Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)  
User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2377 posts, RR: 3
Posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10496 times:

I would like to discuss the idea, or the possibility of Boeing adding a 737 MAX line in Long Beach.

-The C-17 is about to end its production life.
-The C-17 building can technically be made into a 737 line (or even a "U" shaped line)
-Boeing already has a staff at Long Beach (from the C-17) trained in making aircraft. Transitioning them to the 737 should be easier than hiring new staff elsewhere.
-There is already a rail link to the site.

What are the down sides to this?

Obviously, people will say "California is the worst place to do business, blah blah blah...." But honestly, this is a lot of jobs in question here. If Boeing really tries hard enough, I am sure they can get the city of Long Beach and the state of California to get somethings on their side. Right?

What I really want to know, is what are the technical down sides of having a 737-MAX line in Long Beach.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10505 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
What are the down sides to this?

Boeing is moving things out of California because the costs and red tape are out of control.

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
If Boeing really tries hard enough, I am sure they can get the city of Long Beach and the state of California to get somethings on their side. Right?

It would likely take a lot of work on a state level at least to make it feasible. Doing manufacturing business in California is more trouble than it's worth.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2377 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10430 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
It would likely take a lot of work on a state level at least to make it feasible. Doing manufacturing business in California is more trouble than it's worth.

The way things are right now, yes. But if you threaten them with nearly a thousand jobs, I feel things could be different.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10277 times:

The MAX for Boeing means minimum investement for banning the thread by the NEO, so Boeing will not invest much to build an extra line. I remember though that Boeing wants to increase 737 production to up to 60 a month to reduce per unit costs and be able to compete with Airbus over the price, and I don't know if there is enough place in Seattle area to do so. If they open another final assembly line, I'm sure it will be in a place where the tax payer pays all investement, workers are cheap and unions have little to say. Check this for Long Beach.

User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2377 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10242 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 3):
I remember though that Boeing wants to increase 737 production to up to 60 a month to reduce per unit costs and be able to compete with Airbus over the price, and I don't know if there is enough place in Seattle area to do so.

From what I hear, the city of Renton is not as friendly with Boeing as Boeing would like them to be.


User currently offlineLV From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 2005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10167 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
It would likely take a lot of work on a state level at least to make it feasible. Doing manufacturing business in California is more trouble than it's worth.

Can anyone say NUMMI? Yeah, that cost the bay area thousands of jobs and tens of thousands more indirectly. Did California's leaders care.... no all they did was stand up there and blame Toyota. There is a reason why new warehouses are still being built in Nevada despite the economic crunch that has hit this state. I had a chance recently too look at the benefits packet for a client of mine. In the packet under certain benefits it says "this is less than what is offered by law in California"... that alone tells you something. I wouldn't want to own a taco stand in California let alone an aircraft plant. There is a reason Boeing is throwing so many resources at South Carolina all of the sudden. It's come to the realization that SC is a state where the legislature will play ball, the business climate is right and the unions are easier to control.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9958 times:

There are many other states that are much, much cheaper to set up the B-737MAX line than California is. These include Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, and even Washington.

Boeing has already sold much of the Long Beach property it got in the MD merger, and the rest of it goes after the C-17 line closes.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9865 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
There are many other states that are much, much cheaper to set up the B-737MAX line than California is. These include Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, and even Washington.

Yes, the buildings and facilities exist in California. But those are one-time costs. Other costs for a business the size of Boeing will be far, far more, and with Boeing's union problems (granted, they are not all the unions' fault) the last thing Boeing is going to do is expand in a non right to work state. I think they have learned their lesson and will be very careful about public statements that even hint at this, but if their executives have IQ's above room temperature that will be their policy. In addition, the regulatory climate in California is probably the worst in the nation, and it will hit a business like Boeing the hardest. They would have to be suicidal to expand in California.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9728 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
Yes, the buildings and facilities exist in California. But those are one-time costs. Other costs for a business the size of Boeing will be far, far more, and with Boeing's union problems (granted, they are not all the unions' fault) the last thing Boeing is going to do is expand in a non right to work state. I think they have learned their lesson and will be very careful about public statements that even hint at this, but if their executives have IQ's above room temperature that will be their policy. In addition, the regulatory climate in California is probably the worst in the nation, and it will hit a business like Boeing the hardest. They would have to be suicidal to expand in California.

