Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Jim Albaugh - Boeing Outsourced Too Much On 787  
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Seattle Times ran an article today with Boeing Commercial Airlines CEO Jim Albaugh who noted that Boeing outsourced too much on the 787 program and that future airplane projects will depend far more on Boeing's own engineering and production personnel.

Quote:
On the 787 program, he said, outsourcing decisions were driven by the company's business decision makers rather than its engineers.

"We outsourced too much. ... We didn't consider the extent of the risk we'd take on by going outside," Albaugh said. "We will make sure the voice of the engineers is much more involved in the decision making as we go forward."

To protect its exclusive technical skills and intellectual property, he said Boeing will "build the walls around those very high."

He went on to list some things that Boeing should "never outsource," including airplane flight controls, the wings and the composite fuselage.

He also noted that this should not be seen by IAM and SPEEA management as vindication and therefore demand significant wage and benefit increases in future contract negotiations. He also stated that he wants BCA aircraft program assembly to remain in Washington State and when it comes time to build the 737 and 777 replacements, he does not want an open competition for the FAL as happened with the 787 program. He did support the CHS FAL, but noted the risk of a new workforce was less than the cost of PAE's strikes.


Article Link

43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15739 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7808 times:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
He also noted that this should not be seen by IAM and SPEEA management as vindication and therefore demand significant wage and benefit increases in future contract negotiations.

Plus I hear that Charleston is nice this time of year.

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
He also stated that he wants BCA aircraft program assembly to remain in Washington State and when it comes time to build the 737 and 777 replacements,

I'm sure that they would like to keep in in WA, but I bet it will all come down to dollars and cents.

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
"We will make sure the voice of the engineers is much more involved in the decision making as we go forward."

That would be a good way to go about making airplanes.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7724 times:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
We will make sure the voice of the engineers is much more involved in the decision making as we go forward."

Nothing short of music to my ears, but then, I'm biased on this particular subject...

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
He also stated that he wants BCA aircraft program assembly to remain in Washington State and when it comes time to build the 737 and 777 replacements, he does not want an open competition for the FAL as happened with the 787 program.

Sounds good to me. I don't want to move.

Maybe part of it is just my own personal hope and investment, but I don't believe Boeing is on its way out of the Northwest as so many people assert. There's a lot of investment here. I'm not sure what the future looks like, but I feel quiet confident that Boeing will always have a substantial presence in the PNW.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Plus I hear that Charleston is nice this time of year.

...though, according to Yahoo Weather, Seattle is currently warmer... (freakishly, unusually warm Seattle winter noted)

 


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7650 times:

With Boeing acquiring the work originally contracted to Vought/Global Aeronautica, what is the new percentage of 787 work that is done in-house?

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7503 times:

And for today's list of incredibly obvious statements:

Jim Albaugh - Boeing Outsourced Too Much On 787

Me - Bears Sh.t In The Woods

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
He went on to list some things that Boeing should "never outsource," including airplane flight controls, the wings and the composite fuselage.

Seems like that horse has left the barn.

The question is, how do you get it back into the barn?

Note there were significant financial reasons why the wings went to Japan and large parts of the fuse went to Italy: their governments make it easier for large capital-intense projects to get off the ground. Now one can say it's clear that the non-financial reasons should have outweighed the financial ones, but the real question is could have they launched the program on their own?

Note Boeing has taken blame for the major problems (lack of fasteners due to late specification, inadequate specification and QA for fastener installation, inadequate design of SOB joint) so I'm not sure how these revelations (sic) would change how the 787 program went.

I suppose the comments would be addressing the "traveled work" issue mostly, no?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7242 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
Seems like that horse has left the barn.

The question is, how do you get it back into the barn?

It's left the barn on the 787, but for the 737 and 777 replacements, Albaugh noted that they do not plan to outsource that type of design work. I also expect this means that if the interim 777 replacement solution is a re-wing, that work will be handled by Boeing engineers and not handed off to the Japanese Heavies (who I believe build much of the current 777 wing, which was designed by Boeing engineers) like the 787.


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7099 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Japanese Heavies (who I believe build much of the current 777 wing,

No, the 777 wing primary structure (spar box) is built in the Puget Sound region and assembled in Everett.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7033 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
Seems like that horse has left the barn.

