Mobile Site

Home » News Stream » Investigates »

Tiahrt Talks To News 5

Video

Enlarge Video

Download Video

Video RSS

Embed:

WKRG.com Related Resources

More –› Related Articles

News –› Alabama

News –› Mobile

More –› Mobile's Makeover Section

More –› Todd Tiahrt Articles

Northrop KC-30 Compared To Boeing KC-767

Full Gao Boeing Redacted Decision Report

Discuss this in the forum

By Tiffany Craig Special Assignment Reporter

M50o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr Tiahrt Talks To News 5

Published: Wed, March 19, 2008 - 6:30 pm

Tiffany Craig

If Northrop Grumman and EADS are able to keep a military contract to build Air Force tankers, thousands of jobs will be created along the Gulf Coast.

That won't happen of one Congressman gets his way.

Kansas Representative Todd Tiahrt says Boeing wasn't treated fairly and Northrop Grumman and EADS have an unfair advantage.

Reporter Tiffany Craig sat down with Tiahrt to uncover the reasons behind the rhetoric.

Todd Tiahrt is a Kansas Congressman with a lot to say. From the House floor to national television, he is very outspoken about the Air Force choosing the Northrop Grumman and EADS over Boeing.

Tiffany asked, "If you're saying that an American company should be the ones to build this tanker, Boeing has no competition here! Tiarhart responded, "I do believe in competition, no question about it but I also believe in fair competition. We don't have that in this contract."

This Kansas Republican not only wants to change the tanker outcome but the process the Pentagon uses to award contracts. "Well, we should have questioned it when the Presidents helicopter was lost to a foreign supplier. We should have known there was a real problem when the light utility helicopter was lost to foreign manufacturer. Now it's just so blatant that we can't ignore it any further."

Tiahrt started a website in protest and has written countless letters. Last week he sent one to the President and another one is hot off the press to the Air Force. He told the Commander-in-Chief that "If (contract decision) not overturned it will negatively impact the United States for generations."

Tiffany pointed out what the Air Force brought their A game and won 4 out of 5 categories. Tiahrt says the Boeing team was misled about what the military wanted. "They thought that they were bidding for a replacement for the KC-135. What the Air Force actually bought was a replacement for the KC-10 so they were vastly misled before the competition was announced."

It's no secret that Tiahrt's district would benefit from a Boeing win. We also learned that the Congressman also once worked for Northrop's competitor. "I did work for Boeing and dealt with federal government on federal acquisitions in trying to bring jobs back into the Wichita area."

Now, Tiahrt is fighting for jobs again. This time he's doing it from his office on Capitol Hill.

Tiahrt only accepts emails from residents in his district. However, you can pick up the phone and call his office toll-free at 1.866.668.8478

News Map

Email to a Friend

Printer Friendly

What people do not seem to understand, is that by continuing to give contracts like this to some other country that is subsidized by their government will only result in the loss of our capabilities to produce our own military equipment. What happens if that same country does not like what our government is doing in some other country. They could simply cut off making this tanker and then we would not have any company able to gear up and make this tanker. This goes for any military equipment that is needed and made by some other country. All U.S. military equipment should be made by American companys and only American companys. We stand the chance of giving away our secrets by outsourcing these contracts.

Posted by Grayghost on 03/21/08 - 11:23 pm • Report Abuse

In the past military contracts were only given to US company’s not part of a contract to an american commpany and part to foriegn company. Security and wartime procurement were the thoughts behind that. Northrup is the token American company in this deal. We’re supposed to feel a little better about a deal when there is at least one American company mentioned every time the subject comes up. There is the part that they did have too have an american partner for the portion of the contract that would need strict security during the conversion phase of the contract. This is the part that will be done in Mobile. The way the Airforce played it off during there news conference anouncing the awarding of the contract to Northrup/EADS (you notice how they always say northrup first even though they have the smallest portion of the contract) that the number of american jobs this would affect was not a consideration in the awarding of this contract! I call that TREASON! 4 thousand is not 45,000!

