Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SPECULATION: 737RS/Y1 Production Facility Location  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

So, now that the cat is out of the bag, shall we speculate as to where Boeing might locate 737RS/Y1 production? RNT is an obvious candidate, but they could choose CHS, SAT, or even Wichita, which would have the benefit of being near a major fabrication facility.

EDIT: corrected Y2 -> Y1 (I knew better)

[Edited 2009-10-29 08:10:51]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1876 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3154 times:

Surely you meant to say 737RS/Y1? Y2 became the 787...


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Kansas is a Right to Work state, but Boeing Wichita is unionized as is Spirit so the IAM would fight hard to make the new Boeing facility a "union shop", as well.

That being said, if Spirit wins the 737 fuselage contract (and I expect chances are favorable for them doing so since they fabricate the 737NG fuselage and their experience with 787 Section 41 would give them the skills to "pre-stuff" the 737RS fuselages), having the FAL at Wichita would improve production time since parts would not need to be shipped by rail to Renton as they are with the 737NG.

Also, based on how quickly Renton developed the space Boeing has vacated there, if Boeing left completely that property could be more valuable as commercial and residential than it currently is as industrial.


User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3303 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
So, now that the cat is out of the bag,

Forgive my ignorance, as I've been away from the site for a couple of days with schoolwork, but what cat is out of what bag?? Did Boeing confirm plans for Y1?????

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3049 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
That being said, if Spirit wins the 737 fuselage contract (and I expect chances are favorable for them doing so since they fabricate the 737NG fuselage and their experience with 787 Section 41 would give them the skills to "pre-stuff" the 737RS fuselages), having the FAL at Wichita would improve production time since parts would not need to be shipped by rail to Renton as they are with the 737NG.

This is what I was thinking too. Spirit does a huge portion of the work on the 737 as it is, so a similar level of work on Y1 would simplify the logistics chain massively. That's not to say that Boeing won't have a second line somewhere else, which might even be RNT.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 3):
Forgive my ignorance, as I've been away from the site for a couple of days with schoolwork, but what cat is out of what bag?? Did Boeing confirm plans for Y1?????

Nothing is confirmed in any way, other than the general idea that the 737 will need to be replaced at some time.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 3):
Forgive my ignorance, as I've been away from the site for a couple of days with schoolwork, but what cat is out of what bag?

That the second 787 line will be placed in Charleston and not Everett, giving Boeing an "east coast" commercial aircraft production facility.


User currently offlineTsra From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2926 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
That being said, if Spirit wins the 737 fuselage contract (and I expect chances are favorable for them doing so since they fabricate the 737NG fuselage and their experience with 787 Section 41 would give them the skills to "pre-stuff" the 737RS fuselages), having the FAL at Wichita would improve production time since parts would not need to be shipped by rail to Renton as they are with the 737NG.

Hopefully Boeing has learned their lesson with the 787 and will keep all production/FAL in one or two places instead of shipping parts from all over the world. This would increase quality control, redesigns (if needed), etc...

A big plus for Wichita would be the almost 30,000 laid off aviation workers that are skilled, experienced, and would be very motivated to get a job. This resource alone would be a very attractive incentive for Boeing (or any other business that needs skilled labor) to consider Wichita.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2892 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
That being said, if Spirit wins the 737 fuselage contract (and I expect chances are favorable for them doing so since they fabricate the 737NG fuselage and their experience with 787 Section 41 would give them the skills to "pre-stuff" the 737RS fuselages), having the FAL at Wichita would improve production time since parts would not need to be shipped by rail to Renton as they are with the 737NG.

Apart from boeing work they epanded and will produce structure for orther new aircraft too, such as a chuncks of the A350 XWB and G650 fuselages.

But why not in a real low cost environment, like Airbus Tianjin do..



User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6152 posts, RR: 35
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2839 times:



Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
shall we speculate as to where Boeing might locate 737RS/Y1 production?

