This only emboldens foreign workers.

The Air Force, unfortunately, was in a no win situation on this contract. Had they selected the Boeing plane and gotten less room, less fuel, less range for the same money we'd have reporters asking why and how that was a better deal for the taxpayers.

Now that they selected the better buy for the taxpayer, they're asked why didn't they take the Boeing plane and consider jobs.

The US Air Force must be idiotic to choose Airbus over Boeing, in terms of reliability, Boeing 767 wins, and its ER version have longer range than the 330. I hope Congress would overturn this decision and award the contract to Boeing

The Air Force, unfortunately, was in a no win situation on this contract.
Posted by: Crazy Politico | March 1, 2008 10:39 AM

I guess the American people are in a no win situation now. We pay for them and they build them.

Joey: read what the General said. More passengers, more cargo,more fuel, more patients, more availability, more flexibility, more dependability.

USAF Chief of Staff, General Mike Moseley, said that the Boeing was not fit for purpose. Based on your comments you obviously think that you know better than the professionals.

McCain can be thanked for this outsourcing of American jobs and American technology. This is huge! This is about economic nationalism. This will hurt McCain and the Republicans at a time when we are going into recession and there is great anger about outsourcing. The thought that American taxpayers are going to be funding Airbus while American workers are laid off is pretty intolerable.

How many other planes in the Air Force arsenal were built overseas? This is a huge slap in the face of U.S. Aerospace workers! The U.S. Air Force is the best in the world due to the outstanding quality, skill, creativity, and dependability built into each aircraft. This decision is a disgrace; you can’t stamp the end product with an American name and call it American.

I read where the European tanker cost $35,000,000 per aircraft(179) more. Were the requirements for the aircraft given to Boeing? Did the Air Force ask for a larger aircraft? Why even have a competition if you know up front you want the European aircraft? I was shocked to here there was no economic study made. Who in the Defense Dept. is so stupid to allow the economic impact not to be considered? Good job Brownie I guess. What happens when the Euro increases in terms of dollars? Will the increased costs be added to the US debt? Another screw up and it's our money, jobs and foreign policy mistakes we have to live with when these screw ups leave office and leave the mess to our children in this the new third world country of the USA. Sorry SNAFU!

The Grumman/EADS tanker is as muc European as the Boeing tanker is Chinese.

The new tanker is a proven platform, it's won the most 3 recent major tanker competitions and on time delivering to Australia. Boeing on the other hand is 2 years behind delivering tankers to Japan and Italy.

Our Air Force needs these planes in the air now. Grumman/EADS already has a tanker built and ready to be delivered to the Government. Who knows how long it would be before seeing a tanker out of Boeing when they can't even deliver to Italy and Japan.

Wellll, I wonder who General Lichte is going to work for after he retires from the Air Farce? 100 to one it's a lobbying firm, or Northrup Grumman/EADS. How he can sit there and call it an AMERICAN airplane cause we have american pilots, and a flag on the tail? The 767 sas good anough in 2003, and thanks to McCain(republican)we are going to send more than 1/2 of the 40 Billion overseas instead of keeping it home? Sounds like under the table politics to me. It doesn't matter to me if the plane is built in Seattle, Kansas, or Alabama, it should be an american built airplane. If they wanted bigger, than why wasn't it spec'd that way? Build it out of a 747. We're outsourcing 40,000 jobs and billions of dollars when we're quite capable of building a REAL AMERICAN airplane with REAL AMERICANS!!!
signed, A proud American Vietnam VETeran

After consulting with the UN and our NATO Allies, and calculating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be produced, the consensus was clear. Boeing has workers in China and their working conditions aren't up to our standards so it amounted to fair trade over free trade.
Those unemployed aerospace workers should consider going into a "helping industry" like good little liberals. Besides it is time for a CHANGE.

This must be the US Air Force's European economic stimulus package.

Let me see...
2000 American jobs secured along with another 35,000 French jobs in good ole Paris.

French planes assembled in the States.

I guess we didn't need those 44,000 American jobs
and a $100 Billion dollar contract over ten years.

If I knew you had to go to Paris to secure a contract
I would have practiced up my French.
but you know what the US Air Forces new motto is:

Viva La France!

(I guess we really do Love the French
after all.)