Unions have nothing to do with this all the problems would exist even if cal was as anti union a state as they come.

So Cal is just too expensive and its being run by a bunch of idiots. The state wont offer enough incentives that is the biggest problem and the cost of living is just so high even no union the cost of living is just so high. It would be so sad for LGB given its rich history for MD/boeing to have nothing there in production   but i can see it happening they said 800 jobs leaving boeing in 2012 already to Oklahoma City that offered up huge incentives to get boeing jobs. Cal and its horrific government would be the deterrent from so cal not unions LGB has proudly made some of the best planes in the skies for years and years. Whats really bad economically is that even alot of the office and highly paid jobs are leaving long beach and California is sitting back and letting them pack up to states that are offering huge incentives.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 8):
Unions have nothing to do with this all the problems would exist even if cal was as anti union a state as they come.

Actually, unions could have very much to do with this.

When Boeing merged with McD, Boeing wanted to move military and BBJ 737 production to LGB because they didn't have the room at RTN (the 757 line was still present). The IAM in Washington screamed bloody murder, even though I believe the IAM represented McD's workers at LGB, and effectively spiked the plan. LGB commercial operations eventually closed down and the workers were laid off.

If they spiked it before, I see no reason why they would not spike it again.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9614 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
What I really want to know, is what are the technical down sides of having a 737-MAX line in Long Beach.

It has all the disadvantages of Washington, a worse regulatory environment, is far from the existing 737 supply chain, know-how, and engineering.

Basically, any argument about why to put the line in CA works more in favour of putting it in WA.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 3):
I remember though that Boeing wants to increase 737 production to up to 60 a month to reduce per unit costs and be able to compete with Airbus over the price, and I don't know if there is enough place in Seattle area to do so.

Seattle itself doesn't (but Boeing doesn't have any assembly plants that are actually in Seattle). Plenty of space exists in the Puget Sound area if they choose to use it.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 4):
From what I hear, the city of Renton is not as friendly with Boeing as Boeing would like them to be.

That's a property tax thing...the Renton plant is waterfront property in one of the highest real estate markets in the US.

Tom.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9376 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9429 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
That's a property tax thing...the Renton plant is waterfront property in one of the highest real estate markets in the US.

Tom.

I almost burst out laughing. Waterfront real estate OK, but this is commercially used..... providing jobs etc. that cannot be taxed the same level as condos or wealthy homes.

Another point eventually against LGB is the fuselage transport from Wichita by rail. BNSF serves a straight line from ICT to LGB, but would the clearances, especially on the last couple of miles, be large enough for the barrels?

If a second line is needed, ICT and kelly/SAT would be prime contenders.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3105 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9410 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
I would like to discuss the idea, or the possibility of Boeing adding a 737 MAX line in Long Beach.

There was a thread on this subject a short time ago with 60 replies:

Long Beach Hoping To Capture 737-MAX Production

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...hid=5265568&s=Long+Beach#ID5265568


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9360 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 11):
I almost burst out laughing. Waterfront real estate OK, but this is commercially used..... providing jobs etc. that cannot be taxed the same level as condos or wealthy homes.

From the city's perspective... why not? While it is disproportionately helpful to the region as a whole, the Boeing plant employs fairly few people for an operation of its economic importance and doesn't contribute that much to the city of Renton itself. The city of Renton would *love* to rezone that land for residential use; if entirely built up, it would substantially increase the city's tax base and the level of affluence of the city's residents by itself. It really is prime waterfront property with very beautiful views.

The state and county have much more of an incentive than the city to keep the plant operating.


User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9338 times:

You said it yourself:

Obviously, people will say "California is the worst place to do business, blah blah blah...."

This is true. No company in their right mind would expand manufacturing in CA. You can provide for tax incentives but you cannot provide exemptions for the ridiculous red tape and benefit requirements, because those are laws.

California has hobbled itself by letting the legislature run roughshod over the business community during the good times. Because corporations are evil and need strict regulation and oversight and lots of taxes.

