaluate the two planes first and foremost as refueling tankers, which is, after all, what the Air Force needs. (And if the Air Force really needs more cargo jet capacity, we know that Boeing would be happy to supply more state-of-the-art C-17s, built by our union brothers and sisters in California.)
 
On the other hand, we very much would have preferred to see the Air Force include the recent WTO ruling against Airbus as one of the factors, as our International union proposed earlier this week. We can perhaps understand the Air Force's thinking on this - that there’s still a European Union complaint against Boeing pending - but we already know that Airbus and its parent company have broken international trade law, and we think it would have been better to have included the likely penalties Airbus will have to pay for receiving illegal subsidies as one of the factors to be considered. If the WTO should rule against Boeing at some point in the future, than that issue should be addressed then.
 
And we also would have preferred to see some recognition in the process for the number of American jobs a KC-767 program would create, vs. the KC-30. We agree that the emphasis must be on providing the best value to our armed forces and to our taxpayers, but as America tries to climb out of the worst economic crisis in 70 years, we think it’s reasonable to take economic factors into account. A strong economy, after all, is a vital component of our national security.

Finally, we believe America must retain its capacity to produce its own war fighting materials and not depend on the shifting alliances and relationships with foreign governments. While foreign governments and their companies could deny America its military hardware, American workers can always be counted on to support our armed service, at peace or in a time of war.

But on the whole, we support this new U.S. Air Force plan for going forward to acquire new tankers, and are confident that their evaluation will find - as we’ve argued all along - that the best option for America is to have the world’s best aerospace workers build KC-767 tankers at the Boeing factory in Everett, Wash.