Alouette, gentille Alouette
Alouette je te plumerai
Alouette, gentille Alouette
Alouette je te plumerai
Je te plumerai la tte
Je te plumerai la tte
Et la tte, et la tte
Alouette, Alouette
O-o-o-o-oh
Alouette, gentille Alouette
Alouette je te plumerai

What's next? Are we going to shut down the Lockheed F-22 line and buy EADS Eurofighters instead? Shut down the C-130J line and buy EADS A400's? This decision is a disgrace and sets a very dangerous precident for the US Aerospace industry. The USAF needs to realize they won't get any new airplanes if the American people withdraw their political support, which is partially based on the jobs created with our tax dollars.

With all of the politics on Boeing's side, It looks as if the Air Force only looked at the best interest of our National Defence. But,-- that's exactly what they should do.

We now have two, count'em two, names to replace the time honored, but worn out name of the best known American traitor, Benedict.... what's his name. The new catch phrase will be "Don't be a Lichte and Payton".
A famous Senator from Wisconsin would have had a field day with these two. The script might look something like this, official announcement at 5:00 PM EST, Senate Committee convenes at 5:05 PM EST, the "Don't be a Lichte and Payton" namesakes appear before the committee at 5:06 PM EST, take their seats, a famous Senator from Wisconsin calls the meeting to order, listens to the "Don't be a Lichte and Payton" namesakes take the oath, entire committee finds this amusing, finds the two guilty of treason against the United States, imposes punishment, contract decision over turned, no rebuttal, punishment carried out per the Constitution at 5:07 PM EST, new contract awarded to an American company with American workers earning wages from American taxpayers, the world is right once more at 5:08 PM EST. Thanks Joe!

The requirements for the plane were given to all contractors and Northrup/EADS's offer put forth the best value for the money and the U.S. taxpayers and military won. If anything, blame Boeing & their corporate profit-making for NOT offering the most bang for the buck. Boeing was low-balling us by offering smaller planes with less capability thereby requiring us to pay more $$$ to get the same amount that Northrup/EADS was offering. Unless Boeing can get a great counteroffer in, we Americans came out ahead. I'm a retired 26 yr U.S. veteran and a contractor so, to paraphrase the saying, when I see a duck and it sounds like a duck, I know it's a duck. Don't forget the money saved is still kept in America to buy other things instead of profits for Boeing. I'm not happy about the jobs outside the U.S. but maybe this is a wakeup lesson for those 1% people who make half of the income in the U.S. They think of profits & millions of dollars of shares while the rest of us are worried about our daily jobs. Congress should be upset at Boeing for not walking up to the plate with the best bat and expecting a walk. Wakeup people.

I don't care much about Boeing products and what not, but in this case, it's outrageous. I would like to congratulate the USAF in its best effort to betray the US workers, and spend the US taxpayers' money oversea.

like I said before:

"Viva La France!

Like I said before:

Viva La France!

Our Air Force needs these planes in the air now. Grumman/EADS already has a tanker built and ready to be delivered to the Government.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2008 12:16 PM

Then I think some heads should roll at the Airforce. I'm sure finding completion time is a simple task. If it takes longer...order earlier. I don't see the reason ever to give our work to another country.

The people of Boeing would like to thank Mr. Mike Sears for all he has done for us. Thanks Mike!

What, Boeing does not make a larger airplane! How about the great 777 that has done VERY well over airbus. Let's talk about the 787 that is the most fuel-efficient plane coming to market. I'm sure for the $35,000,000 additional price difference between the A330 and the 767 we could afford a larger airplane from Boeing.

What the hell!!! Send all our jobs out of the country. Do you think having a healthy Boeing keeps us completive with the world markets? We have to keep the money in America to further develop new products.

How about we outsource all government work, the military, hell congress and the president.

Lets keep our jobs, technology, and money at HOME. Did anyone remember that the government is sending a rebate check to all of us to get the economy going again? I guess Airbus and the EU also gets part of our money.

"Grumman/EADS already has a tanker built and ready to be delivered to the Government."

Hmmm. Really? Read the news not the propaganda. EADS just started work on the AF version. The version they are selling to foreign governments has never passed a single gallon of gas to another aircraft. Boeing's aircraft is already refueling other aircraft and has been delivered to Japan for operational training with their AF.