Considering that the aircraft isn't due for another +10 years... yup, +10 years, I think that we would need a really good crystal ball. I can imagine, similar to Airbus (as Keesje highlighted), that Boeing could even have 2 (or more) FA sites around the globe.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2817 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tsra (Reply 6):
Hopefully Boeing has learned their lesson with the 787 and will keep all production/FAL in one or two places instead of shipping parts from all over the world. This would increase quality control, redesigns (if needed), etc...

Outsourcing the production is not the problem. Boeing has been doing that for at least thirty years with the 767 and 20 for the 777. They just chose a bad partner in Vought.

Outsourcing the design is what has really de-railed the 787 and 747-8 programs. Probably half or more of the 777 production is outsourced/off-shored, but the entire plane was designed in Seattle and Everett by Boeing engineers who then sent the partners the engineering drawings to build from. With the 787 and 747-8, the suppliers in many cases designed the parts they then produced. And because Boeing did not maintain rigorous configuration control, we have seen the problems where 787 and 747-8 parts are not fitting when brought together and therefore having to be re-designed and remanufactured and re-worked, all adding extra expense and delaying assembly.

So when it comes to the 737 and 777 replacements, no matter how much longer it takes or expense it incurs, those planes have to be designed entirely by Boeing and the suppliers build to the engineering drawings released by Boeing. Otherwise, the same thing will liekly happen again.



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
But why not in a real low cost environment, like Airbus Tianjin do.

If Boeing's decision was truly driven on just securing the lowest labor costs possible, the second 787 line likely would have been placed in Tianjin or Tijuana instead of Charleston. But I feel it was more driven by a desire to spite the IAM. Which I admit sounds petty, but I think McNerney and senior Boeing management hate the IAM so much they're willing to be petty. Yes, that Boeing had a facility in Charleston already helped, but if they didn't, I think they would have built one (perhaps in SAT where the 787 test frame refurbishment is planned).

That being said, once Boeing is comfortable and effective in just performing final assembly of mostly pre-fabricated parts, then it might very well move those operations out of the United States to a location with cheaper labor costs.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8344 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

After loosing the second 787 line I would think the Government of Washington State would make the deal they have to make to keep Boeing active in the Seattle area. Who in Long Beach thought there would be no McDonnell Douglas now in 1975, they would have laughed in your face.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6152 posts, RR: 35
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2743 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
That being said, once Boeing is comfortable and effective in just performing final assembly of mostly pre-fabricated parts, then it might very well move those operations out of the United States to a location with cheaper labor costs.

And we can be fairly confident that in 10+ years the labor component of all phases of manufacturing will be reduced to varying degrees, so cheap labor will not be as much of a factor compared to labor productivity and "peace".



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2621 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 10):
After loosing the second 787 line I would think the Government of Washington State would make the deal they have to make to keep Boeing active in the Seattle area.

They did. Airbus Aficionados continue to raise the "$3.2 billion" in incentives Washington State gave Boeing to secure the first 787 FAL - even though Washington State Department of Revenue projections now show the real cost of those incentives will be about half that due to smaller than projected build rates due to the program delays - and that was before 30% of the 787 production went out of state, so it likely won't even be that much,

Also remember that while South Carolina is paying for the initial $150 million in start-up costs, Boeing still has to invest $750 million over the next seven years or they have to pay that money back. So for every dollar South Carolina is picking up, Boeing is spending an additonal five. And Boeing's actual spend might exceed $750 million since in addition to a FAL, they also have to build a paint shop, a Delivery Center, a Flight Test Center and office space. If they had stayed in Everett, Boeing would have saved the majority of those monies. They also will assuredly buy out Alenia's half of Global Aeronautica so they can control the entire complex.

And yet even with that $1-3 billion, Washington was willing to do more, but Boeing told them not to bother because Boeing was focusing on labor costs and labor stability. So about the only thing that Washington could have done is become a Right to Work state and even that wouldn't have done anything, since the IAM 751 membership would have to first de-certify IAM 751 and they were clearly not going to do that. So Boeing Everett would have still remained a predominately unionized workforce.

