I have a friend who used to fly tankers for the US Air Force. He was excited to hear that the Northrop Grumman/EADS tanker, based on the Airbus A-330, won the competition. He and others in his squadron had the opportunity to hear both proposals, tour the KC-45 and give official input to the people deciding which tanker was better. Bottom line: The tanker that should have won the competition did.

In spite of that, the Seattle Times proudly announced this week that the competition for the new tanker has been re-opened.

I'm very disappointed that Boeing, a company that supplied so many aircraft to fight against Soviet Socialism during the Cold War, is whining so much about this decision. Although accusing the competition directors of being unfair, the bottom line is that Boeing wants the US government to act like the socialists it was supposedly fighting for so long. Who cares if the Boeing tanker didn't meet the military's needs as well as the EADS tanker? The US government should give Boeing the deal because it's an American company, right?

Compare these almost childish complaints to comments from an interview with the EADS CEO Louis Gallois, published in the Wall Street Journal. Though I have no problem with Boeing or their aircraft in general, Mr. Gallois drives home some key points.

1. Boeing supplies military and civilian aircraft to most countries around the world. They are just as international a company as EADS. If all countries were as socialist in their aircraft purchasing as Boeing wants the US to be, they wouldn't know what to do. And you think their complaints are obnoxious now? To quote Mr. Gallois from the Journal article, '"They play global on other airplanes," Mr. Gallois says. "If they want to play global, they have to play global on all fields."'
2. Boeing's tanker would have parts built in other countries, just like EADS tanker. (The incomplete list included Japan, China, Korea and Italy.) How much more "American" does that make it than a tanker whose final assembly happens in a brand new factory that brings hundreds of jobs to Alabama? (Like Washington, Alabama is also one of the United States believe it or not.)
3. The A330 tanker (KC-45) is already built and flying. It has been for years. It has demonstrated its capabilities and could be rolling off the assembly line soon. Boeing's tanker exists only on paper. If they were awarded a contract, the Air Force would have to wait months, if not years, for development and testing before they could even think about assembly.

If you read any comments by congressmen from Boeing's home state, you'd think an atrocity had been committed. If you read anything from the Air Force or anyone else, you'd hear that the competition did its job and it's time to move on. I worry that the EADS tanker couldn't possibly get a fair chance in this new contest with all the politicians trying to influence a decision to buy a piece of military hardware none of them will ever have to use. Although I have no other problems with Boeing personally, I hope the second contest results in the same decision. I'd hate to see a country that fought socialism for so many decades become socialist itself.