BTW. The Boeing tanker is the approximately the same size as the KC-135s they are replacing. Does the cost of buying the French tanker include the cost of modifying hangers, ramps and airfields for a much larger aircraft? When is that cost going to be known?

I find it curious how the air force changed requirements at the last minute (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004251196_webtanker01.html). The 767 has the capability of landing at more airfields which is why it was preferred. If the requirements changed for more payload, then Boeing could have offered the 777 as an alternative. Something is not right here. This decision should be challanged and overturned by the GAO to allow Boeing to submitt to the changed requirements.

The EADS tanker delivers "more" in some senses. But this was a tanker contract, not a cargo plane contract. Northorp/EADS has been complaining for two years that the Air Force didn't put cargo as a requirement and were begging for recognition of it. Suddenly, all that seems to matter is that cargo. Oh, and Boeing's plane can take off of more runways. And, correct me if I'm wrong, EADS has never been able to properly/reliably demonstrate aerial refueling abilities.

But, the real issue is, do you trust that in 30 years the French gov't, which owns this plane, will always be there to provide spare parts?

Also, they cite Northrop for cost performance. The last major plane contract they were prime on ended up costing over $1billion/plane.

This seems fishy to me, and I think Sen. Sessions and his fellow Alabama members of congress showed that they care more about jobs in their state than long term national security. Just because Sarkozy isn't hostile to our country, doesn't mean the next 50 years of French Presidents won't be. I sure hope we get those replacement parts, because, Northrop has NO experience in jumbo jets and can't be counted on for repair.

Gee, where was the concern from Dems (and Frank James) about the American jobs that would have been lost had the Haliburton contracts gone to French Schlumberger, the only other company in the world able to do the job.

Crocodile tears.

Crocodile tears.

Posted by: Anne Leary | March 1, 2008 3:10 PM

That would be more like Camel tears. Haliburton was still in Iran doing business with Iran with a sister company when it was banned to do business in Iran. Gee..why do you think Haliburton got the break?

The Harrier jump jet is British, but the Marines got it. The T-45 Goshawk is British-American, the T-6A Texan II is Swiss-American (Pilatus PC-9).

The KC-45A is a Multiroal Transpost Tanker, derived from A330MRTT. It is going to have GE CF6 engines.

Many European countries have US weapons, why not the US have European ones?

The USAF is going to evaluate both the A380 and the A400M in the near future.

Oh, btw, Eurocopter is Franch-German, but I don't see reactions. USCG and the US Army seem to be happy with their inventory.

And the next Presidential Hellicopter is British-Italian.

Never mind that the Airbus tanker is actually a better product than the Boeing offering?

God forbid that the US Military want the best for their money!

And lets not forget that 60% of the work remains in the US for the fitting of the aircraft.

Americans should be prepared to buy European planes if they want to sell American planes to Europe. It's as simple as that.

What happens if we go to war with France in the next 40 years? Will we not get tankers built anymore?

The Air Force could have gone big (777 and 747), new and efficient (787), cost effective (767), or revolutionary (blended wing body) -- the best in the world. Instead, the USAF and USG are going to subsidize the already European government subsidized Airbus to put Boeing out of business and American aerospace workers out of work. Incredible. I hear the USAF is adopting the French National Anthem as the new Air Force song.

Thank you John McCain!

There is not an aircraft made by Airbus that Boeing does not counter, (except for the A380, which is why it got so much press...) The fact that Boeing was touting the 767 while the A330 won is NERY fishy... Something is not right... Had Airbus won in a head to head of the 777 vs. the A330 it would have indicated a much more level competition... Sounds like there was a moving target, and lots of back room dealing, and perhaps even some revenge going on here.... (maybe the Airforce is throwing McCain a big "EF YOU" for messing up the first deal??)
Someone made a VERY good point when they mentioned the costs to retrofit facilities to handle the 330... Wait till you see the size of THAT bill... And that the Airbus offering has never performed as a tanker... Wait till the problems arise... and this becomes a $200 billion contract...
Finally, Airbus is heavily sibsidized by the Euro govt's... Boeing might get a tax break, but NOTHING like the stuff the Europeans throw at Airbus... Why? To create jobs... Like it or not the jobs factor should play in here... So now we're gonna subsidize China with our lame stimulus package, and Europe through a $100 BILLION AF contract.
Sweet !

