Guest columnist
It's time to clear the air on the Boeing tanker deal

By Bob Wallace
Special to The Times

AP The Boeing 767 Tanker Transport is shown during refueling operations in this undated computer-generated drawing provided by Boeing.

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

THE recent announcement by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld delaying Pentagon action on the Air Force acquiring new refueling tankers may clear the air, but doesn't diminish the military's need for a modern fleet of mid-air refuel stations. And despite the intense lobbying by European rival Airbus, I think the facts will still show the Boeing 767 is the right plane for this vital job.

Airbus is mounting an aggressive and deceptive campaign to reverse the Air Force's 2002 decision, but won't even disclose its proposal so a side-by-side comparison could be seen by the public.

Refueling tankers are vital to our national defense. The men and women of our military depend upon air operations. As we saw during the height of the Iraq war, tactical air support saved the lives of thousands of coalition forces, as military planes from as far away as the United Kingdom and the United States flew missions. These sorties can't be flown without mid-air refueling capabilities.

We shouldn't lose sight of the irony. Airbus is a European consortium, largely subsidized by the French government and others, seeking to undermine both an American company and the backbone of our air-defense system for its profit and gain. And where were the French when we asked for their help on dealing with Iraq? Leading the opposition.

So now Airbus is waging a campaign of misinformation to scuttle the Air Force leasing a new fleet of Boeing 767 tankers to replace aging refueling planes that in some cases went into service more than 40 years ago. Many of these planes are based at Fairchild Air Force Base just outside Spokane, but are expected to fly military missions around the globe at a moment's notice.

Whether the planes are leased, bought or otherwise paid for is less important than the simple, irrefutable fact, as U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks noted, that we need them now.

It's time to clear the air about the Boeing tanker deal.

As the Air Force developed performance requirements for a new generation of tankers, it sought input from Boeing — which provided the first Boeing 707-based tanker, the KC-135, in the early '60s. In fact, the Air Force put forward 26 requirements for both Boeing and Airbus to consider. Initially, neither Boeing nor Airbus met all the criteria. Boeing, in fact, came back with significant modifications to its proposed 767 tanker to meet the Air Force specifications.

And there were some important differences between Boeing and Airbus. Boeing has extensive history in design and operation of mission-critical aerial refueling booms. In addition, the Airbus 330 had a much larger profile, making it easier to spot in combat zones.

	Bob Wallace

There was another important performance difference. The Boeing 767 would be capable of refueling all planes used by the Air Force, Navy, Marines or allied air forces. It could also refuel two planes simultaneously — making more efficient use of every tanker mission. Airbus didn't meet either of those capabilities.

The Boeing plane just flat outperformed the Airbus platform. No one in his or her right mind would willingly choose an inferior piece of equipment to send into combat. So the Air Force picked Boeing.

To speed things along, the Air Force negotiated a lease with Boeing, which is a common practice among manufacturers and commercial airlines. Boeing, not the taxpayer, accepted the financial risk for the tanker's development and deferred payment until the first tanker is delivered. Furthermore, the federal government gets a rebate if Boeing sells the basic 767 tanker to another customer for less than the price paid by the Air Force.

Closer to home, a Boeing tanker deal would keep hundreds of workers busy at the Everett 767 plant and pour millions of dollars into the region's economy, providing more money for schools, roads and police and fire protection. The commercial life of the Boeing 767 seems to be nearing the end as airlines search for smaller, more fuel-efficient planes such as the upcoming Boeing 7E7. Building both the 767 tanker and the 7E7 in Everett could help create an economic synergy that would strengthen aerospace as an industrial sector here.

Finally, the Boeing tanker program is vital to our national defense. Boeing has the proven experience to produce a plane to Air Force specs. And it would use taxpayer dollars to provide jobs here, not in France or elsewhere. Congress should approve the Boeing 767 tanker package.

Bob Wallace is CEO of Wallace Properties, based in Bellevue, and past chairman of the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce.