Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Long Beach Hoping To Capture 737-MAX Production  
User currently onlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3123 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11624 times:

The city of Long Beach is hoping that they can lure Boeing to build the 737-MAX next generation airplanes at the former B717 plant in Long Beach, CA. The C-17 is the only aircraft in production there at this time. Apparently a significant amount of modifications will be needed in order for the plant that will construct the new 737. Below are two recent writeups on this matter.

Personally I hope that Long Beach plant can acquire the assembly work for the sake of additional jobs to that area and to create the much sought after 737.


Courtesy: Press-Telegram

A Hopeful Move For Boeing

"Ramping up will require an expanded and refurbished assembly plant, either in Renton, Wash., where the 737 is assembled now, or in another location, such as the million-square-foot 717 facility. The company is assessing which location would make the most business sense."

http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_1896...telegram.com-www.presstelegram.com

_________________________________________________________________________________

Courtesy: Press-Telegram

Council Gets Behind Boeing Plant Effort

http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_1893...telegram.com-www.presstelegram.com

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11621 times:

Please please please make it work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1934 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11549 times:

Ok, so Renton, Charleston and Long Beach...can Boeing really afford to sustain THREE commercial factories?

User currently onlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11525 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 2):

Ok, so Renton, Charleston and Long Beach...can Boeing really afford to sustain THREE commercial factories?

They currently have 3 (Everett). This would be there 4th. And Long Beach is already used as a Boeing FAB (C-17).


User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11504 times:

Why would it make sense to use Long Beach instead of the exisiting 737 facility? From what I have read the changes between the NG and MAX aren't supposed to be (that's a big "if" nowdays), so why recreate infastructure, etc.?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31123 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11474 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 4):
Why would it make sense to use Long Beach instead of the exisiting 737 facility?

It wouldn't.

And let us not forget that Boeing did want to produce military and convertible variants of the 737 in Long Beach last decade, but the IAM in WA State killed that plan and a third 737 line was eventually added to Renton. I am sure they will not have changed their opinion on such a plan with the MAX.


User currently offlinergreenftm From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 weeks ago) and read 11387 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 4):
Why would it make sense to use Long Beach instead of the exisiting 737 facility?

It wouldn't.

And let us not forget that Boeing did want to produce military and convertible variants of the 737 in Long Beach last decade, but the IAM in WA State killed that plan and a third 737 line was eventually added to Renton. I am sure they will not have changed their opinion on such a plan with the MAX.

I actually believe it would make sense. Boeing has stated that they are trying to work out how to increase the production rate in a space constrained Renton plant. Currently it has IIRC 3 assembly lines, one of which is used primarily for military variants. There isn't much physical room to increase their production rate beyond the already planned 40 a month. I believe at one point they were talking about increasing their rate to 61 or 62 a month, which I believe would require them to consider creating a new assembly line, possibly in another location.

One other thing - Boeing clearly would like to explore manufacturing airplanes outside of Washington, very evident with the SC 787 line. If Boeing can show a case of being space restricted, it would seem like a slam dunk to get another line moved out of state, with minimal union interference - and as an added bonus lower CapEx to get the line up and running since they already have a facility that just needs to be retrofitted for the 737.

[Edited 2011-09-27 08:34:25]

[Edited 2011-09-27 08:35:02]

User currently onlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3123 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 weeks ago) and read 11213 times:

Quoting rgreenftm (Reply 6):
actually believe it would make sense. Boeing has stated that they are trying to work out how to increase the production rate in a space constrained Renton plant.

I agree as well. If you have potential customers lined up that want the aircraft you need to figure a way to get going. Do you want to risk losing those customers to another manufacture. In light of the expressed interest in the 737-MAX and the need to fulfull at the planned production rates why not mod Long Beach and plan the details for the new aircraft at the same time. Maybe at the end of the day both the plant and the design will match up on a time line that will allow for the beginning of production.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1881 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 weeks ago) and read 11219 times:

Never happen. The Boeing board would have to spend billions on extra security for themselves if the stockholders ever thought they were going to open an assembly line in California. That state makes Washington look like the corporate promised land.
Every time I have to respond to a spill or disaster there I have to ignore a hundred conflicting, vague, impossible regulations to get the job done. For instance, there's no possible way to legally have a portable, intrinsically safe generator in California because of conflicting rules from safety and environmental agencies. Our own people from California are hardly ever used in other areas because of the insane work and wage rules they come with.
Boeing might be insane, but they're not crazy. (Or, is it the other way around?)

[Edited 2011-09-27 09:00:43]


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31123 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 weeks ago) and read 11127 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rgreenftm (Reply 6):
There isn't much physical room to increase their production rate beyond the already planned 40 a month.

