Even before the first 787 soars skyward, Boeing has put Washington state on notice. The next jetliner may not be built here. Has it really been only four years since state leaders slow-danced with the company and won the Dreamliner competition? Well, yes it has, but apparently it’s already time for our renewal vows.

Mike Bair comes as Boeing’s bearer of bad news. In comments to the Snohomish County Economic Development Council last week, Bair faulted suppliers around the world for failing to perform to company specs. There have been consequences. Deliveries have been set back six months. Bair has been reassigned from heading the 787 program to a senior marketing slot. And, he says, next time “some of these guys we won’t use again.”

Global outsourcing – a key element of the 787 production strategy – didn’t work as well as Boeing anticipated. So, the strategy has changed. In Everett, the Herald reports that the company now believes that major suppliers will have to locate closer to the final assembly site. While that may be good news for the state, we’re not guaranteed the business.

Reportedly, the site competition for a 737 replacement begins in 2010. That’s not exactly right. It never ended. Competitiveness is not an event, something that happens at a fixed time and place, after which life returns to normal. It’s an ongoing process that is the new normal for global businesses, including a lot of folks we think of as local suppliers and retailers.

That the next plane is in play should come as no surprise. When Boeing moved its headquarters to Chicago in 2001, then-CEO Phil Condit said he wanted to give Boeing greater “flexibility to move capital and talent to the opportunities” for growth. There’s nothing subtle about that message. And two years later, the competition to land the 787 business underscored Boeing’s intent.

Yet there are still smart people who believe the 787 contest lacked sincerity, that Washington always had the inside track. They see the 20-year, $3 billion incentive package as a taxpayer shakedown to win business we would have had anyway.

I disagree. Reluctantly. Because Boeing had choices, Washington had no choice. State lawmakers had to put together an attractive offer to secure the business. The benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the costs. A recent Washington Research Council report points out that since early 2006, Boeing employment has increased by 500 workers per month, with another 5,000 expected by mid-2008. With software and construction, aerospace has fueled the extraordinary growth in the state economy since 2004.

And that’s why Washington will again do what it takes to be the place Boeing builds the next jet. We cannot afford to sit it out. Purists will cavil. The industrial policy game of using tax breaks and targeted investments to lure and retain favored businesses has few fans. Ideally, government creates the proverbial level playing field and lets the competitors duke it out. But not since the first apple tax was levied on the orchards in Eden shortly after the Fall have we seen a tax and regulatory scheme remotely approaching the ideal.

From farm subsidies to tax breaks for green energy, from tax-supported “life sciences” research to job-training programs, government routinely attempts to influence private investment and job creation. Sometimes the magic works. Often, it does not. Each effort must be evaluated on its own merits.

In 2003, the magic worked.

And Washington prospered. Boeing’s not a basketball team. It’s a pillar of the state economy. That’s the pragmatic reality.

The next competition won’t be like the last one. The big tax package probably won’t be repeated. In 2003 lawmakers also passed unemployment insurance reforms and initiated action on transportation, education and workforce development programs benefiting many businesses in the state. Since then, there’s been some progress and some backsliding. And a few boom years have spurred unsustainable increases in public spending and revived legislative interest in labor and environmental regulations that threaten to substantially boost business costs. Policy makers must regain their focus.

We don’t seem as hungry as we were in 2003. We should be. Last week’s announcement comes as a timely reminder of what’s at stake.