Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
737MAX Will Have Third Production Line  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9377 times:

Confirmed by 737 VP Beverly Wise :

“We’re going to introduce a third line when we bring on the MAX from a final assembly standpoint so that as we’re coming down the learning curve on those initial units we’ll be able to really focus and isolate the other two lines from the changes that will come on the MAX and then we will fairly quickly integrate those into the two main lines".-

Good news for the Boeing family...

Rgds.-

G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9302 times:

Good news indeed! Any information on the location of this 3rd line? (Toulouse perhaps?    )


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinepetera380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):
Any information on the location of this 3rd line?

It will be at Renton, WA.


User currently offlinemsp747 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9030 times:

I know part of the settlement with the union was to build the MAX in Renton. Is there a loophole that would allow them to add another line somewhere else? Or would it have to remain in Washington? I wonder if they would build a new facility in Everett or somewhere else in state, or try to expand their operation in South Carolina or another right to work state.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8999 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):
Any information on the location of this 3rd line?

This is confirmation that 737 MAX airframes will be built on the P-8 Poseidon line at Renton. That line is designed to build both commercial and military 737s.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8718 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 1):
Any information on the location of this 3rd line?

The new line will be located where its feeder lines are located, next to Line 1. It will keep the third line for future rate increases.... but your joke about Toulouse was very funny.

Rgds.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3395 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8681 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
This is confirmation that 737 MAX airframes will be built on the P-8 Poseidon line at Renton. That line is designed to build both commercial and military 737s.

Makes me wonder if they won't move the P-8 production to Kansas. Everyone wins. Boeing gets a new line, likely paid for by someone else. Renton workers get the possiblity of 3 full rate lines with a clean transition on each one. The Navy sees its P-8 kept more "sterile" which even if pointless will make them happy. Spirit areosystems, spends some now, makes bales of cash later.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6):
Makes me wonder if they won't move the P-8 production to Kansas.

The IAM would never stand for it. P-8 production is low enough that Boeing could push close to 60 737 MAX a month out of Renton if they had to.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8489 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
This is confirmation that 737 MAX airframes will be built on the P-8 Poseidon line at Renton. That line is designed to build both commercial and military 737s.

The "third line" will actually be a fourth line. The P-8 line will remain dedicated to military derivatives (a DOD requirement). Boeing will do some rearranging of the current Renton facility to add a third dedicated commercial line, between the two existing commercial lines. Each commercial line will have a capacity of 21 frames per month.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3395 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8409 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 8):
The P-8 line will remain dedicated to military derivatives (a DOD requirement)

The P-8 as built in renton has nothing sensitive from a military standpoint. While the DOD would prefer to keep it a stand alone line, it would only make any civilian 737 built on that line slightly more expensive than its normal brothers due to the extra paperwork/oversight.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The IAM would never stand for it

Why would they care if *only* miliary 737 production moved to Kansas to free up more room for full rate civilian production. It would increase the number of workers at Renton for decades to come. If CM is right and there is room for the 3rd full line without moving the P8 line, I don't see a case for moving the production.


User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8318 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
The P-8 as built in renton has nothing sensitive from a military standpoint.

No argument. However, Boeing has no interest in sending commercial aircraft down a line that would turn a few days of flow into months... even if the issues could be worked with the DOD. Boeing is not pursuing building commercial frames on the DOD line. When the MAX enters service, there will be 4 production lines in the Renton factory, with three building commercial frames.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3493 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8306 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
This is confirmation that 737 MAX airframes will be built on the P-8 Poseidon line at Renton. That line is designed to build both commercial and military 737s.



The FAL building the the current 737 is in has a second bay (formerly the 757 lines) that can be converted to 2 737MAX lines. The indication is they are only activating one. the P-8 line in is a different building and although it could produce commercial 737's of either configuration, it is a much slower line.

The goal is to pump out a 737 at a 2 to 3 a day rate from the moving line, the P-8 is more like 1 a week or slower (bikerthai would know for sure) Now if they activated the second 757 line space for the MAX, and the suppliers could support, they could conceivably produce 6 -7 a/c per day (120-140 a month)... darn near B-17 rates.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8249 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CM (Reply 8):
The P-8 line will remain dedicated to military derivatives (a DOD requirement).

I was under the impression that while the P-8 is assembled in a different building due to ITAR compliance, they could still run commercial birds down the line as the facility is access-restricted so non-US nationals without the proper clearance cannot access the FAL. The new 767 FAL is ITAR-compliant but can do both commercial and military frames, so it must have been designed to restrict access when a KC-46 is in one of the two bays.

That being said, if Boeing doesn't need to use the P-8 line and has space to build a third commercial FAL...

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
Why would they care if *only* miliary 737 production moved to Kansas to free up more room for full rate civilian production.

