“The Airbus Affair” Redux

For those of us who follow these things, it’s impossible to miss the fact that there will be another investigation into the allegations that a former prime minister of Canada, Mr. Brian Mulroney, was paid several hundred thousand dollars in “commissions”, in connection with the sale of 34 Airbus aircraft to Air Canada back in 1988.

Image courtesy of ericbegin2000

A summary of the whole affair can be found in this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Affair

Frankly, I have no idea whether any of this is true or not.

Nonetheless, a thorough inquiry is bound to resurrect unpleasant allegations from the past, including tales of questionable business practices by a large manufacturer of jet aircraft headquartered in Europe.

Why does any of this matter and what does it have to do with the USAF tanker replacement battle?

Perhaps nothing…or perhaps a lot; as these politically motivated investigations unfold, there could be disclosures that will prove so publicly embarrassing as to make the Darleen Druyun scandal look like a minor lapse in judgment.

Nonsense, you say?

Maybe.

But… just for the sake of an academic exercise… let’s go a step further.

Assuming there is any substance to all of this and if any of these allegations should happen to “stick” to the wall, undoubtedly there will be those who will point out that in addition to government subsidies, Airbus used illegal practices via proxies to do irreparable harm to the U.S. aerospace industry.

Danger, Will Robinson!

This could place its U.S. partner in the tanker deal, Northrop-Grumman, in the unenviable position of having to defend its decision to partner with a company bent on destroying American aerospace competitiveness.

The outcry, from Boeing’s supporters, politicians and unions would be deafening. Just as painful would be the constant drumbeat of bad press.

One needs only to look at all the grief involving Vice President Cheney’s association with Haliburton.

Although he long ago ceased to have any connection with that company, it did not stop detractors from bringing up charges and accusations every time the company’s name was mentioned in the press.

Can Northrop Grumman afford to go down this road?

Boeing took some serious hits as a result of the affair involving Ms. Druyun. When all the finger pointing, investigations, and bad press subsided, they had lost the tanker lease deal and many careers were in shambles. The U.S. Department of Defense simply will not tolerate another lapse in judgment of this magnitude from any contractor.

What would Northrop Grumman do?

After all, it’s bad enough to have to defend the net loss of 20,000 American jobs (Boeing touts something like 45,000 jobs on the KC-767, while Northrop Grumman says that if the KC-30 is selected it will create 25,000 jobs) and sell a “French” airplane to the U.S. Congress. Technical merit aside, Congress pays the bills and they will have the final say in whatever aircraft is selected.

Image courtesy of Boeing

Idle speculation? Hypothetical nonsense? Maybe, or maybe not.

This issue refuses to die in Canada and the current Canadian prime minister has promised a full inquiry into the allegations.

Hopefully, Mr. Mulroney will be exonerated (again!) and the final stake will be pounded through this thing’s heart.

Then both sides can go back to arguing about jobs, U.S. content, and how many pallets their aircraft can carry. After all, despite the claims and counter claims, there is no doubt that either aircraft will be a splendid replacement for the KC-135.

As with all things military, it’ll be Congress that decides both parties’ fate with its judgment.

6 comments December 3rd, 2007