Print This Post
Email This Post
1:32 pm CST - March 11, 2010
Posted under The Scoop
Boeing & Airbus-Northrop-Grumman News Has U.S. Employment Impact
Study says major employment gains impact huge supply chains of U.S.-based firms
The U.S. Department of Defense is conducting a competition to develop and produce a new in-flight, refueling tanker aircraft, currently called the KC-X tanker. The two competitors for the contract are the Boeing Company and Airbus, a subsidiary of the European Aeronautic Defense & Space Company (EADS), in partnership with the Northrop-Grumman Corporation.
This report examines the employment effects of sourcing this major U.S. military procurement program with a U.S.-based company (Boeing), compared to a foreign-based firm (Airbus) teamed with a U.S. company (Northrop-Grumman) that would design and manufacture most of its tanker aircraft in Europe. Using publicly available data, this report concludes:
- Based on the new direct investments in property, plant and equipment entailed in carrying out this contact, Boeing would create 10 times as many new U.S. jobs as Airbus/Northrop-Grumman.
- If Boeing develops and produces the tanker, it should lead to the creation of an estimated 62,605 to 70,706 new U.S. jobs over the life of the contract.
- By contrast, if Airbus/Northrop-Grumman develop and produce the tanker, it should lead to the creation of an estimated 5,113 to 7,080 new U.S. jobs over the life of the contract.
- These job projections are for Boeing and Airbus/Northrop Grumman and do not include suppliers or other indirect jobs attributable to this program over the life of the contract.
Both companies propose to meet the Pentagon’s requirements by developing certain new refueling technologies and applying them to aircraft which each already produces. Based on the proposals submitted for the last competition, as well as economic analysis and historical experience, the vast majority of the production of the new refueling tanker will occur at the existing facilities and operating assets of the winning competitor.
In this context, the different U.S. employment effects for the two companies arising from the KC-X tanker contract reflect the fact that the U.S.-based Boeing maintains 96 percent of its operating assets and facilities in the United States, while the foreign-based EADS and Airbus maintain 96 percent of their operating assets and facilities in Europe.
The conclusions of this analysis are not based on the jobs estimates and projections provided by the two companies. Rather, they are based on long-term, public data tracking the relationship between increases in U.S. investments and increases in U.S. job creation, when those investments are undertaken by U.S.-based aircraft manufacturers compared to a foreign based multinational with a small U.S subsidiary operation.
Whether Boeing or Airbus/Northrop-Grumman ultimately produces the aircraft, much of the $35 billion contract will go for goods and services provided by each company’s worldwide network of suppliers and vendors.
While these purchases will indirectly create many jobs, there are no verifiable data regarding where these vendors and suppliers are located – in the United States or abroad – nor can we predict how much work would be carried out at specific locations or how the companies’ supply chains will change over the lifetime of this contract.
Therefore, this analysis focuses on the new fixed investments in property, plant and equipment (PPE) which these companies would themselves undertake to build the new tanker, and the new U.S. jobs over the life of the contract associated directly with those investments.
Based on the historical relationships between new PPE investments and job creation, these data show that the U.S.-based Boeing would produce 10 times as many new U.S. jobs as the Airbus/Northrop-Grumman partnership. These estimates are affected only modestly if we assume that under the Airbus/Northrop-Grumman partnership, Airbus would be responsible for three-fourths of the new investment and Northrop-Grumman would carry out the remaining one-fourth.
The company that is awarded the KC-X tanker contract will also generate other important, economic effects. While much of the new tanker’s basic structure will come from existing aircraft, developing the KC-X tanker’s unique capabilities will require significant research and development.
Extensive economic research has found that such R&D for new aircraft and other military assets often produces large “spillover” effects, where a new technology, piece of equipment or manufacturing technique or process can be applied in other uses and industries. These spillovers can generate additional economic benefits through higher productivity, enhanced efficiency, and contributions to subsequent innovations.
Productivity, efficiency, and innovation are critical factors in sustaining international competitiveness and preserving a country’s domestic industrial base, with significant economic and national security implications.
Economic research also has established that many of these spillover effects occur in geographically-based “clusters,” transmitted through the working relationships that link large firms such as Boeing or Airbus with hundreds of smaller producers and suppliers in the same geographic area. These smaller producers and suppliers may also provide products and services to companies in other industries.
Through these supply chains, innovations in aircraft manufacturing can help generate economic benefits for a range of local and regional firms, across many industries.
The U.S. aircraft and aerospace industries are highly concentrated in California and Washington State, while their European counterparts are highly concentrated in France and Germany. The decision in the KC-X tanker competition, therefore, will determine whether such critical spillover effects occur primarily in the United States or in Europe.
Considerations of national security and cost, along with technical issues, will naturally play central roles in the KC-X tanker contract award decision. Policymakers, however, should also be fully informed about the economic implications of that decision, as documented here.
We find that awarding the contract to U.S.-based Boeing would generate approximately 63,626 more U.S. jobs over the life of the contract than would awarding the contract to Airbus and Northrop Grumman. We further find that the spillover benefits from the development of the new tanker would be concentrated in the United States if the U.S.-based Boeing does the development, but in Europe if the European-based Airbus does it.