They killed Boeing's plan to move 737-700C / C-40 production to Long Beach. I see no reason why they would allow those jobs to go to Wichita.

[Edited 2012-07-09 09:40:41]

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8097 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
the facility is access-restricted so non-US nationals without the proper clearance cannot access the FAL.

How many workers can that factor affect ?? The areas with restricted access are not that big AFAIK. Can you elaborate on this ?

Thanks in advance.

Rgds.

G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineCM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8026 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 13):
How many workers can that factor affect ??

Boeing has a very diverse workforce, with many foreign nationals employed in all roles.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 13):
The areas with restricted access are not that big AFAIK.

The US Department of State and US Department of Commerce place rigid restrictions on what information and technologies these "non-US persons" are able to access. This is true for both commercial and military projects. In the case of the P-8, it is my understanding the Department of State restricts non-US persons from having access to the design areas, its production facility, and the aircraft itself.

Setting up an ITAR controlled area is a large and inconvenient undertaking - if it can be avoided for a commercial production line, you would absolutely choose that path.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2102 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 7996 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):

This is confirmation that 737 MAX airframes will be built on the P-8 Poseidon line at Renton.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6):

Makes me wonder if they won't move the P-8 production to Kansas.
Quoting CM (Reply 8):

The "third line" will actually be a fourth line. The P-8 line will remain dedicated to military derivatives
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
737 built on that line slightly more expensive than its normal brothers due to the extra paperwork/oversight.
Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
the P-8 line in is a different building and although it could produce commercial 737's of either configuration, it is a much slower line.

This is all too confusing. I thought you guys answered my un-posted question. But I guess I'm still confused.

Will there be a total of 3 lines (2 NG & 1 MAX/P-8) or 4 (2NG, 1 NG/P-8, and one MAX)?

As for the P-8 ITAR issue. The only additional cost of building a Commercial 737 on the P-8 ITAR line is the additional overhead cost of making sure everyone on the line is a "US Person" and are up to date on Training. There is no additional paperwork for the airframe. The paperwork is related to the line and is sunk cost (needed anyway).

I did heard that the flow on the ITAR line will be slower than the non ITAR line. But the difference is only a few days (5-10?). Most of the Militarize equipment that slows the production is done at Boeing field at the dedicated P-8 Military production line. Remember, Spirit has the same ITAR issue when they assemble the basic structure at their facility.

What I am sure is that there would be no P-8 only line at Renton. The P-8 rate is too low to support a separate line. They will either feed the NG or the MAX through the same line to take advance of the factory space - even though the line would move at a slightly slower pace. It would be no difference than having the Everett and SC plant flowing at a different rate for the 787.

Moving the P-8 line to Spirit is a not as good as it seems cause the wings are made in the Puget Sound. So instead of sending fuselage to PS you'll end up sending wings to Wichita . . . a whole new complication in logistics.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7906 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 9):
Quoting CM (Reply 8):
The P-8 line will remain dedicated to military derivatives (a DOD requirement)

The P-8 as built in renton has nothing sensitive from a military standpoint. While the DOD would prefer to keep it a stand alone line, it would only make any civilian 737 built on that line slightly more expensive than its normal brothers due to the extra paperwork/oversight.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The IAM would never stand for it

Why would they care if *only* miliary 737 production moved to Kansas to free up more room for full rate civilian production. It would increase the number of workers at Renton for decades to come. If CM is right and there is room for the 3rd full line without moving the P8 line, I don't see a case for moving the production.

I've been mulling over this for a while. My:
  

is that one of the many messages from the 787 debacle (cool it, fans - I think it will nevertheless be one of the classic aeroplanes despite all; and that Boeing will make an absolute truckload of money out of it. I'm talking here about the catastrophes that led to the 3-4 year delay, and the lessons to be learned).

... (the debacle)... That is, the failures of a couple of high-profile partners to send anything remotely resembling acceptable components/sub- assemblies to WA surely drove home the message that making these "high-tech" babies like the 787 requires unusual and rare agglomerations of skills, capital, management depth, herd-wisdom, etc etc..
So, to me, the logic is that the great bulk of the work for new aeroplanes and/or major "high-tech" upgrades will and should continue to belong in WA state (or, equally, Toulouse/Frankfurt in the Airbus case).

The flip side of the coin is that the IAM and Boeing need to reach a mutual understanding that "known-tech" products do not need to be produced by the highly-skilled+highly-paid WA workforce (the two naturally go together).
In fact, such products should be placed to maximise profitablitiy for the remainder of their lives.
That is, "known-tech" products should seek the lowest cost-base at an acceptable quality-level.
The 737NG and 777LR/ER fit the bill, and at some future stage should probably be considered for an agreed move-out to some degree to allow continued production during the MAX and 777X intros which would follow ... (and they may each in fact continue to be produced for some time thereafter).

