Pentagon Seeks to Use Foreign Airlines

[trof]

(This one slipped in under the radar?)
By MICHELINE MAYNARD
The New York Times

The Pentagon is asking Congress for the authority to award contracts to foreign airlines to move troops and equipment, a business that has always been limited to - and been lucrative for - American-based carriers.

The proposal, in the Defense Department's budget request for fiscal year 2005, could have its greatest impact on the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, a group of 24 passenger and cargo carriers that sign contracts with the Pentagon each year. These airlines were instrumental in transporting military personnel and equipment to the Middle East last year before and during the Iraq war.

In all, American passenger and cargo carriers were paid $1.2 billion to fly nearly 500,000 troops to and from the war zone during the formal Iraq conflict. The cargo companies carried more than 161,000 tons of equipment, according to a Pentagon report last fall.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/business/10fly.html

So...U.S. airlines are hemorrhaging cash and now it seems like a really good idea to "outsource" troop and materiel transport.



Maybe we'll give the contract to Iraqi Airways?

[izzie]

1. They used to do this in the 60's

Or that is what the service men were told. They used to fly to Eur to pick up ships in these planes. I knew men that did it.

[GOPisEvil]

2. Whaddya wanna bet British Airways gets a contract, but

Air France and Air Canada don't?

[Florida_Geek]

3. I was thinking more like a Saudi

airline, for * good friends.

[mobuto]

4. Screw US airlines

we bailed them out two years ago, we subsidize the hell out of them, and if they still can't compete, screw them.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Sounds like OUT-PLANING to me...I think it is contemptible...

Pushing that business out of the country when U.S. employees need every job they can get and hang on to with those airlines is critical and when U.S. employees PAY TAXES - PAY TAXES.

[mobuto]

6. Well

Airlines are not employment centers. You should not pay taxes just to keep USAirways in business. There's no reason the government should pay a premium to send further giveaways to heavily subsidized, non-competitive corporate behemoths.

We expect other countries to consider American corporations for contracts, so why shouldn't we consider foreign corporations? Maybe there's a national security component (if we declare war on the Netherlands, we won't be able to use KLM) but it seems just a little contrived. This is just classic corporate welfare.

[DemoTex]

7. USAF is responsible for audit and oversight of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet

How would USAF maintain its audit and oversight responsibilities with a foreign carrier? Answer: It would not. More on CRAF:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=173