Published: Friday, May 9, 2008
Murray's asking good questions about tanker
@7. Editorial :While the General Accounting Office investigates the Air Force's decision to award a $35 billion refueling tanker contract to Europe's Airbus rather than Boeing, Sen. Patty Murray is asking some very pointed and pertinent questions. Answers have been elusive.
Why, Washington's senior senator asked the Pentagon's comptroller at a hearing last month, did the Air Force apparently not consider the difference in additional construction costs at air bases for Airbus' larger and heavier tanker? The Airbus A330, the airframe chosen by the Air Force over Boeing's KC-767, would require an additional $2 billion to upgrade hangars, runways, ramps and other infrastructure, Murray pointed out.
Defense Department Comptroller Tina W. Jones said she wasn't part of the decision-making process and couldn't comment. Really, that was her answer. The Pentagon's top bean-counter wasn't in on the decision regarding one of he department's largest contracts ever. Nice oversight.
Murray's doggedness on this issue goes with her job description, of course, Boeing being a major employer and by far the biggest exporter in her state. But that makes her frustration about the Pentagon's lack of budget oversight, voiced in a release after the April hearing, no less valid:
"These are the people who are responsible for devising the Department of Defense's budget and yet the Air Force never consulted them on all the costs associated with awarding this contract to Airbus. That's like handing your teenager a credit card to go on a car shopping spree, no questions asked. No family runs like that, no business runs like that, and as taxpayers we certainly shouldn't allow the military to run like that."
In a Senate floor speech Wednesday, Murray asked why the Air Force chose Airbus even though its plane scored lower in the category of "survivability" -- the aircraft's ability to identify and avoid threats and protect the crew in an attack. Previously, she has pointed out that the Airbus fleet would cost $25 billion to $40 billion more in fuel than a KC-767 fleet over its lifetime, and that the A330 would cost approximately 22 percent more to maintain.
The GAO's report on the tanker contract process is due next month. Answers to these questions, as well as whether the Air Force was consistent in requesting and assessing data from each bidder, need to be in it.
Why, Washington's senior senator asked the Pentagon's comptroller at a hearing last month, did the Air Force apparently not consider the difference in additional construction costs at air bases for Airbus' larger and heavier tanker? The Airbus A330, the airframe chosen by the Air Force over Boeing's KC-767, would require an additional $2 billion to upgrade hangars, runways, ramps and other infrastructure, Murray pointed out.
Defense Department Comptroller Tina W. Jones said she wasn't part of the decision-making process and couldn't comment. Really, that was her answer. The Pentagon's top bean-counter wasn't in on the decision regarding one of he department's largest contracts ever. Nice oversight.
Murray's doggedness on this issue goes with her job description, of course, Boeing being a major employer and by far the biggest exporter in her state. But that makes her frustration about the Pentagon's lack of budget oversight, voiced in a release after the April hearing, no less valid:
"These are the people who are responsible for devising the Department of Defense's budget and yet the Air Force never consulted them on all the costs associated with awarding this contract to Airbus. That's like handing your teenager a credit card to go on a car shopping spree, no questions asked. No family runs like that, no business runs like that, and as taxpayers we certainly shouldn't allow the military to run like that."
In a Senate floor speech Wednesday, Murray asked why the Air Force chose Airbus even though its plane scored lower in the category of "survivability" -- the aircraft's ability to identify and avoid threats and protect the crew in an attack. Previously, she has pointed out that the Airbus fleet would cost $25 billion to $40 billion more in fuel than a KC-767 fleet over its lifetime, and that the A330 would cost approximately 22 percent more to maintain.
The GAO's report on the tanker contract process is due next month. Answers to these questions, as well as whether the Air Force was consistent in requesting and assessing data from each bidder, need to be in it.
Comments
(