Posted by winger on 03/21/08 - 9:16 pm • Report Abuse

What I am reading between the lines is kind of like the following and please correct me, if I am wrong.

“We understand that you little Alabama people want to start wearing shoes and get some good jobs, but you should really remember your place. Please understand Alabama! Seattle and Kansas has been bleeding the taxpayer dry for decades and we don’t want you messing with our turf!”

The above is just a possible scenario that keeps dancing around in an individual mind, because the Boeing arguments are so ludicrous! Buy Boeing, buy American? Buy Boeing and get the rest of the world sending you a bill!

Posted by BamaBob on 03/20/08 - 8:51 pm • Report Abuse

“we’re not talking about toys or personaly electronics here”

Being a fairly intelligent person, I am well aware of the difference between these items and the tanker we are talking about. My main concern here is where is all this “concern” when the bids were first announced? If it is such a bad idea to allow them to base a facility in our city to build these aircraft why even allow them to bid on the contract? Funny they didn’t say anything until now. Foreign company or not if the military think they are the best equipped or qualified to build the tankers then I say let them. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Austal at least partially foreigin owned (Australian)? I know for a fact they have at least bid on military contracts. If I am not mistaken they won.

Posted by leahp on 03/20/08 - 4:45 pm • Report Abuse

“We’re not talking about toys or personal electronics here.”

Tell that to those people just a few miles across the Alabama/Mississippi state line that are building the most technologically advanced warships in history at a little shipyard owned by Northrop Grumman!!!!!!!!

Posted by BamaBob on 03/20/08 - 4:17 pm • Report Abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) — If it’s un-American to send military contracting jobs to France, is it OK to send them to Japan? That’s the question Boeing might have to answer if it tries to wrestle back a $35 billion Air Force refueling tanker contract.

http://www.manufacturing.net/News-Analysts-Say-Boeing-Tanker-Also-Made-Outside-US.aspx

Posted by BamaBob on 03/20/08 - 4:05 pm • Report Abuse

Airbus has partnered with Northrop Grumman to build these tankers. Northrop is a publicly traded company with deep roots in the U.S.

You Boeing employees pretend this is some strange arrangement that will jeopardize America’s security and you ignore the fact that Boeing has been working with international companies for years!

You are just not being honest about this contract and that is what bothers me so much. Northrop/EADS promises a better aircraft in larger quantities for less money. You Boeing people can’t get past those facts, so you start trying to make the connection to Airbus something nefarious.

Hey! Hey! Boeing has already sold the 767 tanker technology to Italy and Japan! How is that for selling out America’s security?

Posted by BamaBob on 03/20/08 - 4:03 pm • Report Abuse

It saddens me to realise there are so many idiots in this country.

Posted by retired on 03/20/08 - 4:03 pm • Report Abuse

BOEING

Perhaps no player in the local economy has sent more jobs overseas than Boeing.

The company makes no excuses for sending work to South Africa, Italy, China, Russia and other far-flung parts on the globe.

But unlike the new breed of outsourcers, Boeing isn’t only hunting for cheaper labor. Rather, it places work in countries where it is also trying to sell planes or spreads risks on new projects by farming out work to foreign suppliers. Officials are drawn to cheap labor, but sales are more important, Queen said.

And the company argues it has no choice. It must build planes with fewer and more productive workers to remain competitive.

http://www.offshore-software.org/2004/03/outsourcings-long-term-effects-on-us.html

Posted by BamaBob on 03/20/08 - 3:54 pm • Report Abuse

Little Apple - Are you going to tell us that Boeing’s aircraft are 100% produced in this country with American citizens as employees? Are you going to ignore their ties to Italy, Japan, Mexico, etc.? Are you going to tell us that they have not received huge tax breaks over the years?

Posted by BamaBob on 03/20/08 - 3:48 pm • Report Abuse