EI321
Topic Author
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:10 pm



Quote:
Vought Aircraft has entered damage control mode after executives acknowledged the company's high-risk status as one of six key structural producers on the Boeing 787 programme.

The company has admitted errors and welcomed outside intervention, with both steps apparently intended to save face in the glare of public scrutiny over supply chain and production problems on the 787 that contributed to the programme's six-month delay for first delivery.


http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...es-shine-spotllight-on-vought.html

Exactly what problems are Vought having?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:27 pm



Quoting EI321 (Thread starter):
Exactly what problems are Vought having?

This article from the 10th outlines many of them: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2004005472_vought10.html
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:38 pm

From the second article, this was Boeing's biggest mistake:

"• When Vought took on the 787 work, it had to "reconstitute an engineering department" from disparate units that had been acquired separately, while at the same time "starting up a green field site in a remote location.""

Boeing is big enough that you have to wonder why they would choose a supplier who is ill-suited for the task.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Rheinbote
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 9:30 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 7:10 pm

It's obvious from the photos available on Vought's website that the first sections they shipped to Boeing for LN001 had barely enough internal structure fitted to keep them from ovalizing. Only a handful of floor beams and frames, no stanchions, no floor grid, no lower deck, no brackets, let alone pre-stuffed systems.
http://www.vought.com/gallery/locati...southCarolina/sc_production_18.htm

Also, it seems sections 47 and 48 could not be made to fit properly. Have a look at the circumferential joint between the cutout for the stabilizer and the passenger door. The grey strip shows the waviness of the barrels to advantage. Pictures taken on 7/8/07 showed that this issue had not been fixed by then and had just been puttied over for the roll-out.
http://www.vought.com/gallery/locati.../southCarolina/sc_production19.jpg

The joint between sections 47 and 48 needs special care because it is in a highly loaded area, the sections are conical and the pressure bulkhead is nearby. I'd guess that in order to fix the joint, sections 47 and 48 had to be taken apart after the roll-out.

May be another simple 'out-of-round' issue with the lack of fasteners as the root cause, may as well be a design flaw. The latter would fit a rumor I heard that 'one major joint was flawed and had to be taken apart after roll-out...and may even require a redesign'. Would not be a showstopper tho, even if true.
 
abba
Posts: 1382
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:47 pm



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 3):
Would not be a showstopper tho, even if true.

Even if it is not a showstopper - then how long time might it further delay the project if true?
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:47 pm



Quoting Abba (Reply 4):
Even if it is not a showstopper - then how long time might it further delay the project if true?

Apparently they've known about for some time, so I'd imagine it's factored into the current schedule, with the six month delay.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:58 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 5):
Apparently they've known about for some time, so I'd imagine it's factored into the current schedule, with the six month delay.

Yep, it's really hurting the rampup and launch of 787-10 more than the delivery of the first set of planes.

I wonder if Boeing is looking to a new supplier for rampup/787-10, to build the same sections as Vought? They could easily come online in 4 years. Maybe a Japanese company who's doing a much better job and has more resources could expand their role...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
alangirvan
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2000 2:13 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:27 pm

Is Vought the only problem? Are barrel sections of the NG 777 candidates to be produced by the same method, if Vought can get it right?
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:27 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
wonder if Boeing is looking to a new supplier for rampup/787-10, to build the same sections as Vought? They could easily come online in 4 years. Maybe a Japanese company who's doing a much better job and has more resources could expand their role...

I'm wondering that myself. I would imagine there must be clauses in the contract between Boeing and Vought that would allow Boeing to terminte the agreement if Vought can't meet certain goals. I am quite frankly surprised that given their troubles, Boeing selected them in the 1st place. Either there just wasn't anyone else, or Vought came in with an unbeatable price proposal for their work - sometimes you get what you pay for. I can only hope that the situation can be rectified and that delays don't start to snowball.
 crossfingers 
 
PVG
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:39 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:12 am

Why doesn't Boeing just buy Vought? It seems that they need money. They already have the facilities. Seems like it would be a much easier solution to buy the company and run it yourself, rather than having to start with a new supplier from scratch.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:12 am



Quoting PVG (Reply 9):
Why doesn't Boeing just buy Vought? It seems that they need money. They already have the facilities. Seems like it would be a much easier solution to buy the company and run it yourself, rather than having to start with a new supplier from scratch.

