Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk  
User currently offlineT773ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 278 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk -Sources

June 17, 2007: 08:27 PM EST


"PARIS -(Dow Jones)- Boeing Co. (BA) is preparing to extend production of C-17 cargo jets at its own financial risk, industry and U.S. government officials told Dow Jones Newswires.

Boeing began to shut down its C-17 supply chain in March, saying it could not extend the line past 2009 without a new Pentagon commitment. The Defense Department's 2008 budget request did not include any of the big cargo jets, and Boeing said it was running out of work for its suppliers."

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/...OWJONESDJONLINE000337_FORTUNE5.htm


"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man."
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4906 times:

Let see here...the USAF has commited to 180 airframes, with another 10 up in the air, the RAF has 5 firm & wants another 3, the RAAF has 4 firm orders, the RCAF has 4 firm orders and NATO wants 4 for its fleet. That's a total of 210 airframes, and roughly 170-175 have been delivered so far, leaving 35 at the most to be built. So Boeing is really not taking much of a gamble here. It's a long-term investment on Boeing's part that I'm sure will pay off nicely for the company, and keeping many people employed for at least another 3 years. Well done Boeing. Those future birds won't be whitetails for very long.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 4 days ago) and read 4776 times:

Correct...I don't think they're taking any gamble here...especially since they still have delivery commitments to the USAF through 2009...not to mention FMS commitments. This is another attempt to see if they can garner more orders from the DoD.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4679 times:

I'd say that they have a good idea that there'll be either another US government order or they are pretty sure about the recent RFPs from "people with money".

I doubt they're betting the company the way they are up in Everett.

This may also be a tactic to keep the plant open for possible double use with the 787. Never know what's going through their minds....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26128 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 day ago) and read 4518 times:

Quote:
Boeing saves its C-17 line in Long Beach
Company counts on the cargo plane again topping Air Force's wish list.
June 21, 2007

LONG BEACH - Boeing Co. will use its own money to keep the C-17 assembly line in Long Beach open through at least 2010, company executives said.

The company told workers Tuesday that it's investing its own money to commit Boeing resources for funding 10 new C-17s. Ordering 10 more planes would keep the line from shutting down, allowing the possibility of an even larger order to come through later.

A letter from Dave Bowman, Boeing's vice president and C-17 program manager, announced the news to federal, state and local officials who united to lobby for more C-17s.

"Because of your hard work, we have continued bipartisan Congressional support, and increasing signs that the U.S. Air Force is interested in 30 additional C-17s," Bowman wrote.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/8105197.html



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months ago) and read 4410 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
This may also be a tactic to keep the plant open for possible double use with the 787. Never know what's going through their minds...

It could be, but my guess is Boeing will move the KC-767A/B-767-300ERF production there, with the C-17A. That gives them another production line available (in Everett) for the B-787. Then they don't have to fly B-787 parts to California.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4384 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
This may also be a tactic to keep the plant open for possible double use with the 787. Never know what's going through their minds...

It could be, but my guess is Boeing will move the KC-767A/B-767-300ERF production there, with the C-17A. That gives them another production line available (in Everett) for the B-787. Then they don't have to fly B-787 parts to California.

That would be interesting, although I see that it would be difficult.....although converting the existing line to do both can't be any more expensive than opening a new facility in Everett, and it'd keep the old Douglas line going.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Saw a quote this afternoon in a news story where Murtha says if the authorizers add 10 x C-17s to their bill, he'll add the money for them in the appropriations bill. There were other additions mentioned, mostly on the ships side.

User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

I posted this in the other thread. Could we consider then that the NATO order is assured?.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...hH8AAAEAAAQkfjgAAAAO&modele=jdc_34

Allies Agree On Strategic Airlift Capability Initiative
(Source: NATO; issued June 20, 2007)

Quote:
"SAC aircraft will be flown by multinational aircrews; a multinational military structure will be created to command and control the aircraft. The 17 SAC nations will fly the planes based on their national requirements, which may include national, NATO, or EU operations, as well as other international purposes such as humanitarian airlift or disaster relief for the UN.

In today’s decision, the Alliance formally approved the establishment of a NATO Airlift Management Organization (NAMO) and NATO Airlift Management Agency (NAMA) to acquire and support the aircraft. The SAC plans to acquire 3-4 C-17s; the first is expected to be delivered in mid-2008.

The SAC planes will be configured in a similar way as the C-17s flown by the US Air Force, Canadian Air Force and the UK Royal Air Force. The air crews will be trained to the same basic standards, including air-to-air refueling and night vision operations."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4205 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
I posted this in the other thread. Could we consider then that the NATO order is assured?.....

Well, it sounds like it, but with the EU side of NATO, you can never be sure.

But the same applies to the US side of NATO, so please don't think I'm picking on the Europeans.

The US legislature can be just as stupid (sometimes even more stupid), as any in Europe.


User currently offlineHanginOut From Austria, joined May 2005, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4113 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
It could be, but my guess is Boeing will move the KC-767A/B-767-300ERF production there, with the C-17A. That gives them another production line available (in Everett) for the B-787. Then they don't have to fly B-787 parts to California.

Considering what the value of the land is, it is more likely that the C-17 line would be shut down and moved up to the Northwest or even to the midwest somewhere. I just don't see them moving the 767 line to Long Beach. My guess is that once C-17 production is finished that the Long Beach facility will be shut down and sold to some very eager developers.



Dreaming of the day I can work for an airline
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

The C17 suppliers buy thier stuff some 2-3 years ahead of when Boeing delivers the final airframe produced with that part. So Boeing has to order parts that far ahead to give thier suppliers time to buy from thier suppliers. You don't just wander into target one morning and buy a handful of lego sets and a couple of PSP's and go build a C17 that afternoon.

*IF* the C17 factory is used for anything else, it might be for the 737 military frames after the 737RS is shutting down 737 lines. More likely it would be easier/cheaper for Boeing to build a new assembly hall somewhere close to the spirit plant and call that good.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Set To Extend C-17 Production At Own Risk
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airbus Countries Object To Nato C-17 Buy posted Thu Jun 14 2007 21:12:56 by Lumberton
Did The Ussr Every Design An Answer To The C-17? posted Sat Dec 30 2006 05:48:24 by 747400sp
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
Swedish Air Force To Get 2 C-17 Globemaster posted Wed Oct 4 2006 23:33:12 by Solnabo
Boeing Looks To Acquisitions To Boost UK Profile posted Tue Oct 3 2006 00:40:22 by Osiris30
Nato Moves To Acquire C-17 posted Wed Sep 13 2006 21:47:10 by Columba
Vulcan XH558 Set To Fly Again! posted Thu Aug 31 2006 23:08:07 by A380Heavy
Boeing Tells Usaf The C-17 Line Is Closing posted Thu Jul 13 2006 18:19:38 by Revelation
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
Australia Possibly To Purchase C-17 posted Thu Dec 15 2005 23:04:26 by Glennstewart

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format