Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could Boeing Reopen LGB To Build More 787?  
User currently offlineAA787823 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3502 times:

With 787 orders backloged for several years and demand booming, could/should Boeing reopen the LGB plant that it got from Douglas to build additional 787s to meet demand. This could make a huge selling point over the A350.

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6199 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

No, the property has been sold to a commercial developer already. To late for the old Douglas plant.

ASLAX



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

absolutely NO chance

Besides, Boeing could still obtain additional capacity from a single final assembly line at Everette without the drastic measure of a second line. The limiting factor for an additional production increase is the ability of the supplier base to increase production of 787 components, not Boeing's ability to perform the integration at PAE.


User currently offlineSonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Great that all so-cal need is another strip mall.  banghead 

Unfortunately the real estate that the LB property occupied is probably worth twice as much as much as it would cost to build a new facility out of state


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Besides, Boeing could still obtain additional capacity from a single final assembly line at Everette without the drastic measure of a second line. The limiting factor for an additional production increase is the ability of the supplier base to increase production of 787 components, not Boeing's ability to perform the integration at PAE.

 checkmark  The 787 FAL at PAE can assemble over 200 per year. It would be nuts for Boeing to increase production beyond that.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Besides, Boeing could still obtain additional capacity from a single final assembly line at Everette without the drastic measure of a second line.

..., or if they do build a second line, it makes sense to have it be at Everett along side the current one. There's lots of support infrastructure and overhead that would be much less expensive to expand at Everett that to reproduce at a completely separate facility.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2959 times:

Quoting Sonic67 (Reply 3):
Great that all so-cal need is another strip mall. banghead

Unfortunately the real estate that the LB property occupied is probably worth twice as much as much as it would cost to build a new facility out of state

The second issue is California is taxing itself out of jobs. Every year thousands of jobs leave California for other states and countries. About the last thing Boeing would do is move jobs into California. More likely they would go into the South in states like Alabama.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 5):
..., or if they do build a second line, it makes sense to have it be at Everett along side the current one. There's lots of support infrastructure and overhead that would be much less expensive to expand at Everett that to reproduce at a completely separate facility.

Absolutely true.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3403 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 6):
The second issue is California is taxing itself out of jobs. Every year thousands of jobs leave California for other states and countries. About the last thing Boeing would do is move jobs into California. More likely they would go into the South in states like Alabama.

Or China, or for a real one to ponder - Japan - Boeing designs the planes, someone else builds then and B sells them under their name...........


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 6):
The second issue is California is taxing itself out of jobs. Every year thousands of jobs leave California for other states and countries. About the last thing Boeing would do is move jobs into California.

Then there are people like me. Took a layoff and relocated to another state. Then the comapny I work for recalled me back to so cal. Turned it down because there was no way I could afford a decent sized house. That and having to pay 9% state income tax.


User currently offlineRazza74 From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Just a question LMP737 or anyone living in the USA

LMP737 pays 9% CA state tax, do you pay any federal income tax?

I know here in Australia on an income of 50K I will pay about $14k in income tax which equates to about 28% of my income.

Just curious as there is a strong belief here that we here in OZ work some of the longest hours and pay some of the highest tax

Razza74



Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2367 times:

Quoting Razza74 (Reply 9):
Just a question LMP737 or anyone living in the USA

LMP737 pays 9% CA state tax, do you pay any federal income tax?

I know here in Australia on an income of 50K I will pay about $14k in income tax which equates to about 28% of my income.

Just curious as there is a strong belief here that we here in OZ work some of the longest hours and pay some of the highest tax

By the time you figure in federal taxes, state taxes, sales taxes and all the rest, you would lose about a total of 41% here in the USA.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineRazza74 From Australia, joined Mar 2005, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

DAYflyer

With our10% GST and a whole raft of state and Fed taxes we endup well in to the 40's in the % we pay thank you for the info



Ahh the joy of living under a flightpath
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...
SIA Says Airbus To Build The 787-9 For Them posted Wed Nov 8 2006 03:10:54 by Jimyvr
Boeing Announces Plans To Build 3 Versions Of 7E7 posted Tue Nov 4 2003 08:53:20 by Garnetpalmetto
Denver Agrees To Build More Gates For Frontier posted Thu Jul 17 2003 06:35:50 by FATFlyer
Boeing Reiteration To Build 787-10 (Bloomberg) posted Mon Mar 27 2006 21:32:59 by Kalakaua
Orders In Hand, Boeing Prepares To Build Dreamliner posted Fri Dec 1 2006 15:49:12 by NYC777
Boeing Switches Workers To 787 posted Sat Aug 5 2006 17:40:28 by BoomBoom
Could Boeing Build A Superjumbo? posted Fri Jul 21 2006 16:29:00 by Iloveboeing
Boeing Unveils Plans To Reduce Drag/Weight On 787 posted Mon Jun 12 2006 14:59:26 by Leelaw
Boeing Close To Breakeven On 787 posted Sun May 21 2006 13:29:02 by Lumberton
More 787 UFOs Posted On Boeing Site posted Thu Apr 20 2006 17:39:57 by Mrcomet