Funny things happen when handshake agreements and money in the right places don't determine the results of who does and doesn't receive a government contract.

The right company gets the contract.

Congrats to EADS. Aerospace engineers, you may now send your resumés to Paris.

Oui love McCain!

To all the Northrop/EADs naysayers, would you prefer the contract just be handed on a platter to Boeing? There's no point in even tendering the contract if there's only one "acceptable" bidder in that case. And in a single-sourced bid, I'm sure the US taxpayer would get a competitive deal. This we could add on top of the $600B spent on the military each year.

The thought of bailing out France again with our tax dollars with the air tanker contract is frustrating. Does not France still owe the United States for assistance and money loaded to them during WW1,WW2,Vietnam and who know what else?

While it's always a mistake to under-estimate the collective stupidity of the general public the arguments against the "over-priced French airplane stealing US jobs" line are simple enough for even the dimmest to understand.

The Airbus is about as 'French' as the KC-767 is Japanese or Italian. Neither aircraft is free from major foreign built components and sub-assemblies. But bottom line, the KC-45 is going to be assembled by American workers in the USA.

The selection of the Airbus will actually result in the creation of MORE US JOBS than selecting KC-767 would have done, because EADS will assemble the tankers themselves in Mobile, and all civil A330 freighters, too. It will result in a new airplane plant for the US economy, that will help regenerate Alabama.

Boeing has already said that its existing workforce will keep their jobs.

The up front sticker prices are similar, but the Airbus will cost less in the long run, over its life. It will cost the US taxpayer less bucks.

The USAF customer rated the Airbus as better than the Boeing in every single criteria that it evaluated.

So:

Better for the US worker. Better for the US aerospace industry. Better for the US tax-payer. Better for the US Air Force.

Arguing for the 767 is downright unpatriotic!

Gee, I wish those folks were that supportive of the steel, electronics, and textile industry in the 80's and 90's.

This is how America is being de-industrialized; One segment at a time.
To paraphrase Reagan; 'Retrain for the service economy.'

Hey aerospace workers, adjust, get two jobs, put off retirement, invest your buyout wisely.

The people of Boeing would like to thank Mr. Mike Sears for all he has done for us. Thanks Mike!

Posted by: pissed off | March 1, 2008 2:21 PM

LMAO!!!!!

"The requirements for the plane were given to all contractors and Northrup/EADS's offer put forth the best value for the money and the U.S. taxpayers and military won. If anything, blame Boeing & their corporate profit-making for NOT offering the most bang for the buck. Boeing was low-balling us by offering smaller planes with less capability thereby requiring us to pay more $$$ to get the same amount that Northrup/EADS was offering..."

Agree 100%. All of the players had the requirements and the requests fully in advance....no "sweetheart" deal here.

"What, Boeing does not make a larger airplane! How about the great 777 that has done VERY well over airbus. Let's talk about the 787 that is the most fuel-efficient plane coming to market...."

Uh, Boeing did not offer either in their offer to the USAF. They took no time or initiative to devise a triple 7 offer and the 787 is totally unproven yet. Boeing rested on the idea that the USAF was only after a -135 replacement....no added ability....no real added flexibility......just a near identical -135 replacement. NG/EADS decided to offer an improvement in capability and flexibility......and they won the tender.

Fair is fair...

As a soon to be Airman In the US Air Force I'm am appauled at the Reactions of people on here. Boeing NEVER said 40,000 people would lose their jobs if they didn't get the contract. Let's say they did get the contract and hire 40,000 people into the work force. Great for 10 years those 40K people have jobs and buy crap they really can't afford and you stimulate the economy for 10 years. For What? so you can buy your Ford, GM, or Chryler cars and trucks that are built in Mexico and Canada? Open your eyes. After this 10 years is up, you think Boeing will me able to keep those 40 thousand people Employed? We screwed ourselves in a lot of ways, and we blame everyone else for the problems. I Believe in my Governmet, I may not always like what they do, but I belive in them. Why? because that is what it means to be a true Patriot.
Not this Bull about I love the government if they spoon feed us money. If you Aren't Happy with something then either reinvent the wheel or shut your mouths.

What I want to know is: Where was Obama, senator to Illinois, where Boeing headquarters in Chicago? Wasn't he fighting for this contract and jobs? or what? Just how effective was he? NOT....Looks like McCain won on this one, Darn!