Each 737 line is designed for 22 planes per month and the P-8 line was designed to handle commercial builds, as well. So Renton can handle up to 66 planes per month and military production is below 10 per month. So even at 60 737MAX's per month, Renton should be able to handle it.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11012 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
So even at 60 737MAX's per month, Renton should be able to handle it.

Boeing has shown with the SC line that they are getting a bit leery about having all of their eggs in one basket.

I would be willing to bet real money that if there is another 737 line, it won't be in Washington.



What the...?
User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11003 times:

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 7):
If you have potential customers lined up that want the aircraft you need to figure a way to get going. Do you want to risk losing those customers to another manufacture. In light of the expressed interest in the 737-MAX and the need to fulfull at the planned production rates why not mod Long Beach and plan the details for the new aircraft at the same time.

Because Long Beach is a terrible place do manufacturing. If Boeing can't accommodate the production volume at Renton, a a greenfield site in a right-to-work state or a low-cost country would win hands-down.

Quoting rgreenftm (Reply 6):
If Boeing can show a case of being space restricted, it would seem like a slam dunk to get another line moved out of state, with minimal union interference - and as an added bonus lower CapEx to get the line up and running since they already have a facility that just needs to be retrofitted for the 737.

The "just retrofitting" you describe is more expensive than the facility itself. Not mention, just about any community in the world will provide some/all of the funding necessary for a building as an incentive to gain a high-tech manufacturer.


User currently onlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3123 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10966 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 11):
Because Long Beach is a terrible place do manufacturing.

Then why is the C-17 being built there. Did Douglas and then eventually McDonnell-Douglas do so poorly there?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10926 times:

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 12):

Then why is the C-17 being built there. Did Douglas and then eventually McDonnell-Douglas do so poorly there?

Well, McD no longer exists and the C-17 was created there by McD and it would have cost way too much to move the plant.



What the...?
User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3015 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10900 times:

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 12):
Then why is the C-17 being built there. Did Douglas and then eventually McDonnell-Douglas do so poorly there?

The production line was already up and running when Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged. But any new production doesn't have that advantage.

As another poster mentioned, I can't see Boeing bringing up factory capacity that is not in a right-to-work state. California is pretty much a nightmare for business.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10828 times:

Quoting rgreenftm (Reply 6):

I actually believe it would make sense. Boeing has stated that they are trying to work out how to increase the production rate in a space constrained Renton plant. Currently it has IIRC 3 assembly lines, one of which is used primarily for military variants. There isn't much physical room to increase their production rate beyond the already planned 40 a month. I believe at one point they were talking about increasing their rate to 61 or 62 a month, which I believe would require them to consider creating a new assembly line, possibly in another location.

There was plenty of space in Renton 5 years ago before Boeing sold off all the land that was offices and production space for the 757. It's now shopping malls, but Boeing would have a lot of trouble justifying a move based on space since it was there up until they sold it a few years ago. The current production footprint for the 737 is far smaller than it was as they have made improvements to the process.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):

Each 737 line is designed for 22 planes per month and the P-8 line was designed to handle commercial builds, as well. So Renton can handle up to 66 planes per month and military production is below 10 per month. So even at 60 737MAX's per month, Renton should be able to handle it.

I don't know if you have ever seen the P8A production line, but there is no way that it can handle 22 planes per month. While the main production lines (with the current mods to boost production on the second line) have 8+ production day positions each, the P8A line only has 3. There is not the physical space in that building for a production line at the rate of the other lines.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6161 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 10763 times:

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 12):

California didn't have the insane amount of work rules and environmental BS when McD was building planes. Specially when they decided to start building planes there and probably didn't feel the impacts at the end much. Business is becoming increasingly more difficult in CA and we have brought it about ourselves.

My belief is IF Boeing adds any more lines outside WA, it will be again in a state throwing tax intensives at it, as well as and area where wages are lower. It's business!



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently onlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10670 times:

The politicians in California could bend rules for Boeing to get this Long Beach production. They need this! This state has a ridiculous unemployment rate, and needs this factory here. I really hope California politicians see this.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12732 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10613 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 15):
There was plenty of space in Renton 5 years ago before Boeing sold off all the land that was offices and production space for the 757.

I've always wondered if that decision would come back to haunt them. Not saying it has or will, but to me it was silly to sell off all the land. Most jurisdictions tax unimproved land at a low rate. All Boeing had to do was tear down the buildings and plant grass or grow wild. The taxes they'd pay would be absolutely insignificant to a company like Boeing.

Of course, we can all speculate that by getting rid of the land, they'd make it impossible to build a new airplane there, so they'd have no problem moving to a non-union greenfield site. And of course the recent court papers show what we all knew already, that the CHS FAL for the 787 mainly exists so it can put leverage onto its unions in the future.

