I'm not one to make excuses for Boeing and their handling of the Tanker deal, phase 1. A bit of speculative analysis is in order though as Boeing is again rejected in phase two.
These sorts of abuses are common in current American corporate culture. Boeing, doing business with every culture in the world, competes only with oil in a a knowledge of the business 'culture' of every country on earth. It is worthy of note that the oil 'tanker' aspect raises the specter of this being a symbolic battle for corporate dominance - Boeing v. Big Oil, if you will. I won't analyze that further though.
I for one believe that the problems at Boeing were the exception, not the rule. Though not an excuse I personally believe it more likely that the 'infection' started on the government side, not vice versa. Certainly Boeing did the right thing by correcting this action immediately. This compares with Washington State's other dominant international company, Microsoft, and their 'behavior' in Europe, home also of Boeing's competitor, Airbus.
There are a number of speculations as to what the major 'external' forces were at work here. Perhaps the most positive is that the 777 production line will be changing from a global outsource model back to a domestic one and that the Northrop/Airbus deal may be a new attempt at an international aerospace business model. Perhaps second on the list of the positive theories would be that the Airbus participation is a mea culpa on the part of the Bush Administration for the embarassing behavior of Microsoft (and, in the context of international business, the equivalent of an out of control teenage punk).
However the most negative scenario is something to be very concerned about. In the realm of defense Boeing is by far and away the most 'Democratic' of all competitors. Their civilian jetliner business is a big reason for this, and is perhaps best evidenced by their choice of Chicago, hometown of Barack Obama. The history of that is of course much more rooted in the past - of which I'm not competent to speak of, but most likely going back to the Jackson/Magnuson era.
Would it be fair to accuse John McCain of himself being subject to corruption? No. However it is more than fair to speculate whether his 'organization' is being subjected to the same corrupting influences that affected Boeing in the same place. Being a control freak, strangely enough, is a universal phenomena, in the US, and the world.
And yes, if it isn't clear I am raising the question - did the Air Force 'attack' one of America's very best very large corporations in order to, in their minds, benefit McCain?
I've been a supporter of McCain's, but I'm beginining to wonder if he is succumbing to the dark side in his older years, in order to pass muster with the Republican party faithrul.
There are many lessons in life Mr. McCain, and you have learned many of them, some of them the hard way. But one of the most important is knowing when defeat IS a viable option. In some cases it is better to lose. People who must win every battle end up defeating not only themselves, but everyone around them.
We're waiting for your leadership Mr. McCain. Are you going to take that call from the most credible of defense democrats, Norm Dicks? Are you going to comment on the Boeing deal?
Lastly, a bit of disclosure. My Father was a Northrop engineer for most of his career in Southern California. However given my Paternal Grandfather and Maternal Uncle's employment with Boeing, as well as Northrop's deals with Boeing itself to call this one a wash - not even counting any local biases. FWIW, a personal note, I don't really know what pop's role was - his story was optics, but that's a field that blurs with intelligence, if one considers the various steps necessary to both identify a target and deliver, for example, a smart bomb.
