Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Undisputed Champion of Corruption?

The past few weeks we have been hearing many naive and somewhat uninformed pundits say that Boeing deserved to lose the contract because of the original corrupt tanker lease deal.

The trouble with such thinking is that it assumes EADS and its subsidiary Airbus are good corporate citizens. As this Economist article "Airbus's Secret Past" and this Center for Security Policy report on EADS show, this is far from the truth. The scale and depth of the historic corruption at EADS and Airbus is truly staggering.

Here is a list of some recent and past notorious EADS, its subsidiaries and predecessors, corruption and bribe scandals:

The really troubling thing about the above list is that the examples are only the corrupt EADS/Airbus practices that have been uncovered. (Note: Please e-mail us if you know of other EADS/Airbus malfeasance)

The fact the governments of Spain, Russia, France, Dubai and Germany own EADS means that it is in their best interest that EADS corruption is not brought to light. Cover-ups and refusals to investigate these corrupt practices is often the norm.

In the US we prosecute such corruption. For its part in the Darleen Druyun fiasco Boeing paid a $615 million fine, its CEO was forced to resigned and the individuals who committed the crimes went to jail. EADS has never been held to such standards.


Anonymous said...

Typical American hype as per usual, “don’t win cry syndrome” “don’t win stamp feet syndrome” get over it you lost a contract that is what is called “competition” unfortunately as usual it is American buy American but American demand everyone one else buy American well on this occasion you lost get over it.

It was the same as the Raptor programme we want our US companies to build it but we demand you “everyone” else to buy it and pay or contribute towards it but we do not intend to give you build details or confidential info on a/c DESPITE that everyone is paying to have it designed and contributing to the technology, well it was a bloody good job that the UK defence procurement minister refused to pay or buy units of A/c until that info was made available.

Get a life, get over the loss of competition and figure that you are NOT the best in the world. Print this or put it up on your site or do you think it is to real and CORRECT for your bag of lies.

Ian Williamson

Tanker War Blog said...

Dear Ian,

It is good to see the tanker debate stirs as much passion on your side of the pond as it does here.

We would ask for your indulgence as we point out several mistakes, or at least misconceptions, in your comments.

First, for the members of Tanker Blog we do not see this issue as a simple case of the best aircraft won and we just need to come to grips with the globalized marketplace and stop our buy American protectionism whining.

Many DoD contracts have gone to European firms in the past and we fully understand the effects of a consolidated defense industry. Why we are speaking out, and what sets this contract apart, though is that it would result in the purchase of numerous Airbus A330 aircraft.

This purchase is troubling to all of us who care about a fair and open marketplace because our U.S. Trade Representative has an open formal complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that European Union nations have provided Airbus with billions of dollars of illegal subsidies.

In total Airbus has received over $15 billion in such support, according to U.S. and European government documents.

We at Tanker Blog fully admit we care about this for what you may consider parochial reasons: since 2000, this launch aid combined with other subsidies has allowed Airbus to gain 20 percentage points of market share, all taken directly from U.S. airplane manufactures.

DoD's decision to purchase one of the very aircraft documented by our own government to have received illegal foreign subsidies that directly harmed U.S. firms and workers is in our thinking dysfunctional at best.

There is a reason the UK government and BAE Systems no longer own a part of Airbus. We think if you research why you may find some of the very concerns we have posted on this blog.

Lastly, we would be remiss if we did not point out that you mistakenly refer to the “Raptor” as being the cause of the US-UK "code" dispute. It was in fact the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, also known as the Lightning.

Warmest regards, Tanker Blog

Anonymous said...

At least nobody from EADS got stuck at jail. The Boeing guys did. Maybe the EADS guys are only smarter not to get catched :-)

Anonymous said...

Sorry Tanker blog, but it all sounds like sour grapes to me. The points that you mentioned in you comment above are indeed valid ones but the previous articles are riddled with hype and mis-information. It does not bring credit to the real concerns. The issue your raise (I think) is about fair competition, and all of these issues were known BEFORE the award was made. So why wasn't Boeing and it's political backers raising public awareness back then? Both Boeing and EADS have done and continue to do many things they wish not to be known publically. Furthemore, it is fact that the two competing bids were Boeing and Northrop Grumman, and both are US companies. Northrop owns the prime contract, not EADS. Additionally, if this is TRULLY a concern, then the government bidding process needs to be amended. The Air Force should not be blamed for following the rules of the bidding process. Once again, no one from the Boeing camp were concerned about the alleged changes in requiresments during pre-award phase and were touting just the opposite with regard to "fairness" before hearing that they lost. They, Boeing, believed it was thier contract to lose as well as what everyone else thought. So can someone tell me why they didn't see this coming if what they say is true. Once again, sounds like sour grapes to me.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry Eurotrash. Congress is on our side on this one. They'll put the brakes on this shitty Airbus dead faster than you can imagine. And then, the Air Force will be taken to task for choosing your Airbus JUNK over our superior, better-engineered Boeing aircraft. And Northrop will sit there and learn to deal with it, lest we begin investigations and proceedings into the necessity of a large number of contracts the U.S. government and military currently have with them. Cost overruns on CVN-21, anyone?

Anonymous said...

To the un-educated yank who says that congress will put the brakes on the Northrop award. First of all the Air Force doesnt have to heed the ruling of the GAO. It seems to me that the only ones pleading your case are the fat ass politicians who stand to make money from a Boeing award. The plane that was offered by Boeing is a far inferior product than the A330. You turds just want to save your shity 767 assembly line now that its at the end of its lifecycle. Should have brought the 777 huh? You just want a do-over, and I along with many other skilled workers feel the same. If the Air Force decides to hold a re-bid, I would suspect that the KC-30 will beat the brakes off of anything you pantywaist, cost over running, government official bribbing,15 breaks-A-day taking, closet Obama fan retards can offer.