"Hey! Where did all the corporations go??!! Who is going to provide jobs and pay for all these social services we created!"



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9376 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9267 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
From the city's perspective... why not? While it is disproportionately helpful to the region as a whole, the Boeing plant

Totally unthinkable here, Airbus as a good comparison, has a prime waterfront location on the river Elbe, Blankenese, across on the other side, is one of the prime residential locations. The city of Hamburg would never get the idea to relocate Airbus., Also, property taxes are the same in the cities, regardless of location.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1384 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9215 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15):
Also, property taxes are the same in the cities, regardless of location.

So a $200 million dollar plant pays the same property tax as the 1,000 $1,000,000 ($1 billion total value) condos built on the same land?


Boeing owns land at the HSV airport. Lets build them in Alabama.

Seems like South Carolina would be the place to build a new line. It might be smarter to spread out the plants, but there are a lot of advantages to keeping plants close together.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9376 posts, RR: 29
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9150 times:

Quoting ADent (Reply 16):

So a $200 million dollar plant pays the same property tax as the 1,000 $1,000,000 ($1 billion total value) condos built on the same land?

Even better, the city of Hamburg paid for the land claim (they had to fill a part of the river) and the whole infrastructure about 750 Million € - 200 Mio won't take you very far here, also for buildings., On top of the real estate tax companies pay a special coroporate tax to the cities which is about 10 to 15% of the profit. That, plus the cities share of the income tax is what makes it attractive to lure companies to locate.

I guess we have much less red tape here, when I read this.

I think the best reason for Boeing to stay at Renton is the skilled workforce and that the plant and real estate must be paid for long time ago.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3551 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 9143 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 17):
I think the best reason for Boeing to stay at Renton is the skilled workforce and that the plant and real estate must be paid for long time ago.


Quite true... really why would one spend $100's of millions to duplicate an existing plant and infrastructure that will be essentially empty if the production moves?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I expect Boeing owns the land the plant is on, so they get the proceeds for selling it.

As for the City of Renton, it's amazing what they have done with the parcels Boeing has sold off. What once was hectares of parking lots is now a massive commercial and residential complex called The Landing.

And let us not forget that those folks who worked at the Renton plant might not have lived or performed commerce in Renton, so Renton might not have earned any tax revenue from them (Renton does not charge a city income tax). They do earn tax revenue from all the folks who live and commerce at The Landing.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2525 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8470 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
Seattle itself doesn't (but Boeing doesn't have any assembly plants that are actually in Seattle). Plenty of space exists in the Puget Sound area if they choose to use it.

I believe that the city of Bremerton is making a proposal. Last night there was a report that Spokane is very likely throwing their hat in the ring (yeah, I know, that one is not Puget Sound area). San Antonio and Wichita seem the most likely contenders if the work's moved out of WA, but my feeling is at the end of the day it'll be built right where the current version is, beautiful downtown Renton.


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8428 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Boeing has already sold much of the Long Beach property it got in the MD merger, and the rest of it goes after the C-17 line closes.

Boeing also has a large engineering/design workforce in Long Beach. Is this something that they would want to move as well?


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8248 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15):
Also, property taxes are the same in the cities, regardless of location.

It's not that the tax rate differs, it's the value of the property affecting the total taxes paid that matters here.

Quoting ADent (Reply 16):
Boeing owns land at the HSV airport. Lets build them in Alabama.

Hell yes. HSV has dual runways with plenty of space around the airport available. And the city of Huntsville would be much more accommodating than any city in California could be.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 21):
Boeing also has a large engineering/design workforce in Long Beach. Is this something that they would want to move as well?

If they can't profitably use them in California, then yes.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7605 times:

Quoting starrion (Reply 14):
This is true. No company in their right mind would expand manufacturing in CA

You're telling me. There is a reason why companies such as Intel are building FABs in other states other than California. Its one thing for California to lose to a Fab in say China or Malaysia, its another thing for California to lose against another state. What a shame.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinestarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7424 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 23):
You're telling me. There is a reason why companies such as Intel are building FABs in other states other than California. Its one thing for California to lose to a Fab in say China or Malaysia, its another thing for California to lose against another state. What a shame.