But now we have the situation of needing more room, but not enough to build an all new airplane. As above, Boeing's decision to sell off the land at Renton may come back to haunt them.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6161 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10584 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 17):

But they can't seem to get squat past the NIMBY's and environmentalist. I would LOVE to see it, but will believe it when I see it.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlinemhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 702 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 10474 times:

Why is Wichita not being talked about in this thread. 737 fuselages are currently built by Spirit Aerosystems in Wichita and then shipped by rail to Renton. It makes a lot of sense to put MAX's production facilities in Wichita not only because of existing familiarity with Spirit and a large, well trained 737 workforce, but a lot of general aviation workers who are out of a job. Wichita has one of the nation's lowest cost of living and people here want to work in aviation.

Wichita is far more deserving than Long Beach for any kind of MAX assembly facility.


User currently offlineodwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10308 times:

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 20):
Why is Wichita not being talked about in this thread

I had wondered that myself.



Quiero una vida simple en Mexico. Nada mas.
User currently offlinesrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10196 times:

If they are seriously looking at another plant, the Spirit plant in Wichita does makes a lot of sense considering it's longstanding role in the 737 program. But I don't see Boeing doing that unless they bought the facility back from Spirit.

Long Beach does have some logical reasoning for putting the line there as well considering they've got an empty production facility that hasn't been used for a/c assembly in over 5 years. Isn't production on the C-17 slowing down, as the last of the USAF order is scheduled to be delivered in 2013, and there's only a handful of foreign orders on the docket? There's a ready supply of workers right there if C-17 production is winding down and there aren't any orders on the horizon. While California may seem like an odd choice considering the stringent environmental laws and other laws that would seem to hamper reopening the LGB plant, the State may be willing to make some concessions if this line were to come to LGB as it would definitely boost their coffers.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9951 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 17):
The politicians in California could bend rules for Boeing to get this Long Beach production. They need this! This state has a ridiculous unemployment rate, and needs this factory here. I really hope California politicians see this.

California is run by the NIMBY's. Regardless of the economic situation, jobs don't mean as much as catering to every wacky special interest group...the wackier the better.

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 20):

Wichita is far more deserving than Long Beach for any kind of MAX assembly facility.

This is my number two guess but they would probably expand to build more of the parts they supply. The SC plant is surrounded by forest...not much of a hindrance for expansion and though I believe Boeing has essentially instituted a policy of decentralizing production, they don't want it scattered everywhere.



What the...?
User currently offlineGrid From Kazakhstan, joined Apr 2010, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9940 times:

Quoting KarlB737 (Thread starter):
Personally I hope that Long Beach plant can acquire the assembly work for the sake of additional jobs to that area and to create the much sought after 737.

Any reason you want to create jobs there rather than some other place?

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 4):
Why would it make sense to use Long Beach instead of the exisiting 737 facility? From what I have read the changes between the NG and MAX aren't supposed to be (that's a big "if" nowdays), so why recreate infastructure, etc.?

Man, no idea. Massive tax breaks and subsidies?

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 8):
Never happen. The Boeing board would have to spend billions on extra security for themselves if the stockholders ever thought they were going to open an assembly line in California. That state makes Washington look like the corporate promised land.

Good point.