The zip-code for such moves do not seem likely to be in WA state.

I realise that this is not quite what you both mean in the quotes above ... but nevertheless germane. (I hope.)

Bill



Billy
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9604 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7804 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 6):
Makes me wonder if they won't move the P-8 production to Kansas.

There are places other than Kansas that could support the P-8 line. They could even build it at Boeing Field since the Thompson building which is where the 737 was originally produced is relatively vacant right now. They wouldn’t be able to put the vertical stabilizer on while in the factory, but that’s not an insurmountable problem.

Also who said anything about Spirit? I doubt they have a chance at building anything final assembly, and Boeing desires to shut its own operation in Wichita down.

Quoting CM (Reply 14):
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 13):
How many workers can that factor affect ??

Boeing has a very diverse workforce, with many foreign nationals employed in all roles.

It’s actually not that diverse in Renton. Boeing hasn’t hired non-US persons in a while in Renton. Basically everyone there is a U.S. person and all the office spaces are ITAR. I’d be surprised to find too many foreign nationals working on the 737 final assembly line.

Quoting CM (Reply 14):

Setting up an ITAR controlled area is a large and inconvenient undertaking - if it can be avoided for a commercial production line, you would absolutely choose that path.

I’m not assuming that it could or will happen, but the wings for the P-8 go down the same production line as the regular 737 wings and the wing line goes into ITAR controls in the area of each set of wings. However I seriously doubt that a P-8 would go down the same line as a MAX. The P-8 is and always will be a 737NG.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 15):
What I am sure is that there would be no P-8 only line at Renton. The P-8 rate is too low to support a separate line. They will either feed the NG or the MAX through the same line to take advance of the factory space - even though the line would move at a slightly slower pace. It would be no difference than having the Everett and SC plant flowing at a different rate for the 787.

I’m a bit surprised that you are sure there would be no P-8 line in Renton, because I doubt the VP of Renton quoted is sure about that. The P-8 line does not have enough space in the 4-17 building to be moving at the same pace as line 1. Maybe it could be at the pace of line 2. Either way, it would require significant remodeling.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2102 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7759 times:

Quoting CM (Reply 14):
In the case of the P-8, it is my understanding the Department of State restricts non-US persons from having access to the design areas, its production facility, and the aircraft itself.

Setting up an ITAR controlled area is a large and inconvenient undertaking - if it can be avoided for a commercial production line, you would absolutely choose that path.

Non-US person are allowed to have access when cleared and escorted.

With the P-8 ITAR line, it helps that the line is in a separate building than the commercial line. I believe the Tanker line is in the same "building" as the other commercial models, but may be fenced off.

Restriction sometimes involves no more than some yellow "do not cross" tape with appropriate personnel to make sure who ever crosses that tape is a "US person".

Quoting CM (Reply 14):
Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 13):
How many workers can that factor affect ??

Boeing has a very diverse workforce, with many foreign nationals employed in all roles.

Although I'm not completely sure, but I think one of them is our own A.net tdscanuck.

The ITAR issue permeates the company more than just the P-8 or Tanker line. Boeing has Facilities around the country and around the world building both Commercial and Military product. If ITAR activities are done at any location, then special procedure must be followed at each location from factory floor segregation and signage to database isolation (for Engineering and Planning data etc).

In fact . . . Boeing is having ITAR parts built in India. They just have to get approval from the State Department and have the Indian Supplier be ITAR compliant.

(Some of these parts are ITAR primarily because they are used on a military product. There is nothing special in terms of design, manufacturing and/or performance that would cause these parts to be ITAR otherwise. The same can be said of the P-8 frame that rolls down the Renton line.)

bt

[Edited 2012-07-09 11:47:52]

Edited to remove incorrect comment. I think my memory confused the P-8 with the Wedgetail frame.  old 


[Edited 2012-07-09 12:10:19]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9604 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7743 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 18):
Remember that the first few P-8 went through the regular commercial line . . .

What? All the P-8's were produced in the 4-17 building starting in 2008 when the first one entered final assembly. The wedgetails went through normal production line, but those were built like BBJs and then converted.

[Edited 2012-07-09 11:49:08]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7602 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 15):
Will there be a total of 3 lines (2 NG & 1 MAX/P-8) or 4 (2NG, 1 NG/P-8, and one MAX)?

4 lines in the future:
1 P-8 + 2 737NG + 1 (new) 737 MAX with the 2 existing 737NG to be converted to 737MAX once NG production ramps down.

Quoting kanban (Reply 11):
The FAL building the the current 737 is in has a second bay (formerly the 757 lines) that can be converted to 2 737MAX lines. The indication is they are only activating one. the P-8 line in is a different building and although it could produce commercial 737's of either configuration, it is a much slower line.