That's one option, but it means absorbing the risk rather than sharing it.

I was more suggesting that Vought not be dropped, just they can't be expected to expand their output. So another supplier already on the team, like somebody in Japan, may be able to build more of the sections, and they would still be integrated once brought to the states.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:27 am



Quoting Alangirvan (Reply 7):
Are barrel sections of the NG 777 candidates to be produced by the same method

No such aircraft is even sketched out.

NS
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13772
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:45 am



Quoting Gigneil (Reply 11):
No such aircraft is even sketched out.

I would assume that a Y3 is sketched out at Boeing (not a 777NG), but the process may not be set. I doubt it will be simple to transport full barrels of a Y3 because of the size, at least by air. And the A380 convoys show how impractical it can be on the ground.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:26 am

Everything Boeing has done in the last 10 years has always seemed bizarre. My questions include:

Why did Boeing move their headquarters to Chicago? They never really gave a decent answer why they thought this was necessary. I can't believe that they had any more problems selling aircraft from Seattle than Airbus has selling aircraft from Toulouse or Embraer has selling aircraft from Brazil.

Whose dippy idea was it to promote the Sonic Cruiser which they withdrew because none of the airlines wanted it? You would think somebody would ask the airlines what they were looking for before launching something as radical as the Sonic Cruiser.

Why did Boeing spend countless hours and PR to paint the A380 as a failure because nobody wanted large four-engined aircraft only to make a 180 degree turn later on and introduce the 747-8?

Why did Boeing spend billions on producing the enormously complicated 787 rather than just shortening the 777 fuselage by a few frames like Airbus did with the A319? The could have produced a 9-across long-distance aircraft with commonality to the existing 777's that the airlines would have bought in quantity.

Why did Boeing move so much production away from Seattle? I can understand that there are political reasons for sourcing from Japan and China because they are big markets. But what was gained by sourcing from Voight and Alenia? Italy is not much of a Boeing market.

Why did Boeing stage a huge roll-out ceremony for the 787 when the airplane was nothing but a bunch of pieces held together with masking tape and chewing gum? And why didn't the PR people who insisted on the roll-out on July 8, 2007 know that in the rest of the world this date is written 8/7/07 causing the whole gimmick to fall flat on its face anyway?

I am not a Boeing basher. My first airplane flight was on a 707 and I still feel a pang in my heart on the rare occasions I see a 727 fly by. I have always loved both those planes. But is there anybody in charge at Boeing?
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
PVG
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:39 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:27 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
That's one option, but it means absorbing the risk rather than sharing it.

I was more suggesting that Vought not be dropped, just they can't be expected to expand their output. So another supplier already on the team, like somebody in Japan, may be able to build more of the sections, and they would still be integrated once brought to the states.

Got it. But, with 700 orders and counting, what is the risk today? It is a very successful product. Seems to me that buying Vought is an opportunity, especially since Boeing can hold back money and strain their cash-flow.
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:38 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
I am not a Boeing basher.

Good to know, cause you were sure fooling me!
 
elvis777
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:23 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:02 am

Howdy all,

nifty article that may add a bit more to the discussion.....

Peace

Elvis777

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...zes%20787%20production%20oversight


Oh yeah I am not a Boeing basher either  Smile
Leper,Unevolved, Misplaced and Unrepentant SportsFanatic and a ZOMBIE as well
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:07 am

Sorry. I am not a Boeing basher or any other basher.

I am just old enough to remember when the only planes in the sky were Boeing, Douglas or Lockheed and the only cars in the road were GM and Ford. My first trip to Europe as a child was on TWA and Pan Am. Age tells.