The question is, how do you get it back into the barn?

Buy the new "barn" where the "horse" is stabled and brand it Boeing? We've seen this approach.

Point of clarification: Does the "never outsource" list refer to the design of the listed items or does it include manufacturing as well?

If manufacturing, could Boeing realistically maintain its near monopoly in sales in Japan after it alters the expectations of its Japanese partners that they will build a large portion of Boeing's wide-bodies? Seems like this would finally open the door for Airbus in Japan as they seem very willing to invest in the markets in which they want to penetrate. Maybe Boeing is ready to concede the market as it does not hold the luster it once had.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6886 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 7):
If manufacturing, could Boeing realistically maintain its near monopoly in sales in Japan after it alters the expectations of its Japanese partners that they will build a large portion of Boeing's wide-bodies? Seems like this would finally open the door for Airbus in Japan as they seem very willing to invest in the markets in which they want to penetrate. Maybe Boeing is ready to concede the market as it does not hold the luster it once had.

Thats a similar point to the one I was making.

Japan has put up a lot of money to get into the game.

My point was Boeing claimed they needed that money last time around, so what's going to be different next time around? Clearly money won't be cheaper to get. Maybe they'll have to step back from all-new programs and move towards derivatives because they could not make the 787 outsourcing model work?

Your point is that Japan might not be happy if they don't get as big a slice of the pie next time, and that may have consequences.

It's a good point, but the opposite perhaps may be true.

The opposite point may be that Japan may be darn frustrated with the 787 after laying out $billions and not seeing any money flow in for the last two years, so they may not want as large a slice of the pie next time.

Maybe they've learned what they wanted to know about bleeding edge composite airplane design and construction, and don't want to do a re-run.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2523 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6854 times:

He was pretty adamant about wanting a no-strike clause in the next IAM contract if Boeing is to build the next new models in WA. I don't really see that happening, but if it really gets down to a jobs vs no jobs situation I suppose that could happen. Is he bluffing? Will the IAM think he is come contract time? Could be interesting times ahead in a couple years.

User currently offlinejustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1055 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6814 times:

Seems like outsourcing the barrels was a massive mistake, strategically and intellectual property wise. Be interesting to hear Boeings take on their upcoming quaterly conference call regarding IP protection.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6746 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 7):
If manufacturing, could Boeing realistically maintain its near monopoly in sales in Japan after it alters the expectations of its Japanese partners that they will build a large portion of Boeing's wide-bodies?

I fully expect the Japanese heavies will provide much of the structure for the next series of Boeing aircraft.

They just will be building to a Boeing-provided specification, as they have done with the 747, 767 and 777.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21526 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

No open competition is necessary for any FAL considering that Boeing could keep it "in house" and move it to Kansas or South Carolina.

He's giving the unions enough rope to hang themselves with these comments. Let's see if they use it and try to demand too much, or if they realize that Boeing CAN move things if they need to.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7186 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 10):
Seems like outsourcing the barrels was a massive mistake, strategically and intellectual property wise.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
Note Boeing has taken blame for the major problems (lack of fasteners due to late specification, inadequate specification and QA for fastener installation, inadequate design of SOB joint) so I'm not sure how these revelations (sic) would change how the 787 program went.

If memory serves,only one barrel was faulty and that was partly due to attempting a new production method. The bulk of the problems appear to have been management related, poor planning, supervision, rush to judgement etc. etc..
Maybe the union had a couple "ringers" in management? 

A postmortem on the 787 needs to be done sooner rather than later, but in the current political climate, don't look for that to happen anytime soon, lotta folks in mamagement need to loose their jobs, rather than the technical persons let go or marginalized.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6737 times:

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 10):
Seems like outsourcing the barrels was a massive mistake, strategically and intellectual property wise.

This is where I ask "What were they thinking!?!"

