Jobs Flying First Class Overseas

For so many years, there had been one big, tough, head honcho in the ‘in flight’ fueling tankers. Boeing had owned this market that – it was believed – they were beginning to grow a bit lax. However, in the Capitalistic society that we live in, we flourish on competition because it provides the very best products and the very best prices for the consumers. So, when an Airbus plane took off from Spain and refueled a Portuguese F-16 midflight with a 50-foot boom (the object used to refuel in the air), it suddenly became obvious that they wanted to get into the market.

And this occurred only hours before the United States Air Force determined who they were going to give a $35 billion contract that would result in numerous tankers being constructed. Due to Airbus’ (a company owned by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS)) bold efforts to invest $100 million in the ‘boom’ technology and their refueling of the F-16 at the end of February, Boeing lost out on this prized contract that could grow to over $100 billion.

With help from Northrop Grumman (a Los Angeles based company), EADS was able to design a refitted A330 jetliner that they say could carry more fuel than their competitor, the Boeing 767, and it could also carry more flexibility for cargo, personnel, etc. Naturally, all of this competition should be good for the military because they are getting the best weaponry at the best price.

Only, there are some problems that goes along with it that some are saying make purchasing Airbus’ tankers is anti-American. Anti-American…Competition is anti-American? Isn’t that a contradictory statement? As Americans, we thrive on competition; yet, it is being argued that this is not a good move for America. Why, though?

Both companies are using the upcoming Presidential election to fuel their bid for the position by suggesting that, if hired, they would be able to hire X amount of people to get the job done. Only, which company would be hiring more Americans?

With the nation falling faster and faster towards a recession, the need for more jobs in America cannot be stressed. We are a nation that requires the purchase of goods to boost our economy; except, without jobs, there is no money, which means there is no way to buy things. It’s a vicious cycle.

Boeing has said very clearly that they would be making 85% of their parts in America while Airbus said that 60% of their parts would be made in America. Given the fact that Airbus is a company owned from a European based firm, it must be understood that they will want to hire Europeans to do a substantial amount of work. In my eyes, the importance of those extra jobs is so great that America should consider just who they pick to make these planes.

But, it can be taken a step farther in regards to the question of jobs. Just how many jobs are going to be made? If we’re talking five jobs made by Boeing or two jobs made by Airbus (for very arbitrary numbers), it obviously isn’t going to make much of a difference. But, what about the 44,000 jobs Boeing said the contract could create in comparison to the 20,000 Airbus says the contract could create? That is a 22,000 job difference and that is a lot of potential salaries that could go into buying goods in America.

It should be noted, though, that regardless of whether Airbus or Boeing is given the contract, neither company will be laying anyone off. Both companies create numerous airliners and they both are backlogged in the number that they need to create. So, the good news for the nation is that regardless of who gets it, there won’t be fewer jobs, but there will be a substantial increase in jobs. But with a nation that has a 4.8% unemployment rate (which means over 14 million people are currently unemployed), what difference does 20,000+ jobs make? They are still jobs. Regardless of whether there are five made or five hundred thousand, a job is a job and that helps the economy.

And, of course, let’s not forget to mention the fact that we are hiring a non-American company to create tools for our military. In essence, we are saying, “yes, ladies and gentlemen, America is willing to pay other nations to design and build our weapons.” Can someone PLEASE say national security threat? Are we going to really get the best weaponry we possibly could or are we going to get lower level tools that will only put our servicemen at risk?

Europe is an ally of ours, there is no denying that, but a big concern that I agree with is the precedence this sets. We are letting people know that we want other nations to compete with American companies and if they can make a better deal than the American companies, we will gladly send the work to them. The way I see it, this is just going to hurt the American economy even more.

As a nation that is so dependent on their military, we cannot risk lower grade weaponry just because the cost is best. With the nation going from a consolidation of the military in the 90s to a war nation in the 21^st century, America is trying to catch up. The jobs that can come from military contracts are truly phenomenal, but how important is it to America to keep those jobs in America? Can our economy handle more jobs going overseas? I say no. I say we need these jobs. Thousands of jobs are a considerable number of jobs to boost the economy. We need them.