Boeing moved because of the IAM. Boeing may never have been interested in serious negotiations with IAM 751 and rejected out of hand any concessions IAM 751 offered, but they did so because they feel that after last year's strike (on top of all the other strikes), IAM 751 is a "clear and present danger" to the long-term success of the Boeing Company.

Fairly or unfairly, IAM 751 will be seen here in Seattle as the "people that drove Boeing away". The only way the union could not have been the scapegoat is if they had agreed to every concession and then two years later Boeing moved anyway.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7152 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2566 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Outsourcing the design is what has really de-railed the 787 and 747-8 programs.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
So when it comes to the 737 and 777 replacements, no matter how much longer it takes or expense it incurs, those planes have to be designed entirely by Boeing and the suppliers build to the engineering drawings released by Boeing. Otherwise, the same thing will liekly happen again.

Well they obviously had some economic reason to outsource the design, so the other choice is to ensure that they perfect the process, not saying they will but its also an option.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
That being said, once Boeing is comfortable and effective in just performing final assembly of mostly pre-fabricated parts, then it might very well move those operations out of the United States to a location with cheaper labor costs.

In time, unless the government gets involved, the US will eventually loose its aviations skill, as one can expect Boeing to move it's assembly business to the cheapest location. The bigger question would be is any US firms interested in designing and building commercial aviation products of any grand scale anymore.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2517 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Par13del (Reply 13):
The bigger question would be is any US firms interested in designing and building commercial aviation products of any grand scale anymore.

The capital start-up costs are so high that they could only do so with significant financial support from the US government.


User currently offlineFlybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2318 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
But why not in a real low cost environment, like Airbus Tianjin do..

Lol! Boeing leadership would be total idiots to hand over full assembly to the Chinese government. They have ZERO respect for intellectual property. Every major western aerospace company projects huge markets in China over the next 20 - 30 years... however, when China develops its own civil aerospace industry (largely through reverse engineering today's technology) we will see a lot more MD-80 and A320 lookalikes coming to market. Furthermore, with a strong, totalitarian central government, who's to say that Beijing doesn't mandate the purchase of home made aircraft if they meet Chinese airlines' most basic requirements? Practically every "private" airline in China owes Beijing a blood debt for saving them from collapse after the economic downturn.



"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2201 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 7):
But why not in a real low cost environment, like Airbus Tianjin do..

Because Airbus doesn't have to comply with US export control and ITAR laws...Boeing does.

Tom.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9617 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2174 times:

There are 15 years left of 737 production, so don't be jumping on them already picking new sites. Boeing wanted to get rid of Renton years ago, however the mechanics and engineers their proved their worth. They transformed the way that an airplane is made when they transitioned to a moving line. They have saved billions and are probably the most efficient aircraft production plant out there. When you go into the Renton plant, everyone is talking about Lean + and how to make things more efficient. Despite the IAM, I think Boeing will keep that team intact. They do truly incredible things; a plane a day rolls off the assembly line and it only takes 8 days total to get a plane through final assembly.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
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...
New IND Belly Cargo Facility posted Sun Sep 20 2009 11:11:18 by Indy
UBS Predicts Severe Drop In Airbus Production posted Mon Sep 14 2009 00:40:30 by Art
L-1011 Production Number Meaning posted Mon Sep 7 2009 16:46:59 by JohnClipper
Boeing 727: 25 Years Out Of Production posted Fri Sep 4 2009 21:20:10 by American 767
DC-8 Production List Request posted Thu Aug 20 2009 12:27:42 by Tango-Bravo
When Will 777 Production End? posted Wed Aug 19 2009 08:24:13 by 76794p
Structural Flaw Halts Production Of 787 Sections posted Thu Aug 13 2009 18:25:01 by IAD787
A380 Production Webcam posted Wed Jul 29 2009 05:07:21 by RW774477
Airline Facility Tours? posted Fri Jul 24 2009 16:18:13 by Bluesky02
Boeing 787 Production Plan Slides Up To 3 Months posted Tue Jul 21 2009 17:01:59 by SInGAPORE_AIR