McCain moves against Boeing tanker

Sen. John McCain served notice this week that the Boeing Co.’s tanker deal will draw more flak when Congress returns to work after taking much of this week off for observances of the death of former President Reagan.

The Arizona Republican filed several proposals Monday to amend the legislation surrounding the tanker deal, including one measure that would ban the U.S. Air Force from leasing any of the planes, and another that would require it to seek new congressional approval before completing any deal with Boeing.

McCain’s moves come after Boeing chief executive Harry Stonecipher and an executive for Airbus parent company EADS traded barbs last week on the tanker deal at an aviation meeting in Washington DC.

Clearly, there’s going to be some seriously jostling inside the Beltway in the weeks to come.

Both the House of Representatives and Senate are working on military spending bills for 2005. The House version authorizes the Air Force to lease 20 KC-767 tankers and buy 80 more, and sets a March 1 deadline for the deal to be completed.

The Senate version doesn’t include that language, and McCain’s moves would put it even more at odds with the House.

McCain has been an outspoken critic of the tanker plan from the start. Last month, he issued statements calling the deal an “immense waste of taxpayer dollars,” a “corporate bailout for Boeing of tremendous proportions” and “a bad deal for taxpayers, a bad deal for the military and a bad deal for pretty much everyone but Boeing.”

That hasn’t made him very popular with the International Association of Machinists, which has made the tanker deal one of its top priorities nationwide. The deal is essential to the future of the 767 production line in Everett and to Boeing jobs here and in Kansas, where the planes would be converted for military use.

Machinists union district president Mark Blondin, by the way, says he tried unsuccessfully to get a meeting with McCain to discuss the tanker deal during a recent trip to the capital.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray remains “a passionate advocate” for the deal, according to spokesman Mike Spahn.

The Washington Democrat issued a statement Tuesday saying that it’s “unfortunate that Sen. McCain is once again trying to slow up a deal, and a bill, that will benefit our troops and keep them safe.

“Despite repeated attempts by opponents to stall this deal, one fact remains,” Murray said. “The Air Force needs new tankers, and Boeing is the company to supply them.”

Or is it? Ralph Crosby, the chief executive of EADS North America, said America taxpayers would be better off if his company was allowed to offer Airbus tankers in a competitive bid.

“A competitive procurement saves significant amounts of money over sole-source contracts,” he told Reuters.

Stonecipher scoffed at that notion. “I do not think for a moment there will be Airbus tankers in the Air Force fleet,” he told the news agency.

Air Force acquisitions chief Marvin Sambur told Reuters that the Air Force does in fact need new tankers, but that doesn’t necessarily mean KC-767s.

“I want capability. I want tankers,” he told the news agency. “We are not pushing the 767. We are pushing what meets our needs.”

* Elsewhere in the world, Irish national airline Aer Lingus has stepped forward as a potential customer for the 7E7.

In an interview with Bloomberg News in Singapore, Aer Lingus chief Willie Walsh said his airline is considering buying up to 12 new planes, either 7E7 or Airbus A330s. The planes will replace older jets in the fleet and to expand its route network, perhaps by adding more flights to the United States.

Aer Lingus will need the planes around 2008 or 2009, he said – just as the 7E7 will become available.

“On paper, the 7E7 looks like a very attractive plane,” Walsh told the Bloomberg reporter – who happened to be Susanna Ray, a reporter at The Herald from from 1999 to 2002. She now covers the airline industry for Bloomberg, based in Germany.

Reporter Bryan Corliss: 425-339-3454 or corliss@heraldnet.com.