Boeing has suggested that the IP is locked down by holding the patents on the material processes to prevent someone from using their know-how. Further, in the short term I doubt the Italian and Japanese barrel builders could start producing for Airbus, others or themselves for contractual reasons alone. They are going to be very busy anyway producing and, hopefully, making money. But....for longer term reasons I'd much rather have those carbon-fiber laying machines and autoclaves squarely under control of Boeing Inc. rather than some other company. Seems risky to not have possession as there is too much at stake with all the corporate espionage and reverse engineering going around. However, the notion of outsourcing was hatched back in the days when Boeing bean counters controlled the helm and thought there was no money in manufacturing the plane but by designing it, snapping together finished segments and selling support services.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30977 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6702 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 10):
Seems like outsourcing the barrels was a massive mistake, strategically and intellectual property wise.

Boeing licensed the basic IP from North Sails and the adapted it for fuselage barrel production, which they then protected by filing their own IP patents. So it was not something completely developed "in house".

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 14):
But....for longer term reasons I'd much rather have those carbon-fiber laying machines and autoclaves squarely under control of Boeing Inc. rather than some other company.

Spirit Aerosystems, who builds the forward section of the 787 fuselage, will also be building (I believe) fuselage sections for the A350XWB. But they are using the construction methodology adopted by Airbus, which is different than that chosen by Boeing.


User currently offlineflybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1801 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6618 times:

I figure Boeing will move any new production to Charleston eventually and they'll provoke an IAM strike to justify it. Chances are they won't announce the new 737 and 777 production facilities until after contract negotiations in 2012. They'll significantly cut IAM contractual benefits in their contract offerings, stall and wait for the picket signs. Boeing has absolutely no intention of starting new production in the Puget Sound region. It's too expensive to use Washington employees when Carolinians will work for 20% less and love every minute of it. If the unions cede expensive benefits in the process of Boeing's move to Charleston, then that's just icing on the cake. By building the production facility in Charleston, Boeing has sent a clear message to its unions that it wishes to become a leaner, union free company.


"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6551 times:

Quoting Stitch (Thread starter):
He went on to list some things that Boeing should "never outsource," including airplane flight controls, the wings and the composite fuselage.

He also noted that this should not be seen by IAM and SPEEA management as vindication and therefore demand significant wage and benefit increases in future contract negotiations.

Does this mean they are going to try to move more of the processes within B and the reference to the wings sounds a bit serious? The arguments that the (add animal of choice) has left the barn are well taken but does the article you cite imply that they are going to reorganize the barn at this stage? How much of the pressure comes from a wish for more technical control and how much financial control?

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 7):
If manufacturing, could Boeing realistically maintain its near monopoly in sales in Japan after it alters the expectations of its Japanese partners that they will build a large portion of Boeing's wide-bodies?

Quite so. I would imagine just the shopping list will have them a touch nervous though probably not enough to change buying habits.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6508 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 3):
With Boeing acquiring the work originally contracted to Vought/Global Aeronautica, what is the new percentage of 787 work that is done in-house?

With the purchases, Boeing now has the aft body (ex-Vought), one of the fuselage barrels and the integration (ex-Global Aeronautica), the vertical fin (always was Boeing Frederickson), an most of the external aerostructure (always was Boeing Winnipeg and Boeing Australia nee Hawker De Havilland). They also basically have the whole nose, since Spirit was Boeing Witchita at the time the 787 production system was designed.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 7):
Point of clarification: Does the "never outsource" list refer to the design of the listed items or does it include manufacturing as well?

Probably some of both, although more heavily on the design side than the manufacturing side. For things that are very complicated design problems with a lot of proprietary design elements and customized analysis (like wings), knowing how to build isn't nearly as interesting as knowing what to build.

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
If memory serves,only one barrel was faulty and that was partly due to attempting a new production method.

I think it was two, but they were production method prototypes...no barrel that was ever supposed to end up in an airplane was faulty that I know of.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 14):
But....for longer term reasons I'd much rather have those carbon-fiber laying machines and autoclaves squarely under control of Boeing Inc. rather than some other company.

The tape layers and autoclaves both come from outside companies...neither one is core Boeing IP.

Quoting flybyguy (Reply 16):
Chances are they won't announce the new 737 and 777 production facilities until after contract negotiations in 2012.

What new 737 and 777 facilities? 777 rate is coming down, not up, and the 737 lines are currently underutilized.

Quoting flybyguy (Reply 16):
Boeing has absolutely no intention of starting new production in the Puget Sound region.