Too much is at stake here -- national security, jobs, pride in supporting the military.
OBAMA -- WHERE'S YOUR INSPIRATION AND CHARM TO GET RESULTS HERE???

US Taxpayers should get a benefit here with great planes, and jobs in USA, AND a product that is secure because it's built here.

DL in WA, In an administration where even the Justice Department has become a political tool, you might also ask how big a factor the party affiliation of the WA and IL senators was in the sourcing decision. Ooops. There's another batch of emails the White House will be accidentally deleting.

The choice for the US was to a) purchase a far inferior product for soldiers to use (767) just for the sake of it being American, b) ask Boeing to put forward a new version of its pretty much non-American 787 just to make people think that they are selecting an American plane or c) select a plane that beat the competitor hands down in EVERY respect and that will bring many jobs to the country from not only building the tankers for the US and other world forces but also the new civilian cargo version thats sold nearly 100 copies in just its first year. No brainer for someone with a brain?!

Them 40,000 taxpayers for 10 years does every america good like paying all those govt salary.So every Job count..

What I do not understand is why was the Air Force saying 4 years ago that the A330 was too big and would cost the taxpayer even more to build new hangers and beef up the ramps and runways at all the bases where the A330 could operate, much less the infrastructure required to support it. Boeing had asked the goverement to clarify the requirements as to what they wanted when the competition began. Boeing had the B777 with more fuel, more passengers, more cargo, and more patients ready to submit as the offering and the Air Force told Boeing the B777 and the A330 would not meet the requirements. Something is very fishy with the evaluation when Boeing was told one thing and the Air Force did another. There needs to be a congressional investigation into why the sudden change in heart. There is more to this than meets the eyes.

I have been around the KC-135 for over 25 years and everyone I know cannot believe that the Air Force wants to depend on a country or consortium of countries that have not agreed with much that we have done in the last 15 years as well as send our hard earn tax dollars overseas with the dollar lossing its value. What is wrong with the leaders of America?

Some are saying that the Air Force got the best deal for the dollar by going with Airbus. “Maybe” but it is a short term good deal only for the Air Force. Our Nation, our economy and the people of this country will loose for decades to come.
To allow the Air Force to sell this country out is a travesty. We as a nation can not allow our money, jobs and security to be shipped over seas. Is the next move to allow the Navy to build our submarines and aircraft carriers in Taiwan? If we do there will be nothing left to protect.
This country is in the beginning of an economic down turn, our stock market is on a loosing streak, people are loosing homes, credit dept is at an all time high, we have a Federal deficit of potentially catastrophic proportions and our government wants to give a $35 billion contract with the potential for another $100 Billion to the French. That is just ludicrous.

Its an outrage to give American jobs away. Airbus was the cause of many of Boeing problems in the past due to the fact that Airbus enjoyed many subsides, while our government did nothing to support Boeing. Its un-American not to support American companies and American workers.While we are on the subject of support how about supporting our farmers for growing more corn for the use in ethanol, I would rather see American farmers make the money, than to pay more money at the pump in order to send the money to some foreign country that doesn't give a damn about the United States of America!

Boeing never offered the 777...they only ever offered the 767-200 in this competition and sad to say Boeing have spent the last 2 years trying to iron out the problems on the 767 tankers for the Italians and Japanese...ok the winner is a foreign designed aircraft but surely the bottom line is you go for the best aircraft available for your forces...anything else is selling short the people whose lives may depend on it....

Paul,

Boeing did offer the 777, I have the lithograph to prove it. When the decision was made to compete the program, and we knew Airbus was going to suggest the A330, Boeing wanted to make sure that the Air Force wanted a bigger tanker and they would use the 777 that is more comparable to the A330 and the Air Force indicated that the A330 was too big and would require modification of the bases. They even looked at the possibility of 787 when the Air Force was considering a mixed fleet with two sizes of Tankers as we have today in the KC-135 and the KC-10. Here is just one article that discussed the 777 as an option in 2006.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-debating-aerial-tanker-types-mix-02044/

The only reason that I know about the 777 is that I work for Boeing and supported the 767 Tanker program until about 4 years ago and have stayed up with what has been going on with it ever since. As stated before I have been around the KC-135 for over 25 years and none of this makes sense, I do not care how you look at it. There will be a lot of questions as to why the Air Force changed their position,I guarantee you that. I really think that this was a way to slap Boeing for something that they have been try for the last 4 years to correct.

