Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Just Returned From Boeing LGB  
User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2437 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As many of you may know I went to Boeing this week and had an opportunity to ferry a new 717 delivery back to ATL. While in LGB I was given a ride around the many hangars, and it was so sad to see that they were all now empty, and waiting for something new to come along. I got a peek in the C-17 hangars, which were pushing ahead with orders ti fill, and actually saw one leave on a delivery flight. I hope someday that commercial aviation returns to Long Beach, but sadly I don't believe that his will ever come to fruition. I wrote a trip report about it 717 Delivery Flight MKE-ATL-LAX-LGB-ATL-MKE (by AirTran737 Apr 29 2006 in Trip Reports) feel free to read it if you'd like, it's very long.

Does anyone think that LGB may ever see a commercial line again, or is that sprawling complex going to be the future Long Beach Industrial Center?


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2224 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2311 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One possibility could be as a U.S. base for foreign partners of Boeing or whomever else goes the way the 787 will be assembled. It would act as a distribution OR assembly area for the final build. I'm assuming Everitt has plenty of space now in case Boeing decides to start another 787 line, of not, LGB is there. The astronomical real estate prices in So. Cal. will probably have a large unfluence on the final outcome. I also think AB has already decided on a place for US assembly so that may be out for now.


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5890 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think the LGB plant is a good candidate for the US tanker production line, should Boeing get the contract.

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2195 times:

Sadly the Long Beach Douglas plant (I refuse to call it McDonnell or Boeing) will suffer the same fate as the Burbank Lockheed plants. California was the center of the aviation world for years but the state environmental laws, which are much stricter than the federal laws, high taxes and properity prices have made building airplanes there a loosing proposition.

User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

Well, the LGB plant is useless for wide body building. If you recall, the entire building's roof height is the height of the original DC-8. So, only narrow-bodies with short tail heights can be assembled there. If you want to assemble something larger, say a 767 tanker or 787, the plane will have to roll out of the factory with out the tail, and then have the tail installed outdoors with a crane. This is one of the reasons Boeing never considered building wide-bodies at LGB.

Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
will suffer the same fate as the Burbank Lockheed plants.

Is this the huge vacant land north of the main terminal, on the other side of the runway? Do you know if Lockheed still owns this area? Because if they don't, this would be a great place to build a new terminal for Burbank airport.


User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 4):
So, only narrow-bodies with short tail heights can be assembled there.

Isn't the C-17 considerably larger (including height) than the DC-8? I would consider it to be a 'heavy', but I don't know the exact dimensions.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 4):
Is this the huge vacant land north of the main terminal, on the other side of the runway? Do you know if Lockheed still owns this area? Because if they don't, this would be a great place to build a new terminal for Burbank airport.

All the land Lockheed owned was sold years ago.


User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3702 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 5):
Isn't the C-17 considerably larger (including height) than the DC-8? I would consider it to be a 'heavy', but I don't know the exact dimensions.

The C-17 has it's own assembly line separate from the commercial line. The C-17 hangars are massive, and new by the looks of them.



Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineAviationAddict From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 7):

Gotcha, I should have known that, I was just out in Long Beach a few months ago.


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24870 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2091 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 4):
Do you know if Lockheed still owns this area? Because if they don't, this would be a great place to build a new terminal for Burbank airport.

Lockeed was willing to deed free land for a new terminal, however the NIMBY crowd managed to kill the proposal.

From what I remember the Spanish style terminal was to offer 14 jetway gates. The project died around the 2000 timeframe.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

474218: Is correct. The open land on the north side of the field was sold and will be used for a house development. From my understanding the land where the hangers for the 717 (just to the east) will follow. The master plan calls for phase 2 of the development on that land. So I have been told by locals. So the whole north side will be housing full of people complaining about the noise of the airplanes.