So you're saying that Albaugh is bald faced liar?

Tom.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9634 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6451 times:

A lot of people blame the suppliers for the 787 problems. I personally worked at a major supplier on the 787 program and then worked at Boeing and since have moved to a 787 customer, so in reality I have seen it all.

In my opinion the largest problem with the 787 was the constantly changing requirements that Boeing forced on the suppliers. When I was at one of the top tier suppliers, I designed a wire harness that Boeing told us would be 88ft long. It was subsequently extended to 90ft, 98ft, 120ft and finally ended up 148ft long. Boeing kept changing the specifications after we were beyond the design phase. All the while they were challenging us every day on why we were late. Boeing engineering can accommodate changes late in the design phase, but moving to other companies causes a lot of disruption. My design could accommodate small changes such as the first and second changes, but it required a total redesign for the subsequent changes. All of these are natural in airplane design, but make things extremely difficult for suppliers who only have limited knowledge of the design.

My experience at Boeing proved to me that there are genuine reasons for designs to change. However, it is difficult to communicate this with suppliers since contracts and requirements have already been established.

And finally as being a customer, Boeing (and Airbus) are slow to communicate changes to the customer. They try to get things done on a date, but it is often missed with no reason given. This is for everything from Service bulletins to aircraft designs. In general communication is the problem and I wish Boeing the best. I've seen all sides of it and hope things will improve.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6389 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 13):
A postmortem on the 787 needs to be done sooner rather than later

It seems Airbus has already done one!  
Quoting flybyguy (Reply 16):
I figure Boeing will move any new production to Charleston eventually and they'll provoke an IAM strike to justify it.

Maybe in the very long term, but they're way too exposed to provoke a strike for the next decade or so.

Quoting flybyguy (Reply 16):
Chances are they won't announce the new 737 and 777 production facilities until after contract negotiations in 2012.

That would be a good presumption.

Quoting flybyguy (Reply 16):
They'll significantly cut IAM contractual benefits in their contract offerings, stall and wait for the picket signs. Boeing has absolutely no intention of starting new production in the Puget Sound region. It's too expensive to use Washington employees when Carolinians will work for 20% less and love every minute of it.

I can seem them moving new production away from WA but it'll be at least a decade before enough production is in non-union hands so that a strike won't really hurt Boeing. This means whatever follows 737 and whatever follows 777 and the rest of 787 work all needs to shift to non-union workers, and current 777, 737, 747 and 767 production would also have to stop or slow to a tickle. This might not happen if the 767 tanker deal is won along with follow-on tanker orders and if P8 Poseidon and Wedgetail programs have success and follow-on orders and the 747-8F continues to have no real competition.

Quoting flybyguy (Reply 16):
If the unions cede expensive benefits in the process of Boeing's move to Charleston, then that's just icing on the cake. By building the production facility in Charleston, Boeing has sent a clear message to its unions that it wishes to become a leaner, union free company.

The 20% figure gets multiplied because non-union shops have much more company-friendly work practices as well.

The union would be wise to concede on some of these practices, but union bosses want as many votes as possible and as much dues as possible so wisdom really doesn't enter into it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6363 times:

I have no problems with outsourcing, but you have to do it carefully, and never outsource your core competencies. This seems to be exactly what Boeing is backing out of. Good thing they recognized their mistake.


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8892 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6363 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
The union would be wise to concede on some of these practices, but union bosses want as many votes as possible and as much dues as possible so wisdom really doesn't enter into it.

It is called bargaining for a contract, give and take according to economic conditions. The rest of your statement is rubbish.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12541 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6289 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 22):
It is called bargaining for a contract, give and take according to economic conditions.

Indeed, and so is moving work to non-union states.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 22):
The rest of your statement is rubbish.

That union bosses don't have an interest in the number of votes they get and the amount of dues they take in?

If you think otherwise, you're pretty naive, and I doubt that, so I really don't know what you're on about.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 6189 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 22):
It is called bargaining for a contract, give and take according to economic conditions.