If people really believe that this was the best deal then so be it, but in 5 or 10 years from now do not start crying when our economy is in the toilet and you can't afford to pay for anything. Think about it: $40B going to the French through Northrup, granted not all of it, but most of it, all the jobs that will be lost due to the 767 line shutdown to include the suppliers and OEMs, the money that will now need to be spent to prepare the bases and the facilities to support the A330, and last but not least having to rely on a foriegn country for parts. Let's not forget what the Swiss did when we needed a part for one of our weapons. See the URL:

http://www.allbusiness.com/government/elections-politics-politics-political-parties/6354864-1.html

Too bad for Boeing. Could this be a dramatic new trend in government procurement, where products that actually have a chance of meeting the performance and cost goals are being sought after! I don't buy the 'loss of American jobs' argument one bit. Look at what Boeing is doing with its much larger commercial 787 program, which by the way is another disaster. Most the critical components for the air frame actually are made overseas (Japan+Italy I believe). Boeing used the 'jobs' argument in its campaign to push an inferior product at a most likely inflated price. Had they won, it would have made the EU subsidies to Airbus look like chump-change. Don't bash the Europeans for trying to compete. Bash Boeing for their completely misplaced sense of entitlement.

The timing of the announcement seems a little fishy. The air force made the announcement before the Alabama primary but after the primaries in Washington, Kansas, and the other states that build the Boeing planes. Do I smell a scandal?

Paul,

Boeing did offer the 777, I have the lithograph to prove it.

Cg ok I bow to your inside info...but another thing that did come to mind is Boeing has made great store about these basically being foreign built parts only put together as an aircraft in the US but has been rather less public about the amount of foreign built parts in current Boeing airliners

I don't understand, if there is a problem why didn't these politicians address the issue of the foreign company before the competition of the contract.(sounds like sore losers)

Outsourcing military equipment ect. is going to kill us one of these days.What if we get in another war and France doesn't like it will we get parts?Better yet what if we get into a war with any country building our military equipment.Whats next ?? Guess we can appoint Bin Laden to head Homeland Security lol.

Boeing has had the contract for over 50 years!!! Fixing prices before, as evident by prison term served by some. Sour grapes are likely by the powerful money mongrels. How many of these screamers are invested in Boeing stock market. Of course Boeing having the BID for fifty years it was certainly be upsetting to many politicians invested shares. It is about time they turned it over to someone new. Look at the statistics of the extremely high tech weapons Northrop makes. We need this for our country. Research the track record of Boeing, have and will use foreign countries such as China, Italy and whomever else as well. Mobile and at least 11 other states will benefit job wise and our military bases in the South. The North has had them, for over 50 years. Our military Air Force heads are more knowledgeable than us.

Unbelievable that the Govt of the USA and the procuremnt office of our US Air Force would award a $40 billion job to a foreign country. Mind boggling. What words do we use to condemn this action. The USA Govt, US Air Force, confidential military design are the property of us, the US citizens.
Do whatever to stop this.

Unbelievable that the Govt of the USA and the procuremnt office of our US Air Force would award a $40 billion job to a foreign country. Mind boggling. What words do we use to condemn this action. The USA Govt, US Air Force, confidential military design are the property of us, the US citizens.
Do whatever to stop this.

This isn't about more, more, more. The Air Force changed the criteria for more, after Boeing bid the 767. Otherwise Boeing would have bid the 777.

This is all about politics. I am a conservative, but McCain is just another liberal buying votes in Alabama. I am bracing myself for 4 years of doom and gloom.

Why the Air Force says they are saving money by not building in the US is a farce. The IRS just spent 42 million dollars to send out a notice that you are getting a rebate check. Someone is getting a boatload of money in their private accounts...bottom line

Does Airbus have dozens of paid lobbyists on the John McCain election staff including his finance Chairman just to ensure that Boeing and other American companies are treated fairly?

Is McCain really interested in a fair and level playing field for the contract with free competition and that is why he is so totally entrenched with Airbus lobbyists???

Mccain lobbied for Airbus until the RFP was changed enough to favor the larger plane. How can anyone say this is a better deal for the taxpayers when multiple hangars and runways will need to be rebuilt??