I watch the commercials and just laugh. I know how my friends that run businesses here in MA struggle with our government, but it was a real shock to find out how much worse CA is.

It's a competition for jobs, and they won't play.
The transport is a problem, the regulatory environment is horrible, energy is an issue, and expected wages are a real shock. And absolutely everywhere is some official who is shocked that you haven't done X because everybody knows you have to CALwhatzit before you can do Y.


Then they are surprised that they keep losing.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
25 n471wn : You are so right----California is done as a business state and as a native it hurts to face the truth----California businesses are moving out in drov
26 tugger : What state has the second most Fortune 500 corporations (behind only NY)? What state has the largest economy? Which state is in the top ten for addin
27 AirCal62 : Commenting on Tuggs comments on Lancaster and Palmdale. Mojave would actually be a better manufacturing site, it is out of the county of Los Angeles a
28 ContnlEliteCMH : Even Ohio would be far preferable, and that's saying something.
29 kaitak744 : So far, we have come to agreement that the politics are far from favorable. Ok. What about technical issues? rail links, land, etc.?
30 slcdeltarumd11 : Plus another factor is how much money boeibg will get for its LGB and Anaheim properties whicj is alot of millions. Last i heard plan was to consolida
31 redflyer : I think the EIR process is somewhat onerous in California as well, which would render the process of building or expanding new structures, rail lines
32 Post contains images N1120A : Which is, of course, why we still have so much of it. You can say NUMMI, but you should now say Tesla Factory. 1000 direct jobs. Oh, you forgot to me
33 flylku : No. Like everyone else said, in one word: California. I worked with a firm out there that was trying to open a new office. To get an occupancy permit
34 Post contains images BMI727 : The only thing better about California compared to Washington is the weather. And that is a nonfactor. Somewhere I heard that every time a C-17 is pa
35 redflyer : That's a pretty broad statement and I'd like to see where that has been codified. What qualifies as not showing a "potential to eat up lots of resour
36 timpdx : And with the new Stadium deal in L.A. for whatever NFL team we get, California has shown its self darn agile to get a deal done, cut the EIR process d
37 ikramerica : This stadium discussion has been going on for decades. Numerous sites were proposed, as well as rebuilding the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum. It was hard
38 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : When I worked in Renton in the late 90's and early 2000's, that was true from what I saw, heard, and read. I remember once post-9/11 when Boeing was
39 RoseFlyer : Boeing has laid many off, but has found that in-sourcing works quite well. Much of the design work for the 747-8 was in-sourced to Long Beach. It's a
40 tdscanuck : Working at military facilities on non-military projects is, on a good day, "challenging." Doing it at Palmdale is a freakin' nightmare. And, as feder
41 SRT75 : Well, the same thing is true in So Cal. Large, highly-skilled, workforce. You don't have that in place in South Carolina, and it is a multi-year inve
42 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps you guys are right. We don't have anyone like Governor Jerry Brown, who when governor back in the 1980s wanted California to fund its own spa
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...
Another Boeing 737-200 Crashes In Congo? posted Wed May 20 2009 17:55:50 by CodyKDiamond
Boeing 737-200 Crashes In Ecuador. posted Sun Aug 31 2008 05:31:33 by Rleiro
Smooth Jet In Long Beach... What Happened posted Wed Jul 12 2006 04:55:24 by Canflight
Was The MD12 Going To Be Built In Long Beach posted Mon Apr 24 2006 02:56:59 by 747400sp
Boeing 737-200 Ban In The UK At The End Of 2005 posted Wed May 18 2005 17:25:40 by SignalOne
JetBlue's Logic In Long Beach, CA? posted Wed Feb 19 2003 03:58:58 by AirT85
Long Beach Hoping To Capture 737-MAX Production posted Tue Sep 27 2011 07:56:02 by KarlB737
Pratt CEO Warns Boeing On 737 MAX posted Wed Sep 7 2011 03:05:21 by blueshamu330s
Entire Boeing 7-7 Line In One Place In One Day posted Sat Jun 19 2010 01:26:09 by haynflyer
Info On Unidentified 737-200 In Daytona Beach posted Tue May 4 2010 18:59:01 by JBAirwaysFan