The former 757 line is what is used as the second commercial 737NG line.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30898 posts, RR: 87
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7585 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Seattle Times posted an article on the Renton plant last week, including a picture of the Renton plant's floor plan: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2018604845_boeing05.html

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2102 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7463 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 20):
4 lines in the future:
1 P-8 + 2 737NG + 1 (new) 737 MAX with the 2 existing 737NG to be converted to 737MAX once NG production ramps down.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
4 lines in the future:
1 P-8 + 2 737NG + 1 (new) 737 MAX with the 2 existing 737NG to be converted to 737MAX once NG production ramps down.

Thanks,

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1986 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7290 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
The Seattle Times posted an article on the Renton plant last week

Thanks for the link. From the picture description : Boeing's plant in Renton now has two assembly lines for the workhorse 737, including the No. 1 line shown here. Boeing will make space in front of that line for a third line, slated for the new single-aisle jet, the 737 MAX. It will begin building the MAX there by 2015.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2102 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7236 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 23):

From the floor plan, it looks like the MAX line will be squeezed in between the NG Line 1 and Line 2. An the P-8 line is in the other building, which can accommodate commercial NG frames as the other lines convert to MAX lines.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
25 par13del : Why would they want to go there???? If a loophole exist it will be questioned, and you can rest assured that a work stoppage will take place while th
26 kanban : 4-17 is an office complex the P-8 and wing line is the the 4-20 complex (4-20 through 4-23 0r so) The P-8 was not in the 737 commercial line but-was
27 tdscanuck : There may or may not be a legal loophole; I've never seen a public statement either way. However, the spirit of the agreement was very obviously that
28 kanban : Sorry, the Thompson Building has been revamped and is the P-8 outfitting center... There are no vacant FAL sized building in Seattle/Renton. Having s
29 r2rho : A coincidence that this comes right after the Airbus FALabama annoucement? I don't think so... With the current plan, Boeing is ramping up 737's slowe
30 EPA001 : Taking both quotes into account I take it that Boeing has room enough for the 3r FAL within the current main buildings? Or do they need to put up new
31 bikerthai : Yes, green card holders are permanent US residence and are treated as citizens in terms of ITAR. There are some foreign citizen working at Boeing but
32 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks. I missed that picture. .
33 msp747 : I would never want to see 737 production leave the area, I was just thinking out loud. The whole purpose of the Charleston line was to keep things mo
34 enilria : Will it be in the South of France? :p SAT question # 485: "As Renton is to Mobile, Toulouse is to : "
35 tdscanuck : The whole basis for the agreement with IAM to put the 737MAX in Renton was an extension of the contract; in other words, they mitigated the risk of a
36 kanban : Just to put the line movement in perspective, today a P-8 for India had first flight as wall as a 737 off the regular production line. The P-8 is line
37 N328KF : Do keep in mind that the P-8 line is not fully ramped-up yet. Furthermore, Boeing is pitching several derivatives, which would be produced off of the
38 kanban : I would suggest that if the export models are coming off the line, it's pretty well ramped up. If they add other derivatives, they will do a rate inc
39 bikerthai : Do you have the number of days that #4120 took to go through the P-8 line? As I recall Boeing anticipate a 12 days flow for the standard 737 line and
40 kanban : No, I just saw that they both had first flight the same day.. Granted also the the P-8 spends more time in preflight.. how much?.. no idea. The idea
41 Post contains images bikerthai : Even if the P-8 line can only produce airplanes at half the rate of one of the commercial lines. I would not bet that it won't see a commercial frame.
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...
United Will Have A Retro 757 Next Year posted Wed Nov 17 2010 07:44:29 by ramprat74
Whose Plane Is That? (A380 Production Line Photo) posted Thu Jul 29 2010 06:12:07 by elcableguy77
Is The A330 Production Line Working At Full? posted Sun Jul 18 2010 13:11:56 by A380900
New 767 Production Line posted Thu Jul 8 2010 16:35:10 by cosmofly
Boeing May Build A Second 787 Production Line posted Wed Jun 17 2009 06:40:47 by NCB
DL Will Have Freighters After All, JV With AF/KL posted Tue May 26 2009 18:33:03 by GARUDAROD
Tu-154. Still In Production Line? posted Sat Jan 31 2009 02:31:30 by SIBILLE
737 Production Line Is Temporarily Shut Down.. posted Tue Nov 4 2008 11:53:44 by Bahadir
Routes That Will/have Reached Saturation Point posted Mon Oct 13 2008 07:36:30 by B773A346
Estimated Life Cycle And Production Line Activity posted Thu Jun 19 2008 20:26:55 by Brewha