I realize the the US could not expect to dominate the world forever, but I would have thought that we could have given the Europeans and Asians more of a run for their money than we did.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:17 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move their headquarters to Chicago? They never really gave a decent answer why they thought this was necessary. I can't believe that they had any more problems selling aircraft from Seattle than Airbus has selling aircraft from Toulouse or Embraer has selling aircraft from Brazil.

I personally disagree with the move, but its important to remember commercial aircraft are only part of Boeing's product portfolio.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
You would think somebody would ask the airlines what they were looking for before launching something as radical as the Sonic Cruiser.

They did ask, and many airlines were interested. In fact, the way Boeing developed SC technology so it could be leveraged on the 787 is fairly impressive and shows they were concerned that rising fuel prices could hurt the SC market. Also, they never actually launched the SC.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend billions on producing the enormously complicated 787 rather than just shortening the 777 fuselage by a few frames like Airbus did with the A319? The could have produced a 9-across long-distance aircraft with commonality to the existing 777's that the airlines would have bought in quantity.

Airlines had no interest in a shorter 777, which was proposed on several ocassions. An airplane that cost nearly as much to buy and operate as a 777-200 but seats fewer passengers was not going to do well. And this was long before the 787 was on the drawing board. Simply put, the 767 had been loosing market share to the A330 for years, and Boeing needed an aircraft that would dramatically improve on existing offerings to regain its place in this market. A shrink 777 simply would not have had the economics to do it, and from the sales record of the 787, I can't see anyone thinking its launch was a strategic mistake.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move so much production away from Seattle? I can understand that there are political reasons for sourcing from Japan and China because they are big markets.

In theory, this would result in lower production costs. Outsourcing production is common in many industries and very benneficial, but with a project like an airliner it is a logistical nightmare. Obviously Boeing has some holes in the current setup, but it is too soon to declare the plan a success or failure.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing stage a huge roll-out ceremony for the 787 when the airplane was nothing but a bunch of pieces held together with masking tape and chewing gum? And why didn't the PR people who insisted on the roll-out on July 8, 2007 know that in the rest of the world this date is written 8/7/07 causing the whole gimmick to fall flat on its face anyway?

The ceremony was in the works long before the extent of the problems was apparent--reschedualing it was not an option.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:20 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Everything Boeing has done in the last 10 years has always seemed bizarre.

Lets see what these are...

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move their headquarters to Chicago?

What's so bizarre about it? Probably got some good tax concessions, and Chicago has a larger management talent pool.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Whose dippy idea was it to promote the Sonic Cruiser which they withdrew because none of the airlines wanted it?

At the time, labor costs were the number issue at airlines, hence the SC made sense. Now that fuel costs have taken center stage, the 787 is more relevant. So both were good ideas, but the 787 is right for the time.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend countless hours and PR to paint the A380 as a failure because nobody wanted large four-engined aircraft only to make a 180 degree turn later on and introduce the 747-8?

Please point out one source where B spent real resources to call the 380 a failure because it had 4-engines. (there are none) From the late 90's everyone knew a 747 derivative was coming, so I wouldn't call it a 180 degree turn.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend billions on producing the enormously complicated 787 rather than just shortening the 777 fuselage by a few frames like Airbus did with the A319?

What would a shortened 777 have produced? A very heavy and uncompetitive airframe like the SP.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move so much production away from Seattle? I can understand that there are political reasons for sourcing from Japan and China because they are big markets. But what was gained by sourcing from Voight and Alenia? Italy is not much of a Boeing market.

The "political reason" for having the Japanese heavies involved is that they kick a$s and do a great job on many other Boeing products.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing stage a huge roll-out ceremony for the 787 when the airplane was nothing but a bunch of pieces held together with masking tape and chewing gum?

Because that's what a rollout ceremony is: a dog and pony show. Just ask Airbus.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
And why didn't the PR people who insisted on the roll-out on July 8, 2007 know that in the rest of the world this date is written 8/7/07 causing the whole gimmick to fall flat on its face anyway?

Because the rollout was done in a little country called the U S A where Boeing is headquartered and which understands the date configuration.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
I am not a Boeing basher.