ATR72 E120 E140 E170 E190 Q200 717 727 737 747 757 767 777 A319 A320 A321 A330 A340 MD11 MD82 MD83 MD88 MD90
25 mffoda : OK Joe... I'll bite! NIMBY?
26 mhkansan : "Not In My Back Yard" or an acronym for people that are generally for something as long as they don't have to deal with any of the local consequences
27 asteriskceo : Hahaha. Yeah, it'll never happen. I say that with regret. But even if Boeing discovered some incentive to do business in California, homeowners near t
28 JoeCanuck : I'm willing to bet that Charleston told Boeing, before the first shovel of dirt was moved on the 787 plant, that they are more than welcome to build
29 SANFan : It does seem strange to me that Boeing would go to the expense and trouble of building SC, then turn around and re-configure LGB for the new 737. They
30 ModernArt : I agree with this assessment. Kelly USA in San Antonio, Texas - already a significant Boeing facility.
31 FltMech747 : Agree with nomadd22.. It will never happen, this is the long beach paper stirring the pot without any kind of facts. Boeing did this once before in bu
32 UAL-Fan : Manufracturing in CA....you would have to be completely off your Rocker! This State does everything it can to drive Business away. Second highest unem
33 pgtravel : I'm a homeowner near the airport, and I'd jump for joy at having Boeing building commercial airplanes here again. (Of course, the fact that I'm on a.
34 JoeCanuck : It must get kinda lonely down there...
35 KFlyer : Well, why not in China ? Airbus has already got a production plant there. Or in Brazil perhaps ? As of now, I believe Boeing will be interested in a p
36 JoeCanuck : Actually, Boeing has said that they want reliable production more than the lowest cost. They don't want 100% of their production tied up in labor dis
37 tdscanuck : Every reason not to put the plant in WA applies double to CA...that would be a hell of a business case to sell. US export control laws. Airbus doesn'
38 Post contains images lightsaber : /Boeing is actively moving jobs out of California. Before they would let engineers work from California on Seattle projects. Now it is move to where t
39 kanban : The 4-81/4-82 buildings have room for 4 737 moving lines. the P-8 is in another building. The only thing going on out there is posturing both for the
40 Post contains images KELPkid : Time to put a different spin on this thread... 737 fuselages are manufactured by Spirit Aero Systems in Wichita. They are shipped by rail for final as
41 mhkansan : I think its reasonably safe to assume that the 737 MAX will have similar dimensions to the 737NG. I hope Spirit gets the contract for them, also.
42 BMI727 : Not a chance. Boeing is looking to move ops out of California, not the other way around. When it comes to reducing costs, California might be the wor
43 par13del : A backlog of a couple thousand current models have to be produced or converted, so how does one go from the proposed 40+ per month to at least 20 per
44 greg3322 : The LGB area is served by the Union Pacific, but the line that used to go directly to the airport terminates just north of it now. There are C-17 part
45 Navion : California has become one of the worst places to do business for aerospace companies. The tax situation is bad and has been getting worse and the stat
46 Post contains images Revelation : Why am I not surprised by this? More like a pony out of a pile of manure. Maybe they can borrow some of that mall parking lot space? Same would be tr
47 Post contains images par13del : I meant the creation of Spirit, I believe that prior it was just another Boeing shop, I assume Spirit will continue as they are also involved on the
48 Revelation : California likes to see itself as a leader in various environmental and social areas. Unfortunately that's just not very conducive to business. Also
49 par13del : My thoughts in my initial post was about Boeing management / production changes in general, not specifically related to strikes. As you mention, they
50 cmf : They wish. But they have to follow the terms of every US item they use. I'm sorry but I do not think that is a major obstacle. Of course it depends o
51 KELPkid : How much vandalizm damage do they suffer? My late grandfather was a freight conductor on the Espee out of ELP, and they used to add two cabooses to t
52 KarlB737 : The comment was made based on the fact that the plant already exists and is churning out only 1 type of aircraft and therefore probably has room to c
53 nomadd22 : Although I'm generally opposed to plagiarism, I'm keeping that one.
54 VictorKilo : If Boeing were to launch additional 737 production outside of Washington State, my guess is that it would cast a wide net and try to get as many tax i
55 starrion : Going on the basis of business climate(regulations, labor, governence), CHS, HSV, and TUL are all possibilities. STL might also. California and Detro
56 JoeCanuck : It does for quite a while; last year, IAM signed a 10 year contract with Spirit.
57 Post contains images Revelation : They also got the cash from whatever the investors in the spin-off were willing to pay, and they also got the freedom from making future capital inve
58 BMI727 : The local and state government might be willing to help Boeing out with taxes and such, but Missouri is not a right to work state and perhaps more im
59 greg3322 : The containers still get broken in to, but never had a problem with the wind towers. Of course, they don't stop much since they are so big.
60 wjcandee : The problem with making deals with local councils, particularly ones in otherwise-business-hostile states, is that what one legislature does is not bi
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 To Increase 737 Production To 34 Per Month posted Mon May 17 2010 15:05:17 by aeropiggot
UPS Louisville To Long Beach? posted Mon Aug 10 2009 22:31:33 by Ikramerica
Was The MD12 Going To Be Built In Long Beach posted Mon Apr 24 2006 02:56:59 by 747400sp
Delta To Long Beach posted Sun Sep 4 2005 02:01:19 by Hawaiian717
Boeing To Step Up 737/777 Production posted Wed May 11 2005 15:02:07 by DAYflyer
Conti To Fly 737-824s Long Haul posted Wed Mar 23 2005 23:04:46 by AA737-823
How To Get A 717 From Long Beach To Australia posted Thu Jun 3 2004 18:25:42 by Airtran737
Jet Blue To Long Beach! posted Mon Oct 14 2002 05:56:50 by Spark
Long Beach Says No To AS - Tells AA Only Until 1/6 posted Sat Jun 1 2002 17:00:50 by FATFlyer
Alaska Airlines To Fly To Long Beach! posted Wed May 15 2002 23:36:26 by BA