And, let's give Albaugh credit here. He used the Seattle Times interview to start the negotiations by offering an opportunity for reconciliation with IAM by saying "Puget Sound is where we want to be" But, he also signaled, once again, THIS IS YOURS TO LOSE! There are global economic realities that Boeing must address in order to stay competitive. Puget Sound may be favored, but in-house now means North Charleston as well as some other greenfield FAL. IAM need only look to Detroit to see what off-market terms yield in terms of union job retention. SPEEA looks to gain the most by Albaugh comments as they have demonstrated a sincere ability to negotiate. In other words, IAM brinkmanship is not negotiation; it is now a losing tactic.

[Edited 2010-03-02 21:29:42]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
25 N328KF : Yeah, I don't know if anyone really considers Spirit's work as being "outsourced," at least from a design and manufacturing standpoint, for the time
26 Revelation : To quote him from the article: But I didn't see him literally offer to keep future production in WA in exchange for no strikes and lowered escalation
27 trex8 : were the heavies responsible for engineering/production issues which caused delays or was it the Voughts etc?
28 N328KF : Vought in particular was singled out by Boeing for screwing things up. Initially, Alenia had some issues getting their plant going, but it sounds lik
29 Stitch : The Japanese have encountered problems, the side-of-body join being the biggest show-stopper. I have heard the crux of them relate back to the stream
30 MoltenRock : I thing Boeing made an extremely bone-headed decision to produce the 787 the way it did. It wanted to switch to an entirely new model of sourcing / su
31 Revelation : I think this is what Albaugh is referring to when he says they should have listened to the engineers some more. As above:
32 Stitch : On the flip side, Boeing doesn't launch a new airplane family every few years so the 787 was their first chance in a decade and last chance in a deca
33 frmrCAPCADET : The west coast longshoremen long ago rewrote their contract which largely enabled ports to rewrite work rules, have come up with some sort of rule of
34 N328KF : This is exactly how I see it. Other than Spirit, none of the other subs were ready to be cut loose. They probably don't. That's why most firms (even
35 Post contains links Revelation : Not a very good design studio, if you re-read #19 above: I do see a big 'blame the supplier' movement coming from Seattle that I've started a thread
36 astuteman : Interesting comment...... That's how it appears to me too. They took this path for a reason. And the reason was those other companies (and other gove
37 WarpSpeed : I wholeheartedly agree, but our Monday morning quarterbacking will not change this. As someone suggested, do the post-mortem and move forward. The ri
38 WarRI1 : All part of the game, no doubt about it. I evidently did not make my point clear. I can agree, on give and take, the union and the company both have
39 Revelation : Thanks for the clarification. In retrospect I do agree that part of what I said was way too harsh and insensitive. As I said earlier, based on our ot
40 tdscanuck : You need to be careful about which union you're talking about. The boss of SPEEA doesn't give two hoots about the number of votes he gets (he's not e
41 Post contains images Baroque : True but also because can you imagine how quickly any such post would have been deleted for disrespect (or something) back in say 2006, or even as la
42 Revelation : Thanks for the clarification. I did use the word "literally". And I did also say: So, what language is Arbaugh willing to put into a contract? Would
43 WarRI1 : Same here. Quick fingers, slow brain. Too late after I hit post.
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 Completes Destructive Testing On 787 posted Sun Nov 16 2008 07:20:04 by PhilSquares
Boeing Buys Out Vought On 787 Center Fuselage posted Fri Mar 28 2008 05:59:15 by IAD787
Boeing Close To Breakeven On 787 posted Sun May 21 2006 13:29:02 by Lumberton
How Much, Is Too Much On Board? posted Wed Nov 9 2005 19:16:05 by AA767400
Boeing Use Of Rfid On 787 Program posted Fri Nov 4 2005 20:25:21 by MrComet
Boeing Starting Work On 787 Wing Mod. (Flightg.) posted Thu Sep 24 2009 21:58:49 by Aircellist
Boeing Insider: F/As On 787/777 Question posted Sun Oct 19 2008 02:30:46 by Speedmarque
Boeing Provide Update On 787 Program: April 9th posted Mon Apr 7 2008 12:33:52 by Ahtohob346
Leeham: Airbus Sides With Boeing On 787 posted Thu Sep 20 2007 20:27:40 by Ikramerica
Boeing Faces Hurdles, Opportunities On The 787 posted Tue Aug 21 2007 21:57:07 by NYC777