Really  scratchchin 

Quoting PVG (Reply 14):
Seems to me that buying Vought is an opportunity, especially since Boeing can hold back money and strain their cash-flow.

Vought would indeed be a good purchase, but I'd suggest that they by only the units that are involved with the 787 as opposed to the whole company.

iwok
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:25 am

are there problems with Alenia too or only Vought?
its a joint Vought-Alenia share so it may not be possible to drop Vought if Alenia are doing fine.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:26 am

It's not really a question of being a Boeing basher either. I have the utmost respect for the engineers and machinists in Seattle.

The problems with Voight stem from the MBA's who are more interested in their stock options. I have no doubt that the experienced personnel in Seattle were perfectly capable of designing and manufacturing the 787 competently. But the finance guys figured on their spreadsheets that by using a subcontractor they could increase profits by 3.24796% or some such similar number and the decision was made to make the fuselage sections at Voight. Now they have problems and the resulting expenses and delays will probably more than cancel out the extra profit earned by using the subcontractor in the first place.

I am not a Boeing basher, but when I hear the word "Boeing" I think of the airplane manufacturer located at "Boeing Field" in Seattle, not a bunch of low-bid contractors with cash-flow problems.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:33 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 18):

I am new on this site also and I agree with Eghansen also, in our time we have watched this self destruction of the US manufacturing superiority due to greed of the US companies and their executives trying to bleed every dime out of anything they make, and we all know we do not make much anymore here in the US. A company like Boeing to outsource so much of this aircraft is stupid in my opinion, how are you going to control quality?, I think that question is already answered with this aircraft. The auto industry and now the aircraft industry going down the tubes, lets hope not.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:45 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
I wonder if Boeing is looking to a new supplier for rampup/787-10, to build the same sections as Vought?

I wonder if Vought is one of the vendors Bair alluded to a few weeks ago when he said (in his first public comments since being whacked as head of the 787 program) that some vendors were not up to the task and won't be used again in the future.

Quoting Elvis777 (Reply 17):
Howdy all,

nifty article that may add a bit more to the discussion.....

Peace

Elvis777

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...sight

I wonder if the Tom Captain in the article is the same "Captain X" that used to lurk in these forums. He wouldn't be so dumb as to use his real name as part of his A.Net user ID, would he?
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:45 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 22):
I am not a Boeing basher, but when I hear the word "Boeing" I think of the airplane manufacturer located at "Boeing Field" in Seattle, not a bunch of low-bid contractors with cash-flow problems.

For better or worse, modern economic realities--as well as the huge scale of developing modern jets--make that view out of date. The 787 has had problems, but your criticism doesn't make sense.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:57 am

I don't know enough about Boeing to know what their financial position was. It is likely that they did not have the capital to produce a new aircraft without partners. I also know that Boeing has a long history of animosity with their unions in Seattle and their management probably was happy to outsource the work to non-union or foreign plants.

But as Mattel is finding out in China, when you find a subcontractor who will do something for less than the in-house cost, you better be prepared to spend large amounts of time and money overseeing the subcontractor to make sure the job is done right or the loses from recalls and delays will end up costing more than the savings from using the subcontractor in the first place.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1769
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:58 am



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
I wonder if Boeing is looking to a new supplier for rampup/787-10, to build the same sections as Vought? They could easily come online in 4 years.

The immediate concern is the ramp-up in the first half of 2008. Boeing needs to ramp up to about 6 per month, and fast.

