Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Financial Times
May 5, 2008 By Sylvia Pfeifer and Demetri Sevastopulo
EADS and Northrop Grumman, the duo that controversially pipped Boeing to a $35bn US Air Force refuelling tanker contract in February, have criticised the political backlash against the deal as antiquated and "extraordinarily unhealthy".
Stepping up the rhetoric, Ralph Crosby, the US head of European defence group EADS, spoke out against politicians who had sought to interfere in the Pentagon's value-driven procurement strategy.
"The acquisition process [should] not become so politicised," he told the Financial Times. "Every time there is a difference between one constituency and the other on what ought to be bought, it becomes a congressional issue. This is how we did stuff in the Civil War."
Since the contract was award- ed to EADS, politicians have campaigned against the decision, claiming it would cost US jobs and jeopardise national security. Boeing itself is fighting a fierce rearguard action in an attempt to overturn the decision.
Ron Sugar, chief executive of Northrop, EADS's US partner on the contract, refused to comment on Boeing's behaviour, but was outspoken on the bidding principle: "It is one thing to protest [against] a competition where you feel that the selection process was not right. That is your legal right. It is quite another thing that after you've lost, to decide you have to change the game politically."
In March, Boeing launched a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, against the award of the contract to EADS and Northrop. Last month, the GAO dismissed requests by Northrop and the US air force to throw out Boeing's complaint.
EADS and Northrop are set to supply 179 air-to-air refuelling tankers using a modified version of the Airbus A330 passenger jet.
May 5, 2008 By Sylvia Pfeifer and Demetri Sevastopulo
EADS and Northrop Grumman, the duo that controversially pipped Boeing to a $35bn US Air Force refuelling tanker contract in February, have criticised the political backlash against the deal as antiquated and "extraordinarily unhealthy".
Stepping up the rhetoric, Ralph Crosby, the US head of European defence group EADS, spoke out against politicians who had sought to interfere in the Pentagon's value-driven procurement strategy.
"The acquisition process [should] not become so politicised," he told the Financial Times. "Every time there is a difference between one constituency and the other on what ought to be bought, it becomes a congressional issue. This is how we did stuff in the Civil War."
Since the contract was award- ed to EADS, politicians have campaigned against the decision, claiming it would cost US jobs and jeopardise national security. Boeing itself is fighting a fierce rearguard action in an attempt to overturn the decision.
Ron Sugar, chief executive of Northrop, EADS's US partner on the contract, refused to comment on Boeing's behaviour, but was outspoken on the bidding principle: "It is one thing to protest [against] a competition where you feel that the selection process was not right. That is your legal right. It is quite another thing that after you've lost, to decide you have to change the game politically."
In March, Boeing launched a formal protest with the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, against the award of the contract to EADS and Northrop. Last month, the GAO dismissed requests by Northrop and the US air force to throw out Boeing's complaint.
EADS and Northrop are set to supply 179 air-to-air refuelling tankers using a modified version of the Airbus A330 passenger jet.