Buy the Best Tanker
Editorial

The Air Force’s selection of a European supplier over Boeing for its next generation of
tanker aircraft has sparked a frenzy of predictable bipartisan complaints: How could the
military outsource these patriotic jobs?

Lawmakers from Washington State, where Boeing is a big employer, denounced the
decision as a “blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and
America’s men and women in uniform.” Representative John Murtha, the chairman of the
House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, warned that Congress could cut all
funding for the multibillion-dollar contract if the Air Force didn’t satisfactorily justify its
choice.

Fulminating politicians, unsurprisingly, have avoided explaining the consequences of
their arguments: that they would rather have the Air Force buy a more expensive plane,
and one that it says doesn’t meet its needs nearly as well, if it were made by an American
company.

According to Air Force officials, the refueler developed by the European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Company, or EADS, the parent company of Airbus, in partnership
with Northrop Grumman will perform better than Boeing’s in many ways. Based on the
Airbus A330, it is bigger and can transport more fuel, cargo and people than Boeing’s
767. Boeing’s delays in delivering tanker planes to Italy and Japan likely also hurt its bid.
Defense procurement is a global business. Boeing sells military aircraft and other defense
systems all over the world. It and other American companies could suffer if a move to
wrest the tanker contract from EADS and Northrop provoked a protectionist backlash in
European capitals. American allies are already dismayed by the protectionist tone of this
year’s presidential campaign.

In 2003, Congress quashed a deal tailor-made for Boeing to lease 100 tankers to the Air
Force because the top Air Force official negotiating the deal was also found to have been
negotiating a job with Boeing. Now, Congressional critics say buying from EADS is
unworthy because the United States is suing the company at the World Trade
Organization over subsidies received from European governments.

The W.T.O.’s dispute settlement panel has not ruled on this charge, nor has it ruled on
Brussels’s accusation that Boeing receives hidden subsidies from Washington. Both
companies should be taken off the public dole. But if the lawsuit was a deal breaker,
EADS shouldn’t have been allowed to bid.

Boeing claimed that if it had won the contract, it would have created 44,000 jobs in this
country. The EADS-Northrop group says its tanker will support 25,000 jobs here. The
tanker would be assembled at a new facility in Alabama. General Electric would make
the engines, mostly in the United States. These job projections, however, are estimates
and not hard commitments. And procurement rules sensibly require the Air Force to
choose the best aircraft.

The issue has already migrated to the campaign. Senator John McCain is being criticized
by Congressional Democrats for leading the probe that upended Boeing’s sweetheart deal
in 2003. Fortunately, he hasn’t expressed any regret. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary
Rodham Clinton quickly added complaints about the Air Force’s choice to their shrill
anti-trade rhetoric.

The Air Force is expected to brief Boeing on Friday about the selection. If Boeing thinks
it got a raw deal, it can appeal to the Government Accountability Office, the oversight
arm of Congress. If the G.A.O. finds merit, it could tell the Air Force to reopen the
competition.

For Congress to reverse the decision on “Buy America” grounds would be bad for
taxpayers: requiring them to pay for aircraft that provide less value for the money. It
would also be bad diplomacy and bad business. And that can’t be good for the country.