These differences could have significant economic impact, as well as longer term implications for the U.S. industrial base.












5 Comments
CWJensen
1:39 pm CST
March 11, 2010
Gee what a surprise……………………………………………………………………..send US $$$$ in the USA and it has a positive influence on the economy.
OF COURSE that does NOT set well with BOA’s citizen of the WORLD idea for AMERICA.
Fret Logic
4:43 pm CST
March 11, 2010
There is no meat in that analysis….whoever came up with these results reveals an obvious bias toward Boeing, or, they have no understanding of the KC-X Program, nor Global-Supply Chain Management with respect to the Boeing 767 aircraft.
The Boeing plants, (Everett, Wa. and Wichita, Ks.) which already exist, would assemble 80% foreign-made parts to create this Tanker, though Boeing will publically claim 40%, as they are NOT currently. If the original bid/win by NG/EADS remained, an ADDITIONAL airframe manufacturing/integration plant would have been created in Mobile, Alabama where EADS promised to not only manufacture Tanker airframes, but planned to have commercial airframes assembled there, also. Thus, existing contracted assembly work for commercial airframes would have been transferred TO America from Europe ! Both companies have to use the same Military Electronics from US companies. Both companies use part suppliers from overseas. The NG/EADS platform would have had MORE electronics added, as they were willing to provide more capability to the customer, at a lesser cost, than the Boeing proposal via the larger air platform. The cost and capabilities improvements over the original Boeing proposal are the cause of the NG/EADS win.
Instead, the customer (Air Force, taxpayers) will end up with less substance for their money via the politically-correct, slow-moving monolith, monopoly….Boeing.
Now,….think about how many jobs would have been created, and the fact that domestic competition to Boeing via another large-scale air platform assembly plant would have meant for taxpayers, and air travelers as competition always yields better pricing. Thanks to the stronger Yen, recall how Japanese automobiles used to cost a lot more than American automobiles before they re-vitalized US assembly plants that were shutdown due to poor management by US car-manufacturers.
Recall this line, “Even with the loss of the tanker work, Boeing is hiring at its Everett plant”, said a spokeswoman, Debbie Heathers.
Though I’m not a fan of the NY TImes, this is worth a read –>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/worldbusiness/03iht-airbus.1.10639775.html
In reality, this situation is just politics. If the original NG/EADS win was sustained, a Boeing plant that would be have been affected via some job losses, was the Wichita, Ks plant,…where the Boeing Tanker modification will occur, –> The hometown of Defense Secretary, Robert Gates,…who directed the Pentagaon –> Air Force to create an RFP that would nullify the benefits of the now revealed NG/EADS approach.
BTW, don’t forget that Boeing’s headquarters is in Chicago, Ill.,…the land of one Barack Obama.
You do the math….
CWJensen
7:10 pm CST
March 11, 2010
You cannot do the MATH without the figures.
I repeat simple math.
USA tax $$$$ used to pay USA workers in USA cities who spend USA $$$ in those USA cities to create more jobs and services.
The information you link to is two years old. I did the math
Many things have changed since then.
Bubu
8:44 am CST
March 11, 2010
Hello there!
I have just one question: How inefficient is Boeing in modifying the civil 767 compared to Airbus?
The conditions of the problem as I see them are:
1. Both companies have the assembly lines for B767 and A330 open and running
2. They already have the necessary employees to build the civilian aircraft that will be modified.
3. The employee number quoted will probably be needed to design the modifications and to implement them on the civilian aircraft.
Something is fishy!
Fret Logic
10:22 am CST
March 11, 2010
I notice that CWJenson’s response included no analysis in the “math”.
An especially obvious omission, is the impact to the US-economy via a NEW aircraft assembly facility that would have been built in Mobile, Alabama by EADS.
This article may help shed light on the obvious bias in the original cost-analysis issue, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011332783_sundaybuzz14.html
FYI: It appears that a key reason for Northrop Grumman to partner with EADS is, the EADS certified Tanker already existed,…years ago. Boeing needed to engineer a new refueling boom/process as a part of their bid. Look how many years behind Boeing was in their delivery of Tankers to Japan and Italy. Again, like the Dreamliner,…they were YEARS behind. After the Boeing contract loss to NG/EADS,…Boeing actually made a patently pathetic claim that their 50-year old Tanker technology was Intellectual Property that needed to be protected by the US Government. Should such a company gain any respect after making such a claim as a reason to protest a competitor’s contract award. ? Have you ever heard of such a claim before ? (Boeing should be embarrassed when looking back to their initial reaction to the loss. As a US citizen, I’m embarrassed that Boeing would claim “government protection needed” on 50-yr old technology as a part of their protest.)
Original delivery of the 2002 ordered Boeing Tanker to Italy was to occur in 2005.
Those planes have yet to be delivered….
It’s OK,….now. It would appear that Boeing finally caught up to EADS with delivery of their first modern Tanker (in fifty years) to Japan, Feb 19, 2008,….about three years late.
Via the current Washington DC politics, thus creating a huge delay in awarding a current Washington DC’s version of an “acceptable contract award” to Boeing,….Boeing can finally appear to compete in the “free market”,…in some folks eyes, anyway.
Leave a Comment