The planned ramp-up numbers are:
- 109 deliveries by the end of 2009
- baseline production rate reached by LN28
- about 40 aircraft built at the time of certification

Based on those metrics, one can approximate the production ramp-up as follows (not including the static and fatigue test articles) :

Built/Delivered
12/07 0/0
01/08 1/0
02/08 1/0
03/08 1/0
04/08 2/0
05/08 2/0
06/08 3/0
07/08 3/0
08/08 4/0
09/08 5/0
10/08 5/0
11/08 6/0
12/08 6/3
01/09 6/6
02/09 6/10
03/09 6/10
04/09 6/10
05/09 6/10
06/09 6/10
07/09 6/10
08/09 6/10
09/09 6/9
10/09 6/8
11/09 6/7
12/09 6/6
Total 111/109

During early production, Vought probably needs to build the sections 1-2 months before they're used, so they need to complete 17 shipsets (give or take a few) by the end of this June, with production rate continuing to build up after that. If the major subs can track to this schedule (as will be revealed by Dreamlifter movements) Boeing can hit their promised 109 deliveries by the end of 2009.
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5188
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:12 am

The issues mentioned by Vought are threefold: (1) Engineering dept reconstitution to share in the engineering/process work; (2) greenfield facility development; (3) subcontractors and liquidity.

Parts one and two are basically in the past: the engineering work is largely done, and the product is being produced, and the facility is up and running. Part three is trickier. Chances are that these are the guys who "shocked" Boeing when they took the contract and subbed out all sorts of engineering and other stuff; now we know why: they needed risk-sharing partners (read capital contributors) and engineers. The more they sub out the more they lose control over. The smart move on their part was to call for reinforcements NOW, rather than later, and Boeing should be able to help them get this under control.

Although the Vought saga shows a vulnerability in the distributed manufacturing model, it also shows a strength. The well-capitalized suppliers that have been performing well may see it as an opportunity to step up and seek to take a bigger share of the additional work that will be provided by a ramp-up (although they must balance their investment against the potential for a collapse in the global airliner market, as has often happened in the past). Moreover, if Vought manages to remove head from butt, then this program could be the ticket to their longer-term survival and regeneration, the saving of a proud name in American aviation manufacturing. LTV went through a lot from the 80s to today; maybe "V" will pull through and prosper. In short, the competitive give-and-take, the opportunity for some manufacturers to shine, prove themselves, and get more, are all part of the distributed model and are kinda cool.

In response to another poster, yeah, Alenia was having some problems, too. They say they've got them licked. We'll see.

As a frequent traveler on subway and railroad cars here in NYC that were made by the Japanese heavies, I never had any doubt that they'd do a bang-up job, and they have. And they appreciate the business, since their economy is a shadow of what it was during that period in the 80s and 90s where everybody was afraid that they were going to buy our whole country from us. Economics has cycles, some driven by political forces, some driven by the "blind hand", and some driven by genius and stupidity. Like here, like there, like everywhere. And the Japanese companies are doing great and thank us for their business.

As to the Boeing move to Chicago, remind me, but aren't there a couple of airlines that have substantial operations and executives there? Isn't aircraft-selling (and purchasing) a face-to-face, handshake business dominated by a few powerful personas? How many Boeing airline customers are based in the Pacific time zone? How's the domestic flight schedule out of SEA these days? The schedule to major European cities that buy airliners? Where does most of the financing activity take place, and where are most military purchasing decisions made, and how many time zones are those away from Chicago? From Seattle? How easy is it to get the best younger executives to join your company when they know that their kids will ask, "Where's Dad tonight?" as Dad gets on yet another 5 hour flight to talk to bankers or government people? Whose kids will be in school with who-else's kids, and what charities and informal civil involvements will allow cross-communication between decision-makers during their daily lives? None of these issues is dispositive, of course, but these are the kinds of things that anybody considers when they choose a headquarters and that Boeing specifically considered when they were considering moving. (Dallas was another city that they were interested in, btw, and of course places like New York and Atlanta wanted to be considered.) Chicago is a compromise in a whole lot of ways, but it has strong commercial air service all over the world, making it easy for customers and salespeople and executives and financial folks and government officials from DC, and it has a lot of those other intangibles. Some of these intangibles have proven to be less-important than once thought, particularly when balanced against things like quality of life, cost of housing, education, etc., taxation rates for the corporation and its headquarters employees, etc. This is why so many companies resisted moving their headquarters from New York City for so long (remember, most of the industrial giants, military contractors, etc., had a substantial executive presence here in the 50s and 60s), and why once they fled the insanely-high taxes and cost of living, many found that they could do better, on balance, even without hobnobbing at the PTA or gym or country club or charity function. Bottom line, it's a complicated issue with risks and rewards. Having lived in Chicago, Dallas, LA and here in NYC, I can say that lots of cities adapt their start times, bed times, etc., in their executive offices to where the people they have to interact are, and that one-hour-versus-three-hours thing is not insignificant. The rest...I have less insight to. Except that Chicago is one heck of a lot colder than New York in the winter. And that WIND. Yow. (But I also know that everybody I met during my three years there that was from Chicago couldn't imagine living anywhere else...I mean virtually to a person they felt that way...and relished living in the kind of place that routinely found lawyers and bankers and executives walking out of the office on a warming spring day and going to sit at Wrigley and watch the Cubs, or where the city just lights up like noplace else on nowhere so big a scale on the first warm day after the winter and everybody just stops what they are doing and sits outside at a cafe or in the neighborhood drinking something mood-altering and annually enjoying the kind of relaxed, what-me-worry, kind of group convivality that you find much less often in the Big Apple -- like during a citywide blackout.)
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:14 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 26):