ASLAX



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24870 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2052 times:

The future of the MDC Commercial plant in LGB...

http://www.douglaspark.org

1400 homes, a hotel, shopping mall, light industrial business zone, 11 acre park, and a elementary school.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineM404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2224 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Interesting about BUR. The FAA I believe, ruled the present terminal as too close to the runway yet nearby residents can prevent a new "safer" being built because it would attract more flights, so, no new terminal at all. Perverted logic at it's finest.


Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting AS739X (Reply 10):
From my understanding the land where the hangers for the 717 (just to the east) will follow. The master plan calls for phase 2 of the development on that land. So I have been told by locals. So the whole north side will be housing full of people complaining about the noise of the airplanes.

Well from what I understand, the 2 giant final assembly halls (which are on the other side of the street) will be kept as is and eventually turned into a museum for Douglas.


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24870 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Here are some pictures so one can visualise what the LGB project encompasses.

Overview aerial photo of initial phase
http://www.douglaspark.org/new_6-1-01/aerial_photo.pdf
Current 717 plant, and a small "Boeing enclave" for C-17 support work remain.

Conceptual plan overview
http://www.douglaspark.org/new_images/conceptual_plan.pdf

Eventually plan is to provide another 2000 homes and move project across Lakewood Blvd taking up the area containing the 717 production line.

The driving force behind the project is Boeing itself generating revenues for the abandoned LGB facilities.

Have not heard rumblings about a museum, however keep in mind at some point the future the C-17 production hangar will become available also, so if such a plan exist that facility might be an option.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1816 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 9):
Lockeed was willing to deed free land for a new terminal, however the NIMBY crowd managed to kill the proposal.

From what I remember the Spanish style terminal was to offer 14 jetway gates. The project died around the 2000 timeframe.

IIRC, ownership of the former Lockheed property was transfered to the Burbank-Glendale-Pasedena Airport Authority (49 acres a.k.a. the adjacent property), as well a trust for the benefit of the City of Burbank and the Authority (59 acres a.k.a as the trust property). However, last year the Authority agreed to a ten year moratorium on the development of both properties as a new terminal.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 11):
The future of the MDC Commercial plant in LGB...

http://www.douglaspark.org

1400 homes, a hotel, shopping mall, light industrial business zone, 11 acre park, and a elementary school.

"The older factory buildings on the airfield side of the road, mostly built in the 1940s as part of President Roosevelt's 'Arsenal of Defense' strategy, built C-47 Dakotas, A-20 Havocs, B-17 Flying Fortresses and A-26 Invaders as well as a host of post-Second World War cargo, attack and fighter aircraft.

Almost all of these buildings (west of Lakewood Blvd., Douglas Park development) have now been demolished to make room for new commercial developments. The future of the Building 80 site (east of Lakewood Blvd.), which sports the iconic "Fly DC Jets" neon sign (pictured below) remains uncertain.
"

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...r+Douglas+Aircraft+Long+Beach.html


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AF Orders 55 Class Three EFBs From Boeing posted Thu Sep 7 2006 21:28:51 by 777ER
Just Back From Heathrow! posted Mon Jun 19 2006 21:09:01 by Christeljs
Aeroflot Gets 6 Used MD-11Fs From Boeing posted Tue Mar 21 2006 17:28:13 by N1786b
Which Airlines Switched From Boeing To Airbus? posted Tue Mar 7 2006 12:38:25 by Cedars747
Pics Of Qantas 787 From Boeing! posted Wed Dec 14 2005 07:08:41 by USAir330
Has The IC Do-228 Returned From Lakshadweep posted Mon Jun 27 2005 10:17:27 by HAWK21M
Stonecipher Resigns From Boeing posted Mon Mar 7 2005 13:11:06 by PANAM_DC10
Why No News From Boeing? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 18:41:59 by SNATH
Chinese Airlines Order 60 7E7 Jets From Boeing posted Fri Jan 28 2005 08:18:17 by Schipholjfk
Why No Double Decker From Boeing? posted Fri Oct 22 2004 22:31:23 by 7E72004