Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Re-thinking Their Outsourcing Strategy..  
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 24
Posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

...it was expected that sooner or later the s.hit hits the fan and some serious conclussions had to be drawn..
Too much outsourcing is a cause of trouble and finally-nothing beats a decent inhouse development and manufacturing ,if the outsourced parts cause more pain and cost than self made parts.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2008333044_boeing31.html


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNwarooster From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1088 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hope Boeing wakes up. Boeing needs to control its own destiny.  old 

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5462 posts, RR: 30
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

They are mainly talking about the outsourcing of detailed design work.

"In Wednesday's blog directed at the engineers, he said that "we will probably do more of the design and even some of the major production for the next new airplane ourselves, as opposed to having it all out with the partners."

Denton said nothing about where the next plane will be built, however."



What the...?
User currently offlineLuv2cattlecall From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1650 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3510 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does any of this have to do with the current value of the US dollar vs. other currencies?


When you have to breaststroke to your connecting flight...it's a crash!
User currently offlineFrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3761 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3488 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Too much outsourcing is a cause of trouble and finally-nothing beats a decent inhouse development and manufacturing ,if the outsourced parts cause more pain and cost than self made parts.

Shouldn't Airbus, currently in a frenzied selling spree of its manufacturing plants and assets, be worried by that conclusion?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

EADS do outsource but to a lesser extent than Boeing.
The most recnetly sold factories in germany are -on paer- outsourced companies-but which have more then close contacts with Airbus and fully integrate their way of manufacturing and designing parts or sub-assemblies.
Furthermore Airbus does produce the core of their cells within the mother-company which is not the case any longer with Boeing.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13113 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3326 times:

Whenever you 'outsource' you may cut some costs, but you may lose critical quality control. We have seen a number of issues as to the 'barrels' for the 787 that were 'outsourced' production contributing to it's delay into testing and in service.
Yes, some outsourcing is appropiate, but basic structural components of an a/c, that is the major part of the fusulage and wings, should be kept in-house.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3297 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 2):
They are mainly talking about the outsourcing of detailed design work.

Correct.

Folks should remember that Boeing outsources significant production on all of their current families. The 737, 747, 767 and 777 all have significant parts built by outside suppliers and delivered to Boeing facilities for final assembly.

The difference between all those programs and the 787 is that, for the significantly majority of parts and structures, Boeing designed them.

For the 787 program, Boeing allowed the suppliers themselves to not only build the part, but to also design it. The Japanese heavies, for example, designed the 787's wing - not Boeing. So Boeing did not have "configuration control" on the 787-8 from Day One as they had with every other commercial airline program they have put forth. And this lack of CC has come back to bite them again and again and again with ZA001 and her early sisters. And some suppliers have had problems with their design which has required re-work by Boeing staff to correct which has also resulted in manufacturing delays and assembly integration issues.

However, not every supplier has had design issues. From what I have been told, the wing is performing significantly better in wind-tunnel and CFD testing then Boeing expected, so in at least one case, the supplier's design appears to be no worse then what Boeing's own engineers could have developed. On the flip side, I am hearing that the Russians didn't perform such a great job on the 747-8 (they also had a hand in the 744LCF which had her own EIS issues).

Boeing really needs to get the 787-9 right, because it both has a direct next-generation competitor - the A350-800 - and because it could become the stepping-stone for new 787 models - the 787-8LR and 787-10. They also need to provide the Japanese with the 787-3 and if they want anyone other then NH and JL to buy it, then either need to make it a good deal better then it currently is planned to be or scrap it and work on a 787-8D or "787-8 Regional" model.

As such, I can understand that Boeing wants to bring design for the rest of the family back in house where they can keep a close and sharp eye on it.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3140 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The Japanese heavies, for example, designed the 787's wing - not Boeing.

As I understand it, the heavies had the structural design, not the aerodynamic design.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3067 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 8):
As I understand it, the heavies had the structural design, not the aerodynamic design.

Might be. I kept reading "designed the wing" so I assumed it was the whole shebang, especially since it was touted as the first time Boeing had ever let someone else "design the crown jewels of a plane".


User currently offlinePianos101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2974 times:



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 8):
As I understand it, the heavies had the structural design, not the aerodynamic design.

That's probably correct. I mean I'm on the structures side anyway, but we agree they did all the structures design. I'm pretty sure, though, the the airfoil was still a Boeing proprietary airfoil so then MDSs were given to the heavies by Boeing to design the structure. I highly doubt Boeing would give up the aero design...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
However, not every supplier has had design issues.

Exactly. And it's starting to look like most of the work that Boeing is taking back is from the partners who couldn't hold their weight. I only know that because for quite a while now my group has been working on -9 structures design for work that was originally done by (a few select) partners. Now that Boeing has made this public, it should mean that these partners have "agreed" to the new type of workshare. I heard that Vought just signed a contract for the -9 work (i'm guessing design as well as production) and their engineers are now part of the telecons that the Boeing people have with each other on 47/48.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2842 times:

From the media reports about the 787's difficulties, it seems like the main problems Boeing was having with the contractors were late delivery and poor quality control. These were more program management and manufacturing issues - but perhaps we know something more now.

User currently offlinePianos101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2808 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 11):
These were more program management and manufacturing issues - but perhaps we know something more now.

I'm guessing you mean "program management" and "manu" as opposed to "design." While you're technically correct, at least from what I've seen (which is a lot, the integrity of the design is not at all an issue, it's just a general lack of configuration control and following of processes) I still agree that design still needs to reigned back in more than production. The lack of following of processes is more of a "nit-picking" issue, but when you're building an aircraft that has tens of thousands of parts that all need to be documented for certification reasons, it becomes a nightmare when one part of the airplane is "written" completely different than another section...


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12545 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2641 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
For the 787 program, Boeing allowed the suppliers themselves to not only build the part, but to also design it. The Japanese heavies, for example, designed the 787's wing - not Boeing.

The article referenced in the thread starter makes the following distinction:

Quote:
For example, the composite plastic 787 wings are made by Mitsubishi in Japan. Boeing provided to the Japanese the "engineering architecture" of the wings — the overall concept, shape and technical parameters. The Japanese then did all the detailed design, including the internal structure of the wing.




Inspiration, move me brightly!
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...
Boeing Re- Commercial Question. posted Wed May 16 2007 21:23:55 by Mirrodie
Southwest Needs To Rethink Their Route Strategy posted Thu Apr 5 2007 21:57:10 by N471WN
Why Did US Re-register Their A330s posted Fri Sep 15 2006 09:02:44 by Col220
Boeing Have Replaced Their LHR Advert posted Fri Jul 14 2006 17:24:19 by Glom
American Considering Re-engining Their 300 MD80's posted Thu May 11 2006 14:26:34 by Keesje
Air Canada And Their US Strategy posted Thu Jan 26 2006 22:04:54 by AC787
Boeing Re-aligned Sales Force posted Mon Dec 20 2004 15:07:24 by Dayflyer
Boeing Re-Writes History! posted Thu Jul 15 2004 16:24:34 by Gearup
Boeing Twins And Their Engines posted Thu May 6 2004 20:37:38 by Rkmcswain
AA Re-Upholstured Their 757's? posted Sat Nov 15 2003 02:05:20 by ORBITJFK