In my humble opinion, you are correct in what you have said about the mindset of the people running Boeing and the state of mind of these people with respect to unions and subbing out the work on this aircraft. It is taken out of the book which all managers all over the world subscribe to now, that even if it destroys the company, we will prevail over the workers and wring every dime out of the company to build up our stock options and walk away wealthy. It is a story as common as the nose on our faces is the US, we perfected the system and we are now paying the price.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:14 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move their headquarters to Chicago? They never really gave a decent answer why they thought this was necessary.

Because the McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing merger had to be seen as a merger of equals, not a takeover. Put the headquarters in Seattle...Boeing takeover. Put the headquarters in St. Louis...MD takeover. Put it in Chicago...neutral (and very tax-advantaged) ground.

Plus, it had the added benefit of keeping the executives far away from where work is actually done (yes, that's a good thing).

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):

Whose dippy idea was it to promote the Sonic Cruiser which they withdrew because none of the airlines wanted it?

The airlines wanted it right up until 9/11 ruined the industry and fuel prices went through the roof. Boeing even started thinking about it because that's what the airlines said they wanted at the time.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend countless hours and PR to paint the A380 as a failure because nobody wanted large four-engined aircraft only to make a 180 degree turn later on and introduce the 747-8?

There isn't a single piece of sanctioned Boeing work (i.e. that Boeing itself actually spent hours or PR on) that brands the A380 as a failure. Obviously, Boeing promotes the 787 as a better choice because they want to sell 787's, not A380's.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend billions on producing the enormously complicated 787 rather than just shortening the 777 fuselage by a few frames like Airbus did with the A319?

Because nobody wanted to buy a shortened 777. Besides which, the 787 is actually considerably simpler than the 777.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move so much production away from Seattle?

Boeing doesn't care a whit where the suppliers do their work. If the Japanese heavies wanted to build plants in Seattle, Boeing couldn't be happier. They moved a lot of production out of Boeing final assembly because a lot of it doesn't need to be done there and it's (by far) the most expensive place to do it.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing stage a huge roll-out ceremony for the 787 when the airplane was nothing but a bunch of pieces held together with masking tape and chewing gum? And why didn't the PR people who insisted on the roll-out on July 8, 2007 know that in the rest of the world this date is written 8/7/07 causing the whole gimmick to fall flat on its face anyway?

For Part 1: because the rollout was scheduled long before they knew how finished the airplane would be at the time.

For Part 2: because it's an American company.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 22):
I think of the airplane manufacturer located at "Boeing Field" in Seattle

Boeing doesn't actually manufacture any commercial products at Boeing Field, nor is the commercial headquarters located there.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 23):
I am new on this site also and I agree with Eghansen also, in our time we have watched this self destruction of the US manufacturing superiority due to greed of the US companies and their executives trying to bleed every dime out of anything they make, and we all know we do not make much anymore here in the US.

You're aware that the US is still, by far, the world's largest manufacturer, right?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 23):
A company like Boeing to outsource so much of this aircraft is stupid in my opinion, how are you going to control quality?

Quality is primarily a manufacturing/assembly function, not a design function. Boeing (and Airbus) have outsourced a huge amount of their manufacturing/assembly for decades. The big difference on the 787 was the outsourcing of more design and the outsourcing of manufacture of some components (notably the wing). This isn't as much a leap as you might think, given that they'd already outsourced fuselages, nacelles, landing gear, avionics, leading and trailing edges, actuators, and empennage on other programs. Boeing (and Airbus) already know pretty much all their is to know about controlling supplier quality.

Tom.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:34 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):

I would question the part about the largest manufacturer, I know we are the largest importer, In my lifetime the outsourcing as in the case of the 787 has become epidemic in this country, like a fever, we older folks call it greed. As for Airbus as far as I recall it outsourced for political gain because of the future EU and to compete against the US by joining forces with other European countries, hence they all got a bite of the pie.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
eghansen
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:18 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Because the McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing merger had to be seen as a merger of equals, not a takeover. Put the headquarters in Seattle...Boeing takeover. Put the headquarters in St. Louis...MD takeover. Put it in Chicago...neutral (and very tax-advantaged) ground.

I can't answer for the in-house reasoning used by Boeing at the time, but considering the resulting company is called "Boeing Aircraft" and all its planes are called "Boeing" including the "Boeing 717" which was inherited from McDonnell-Douglas and since discontinued, the move to Chicago seems to have defeated the purpose.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Plus, it had the added benefit of keeping the executives far away from where work is actually done (yes, that's a good thing).

Interesting suggestion. I expect we can look forward to Microsoft moving its headquarters from Seattle to Denver, Mercedes-Benz moving its headquarters from Stuttgart to Madrid and BMW moving its headquarters from Munich to Dubai all in the name of separating those pesky executives from the engineers who actually design the product.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
The airlines wanted it right up until 9/11 ruined the industry and fuel prices went through the roof. Boeing even started thinking about it because that's what the airlines said they wanted at the time.

The story sounds familiar. If I remember rightly, the same thing happened with a plane called the Concorde. Lucky for Boeing they dodged the bullet.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
There isn't a single piece of sanctioned Boeing work (i.e. that Boeing itself actually spent hours or PR on) that brands the A380 as a failure. Obviously, Boeing promotes the 787 as a better choice because they want to sell 787's, not A380's.

I may have misspoke if I used the word "failure". What I did hear Boeing spokespeople officially say many times was that in the future the airlines would be buying aircraft designed to fly more thin point-to-point routes instead of dense hub-to-hub routes. Now Boeing sells the 747-8 as the perfect size for routes where the 787 is too small and the A380 is too big. They seem to be acknowledging that there is a market for large aircraft after all.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Because nobody wanted to buy a shortened 777. Besides which, the 787 is actually considerably simpler than the 777.

It doesn't really matter what the airlines want to buy. All that matters is what the competition is producing. At the time Boeing spent $10 billion or so developing the technologically difficult 787, Airbus's plans were for a warmed-over version of the A330 with new engines. The airlines might not have liked a shortened 777 as much as the 787, but they would have bought it anyway because there was nothing else available and Boeing would have saved a few billions in development costs. In addition, the shortened 777 would probably be celebrating it's first year or two of successful commercial service right about now.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Boeing doesn't care a whit where the suppliers do their work. If the Japanese heavies wanted to build plants in Seattle, Boeing couldn't be happier. They moved a lot of production out of Boeing final assembly because a lot of it doesn't need to be done there and it's (by far) the most expensive place to do it.

I have no doubt that Vought in South Carolina is much cheaper than Boeing in Seattle. You get what you pay for. And if the manufacturing had not been moved to Vought, we would not running this thread discussing their problems.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
For Part 1: because the rollout was scheduled long before they knew how finished the airplane would be at the time.

For Part 2: because it's an American company.

An American company manufacturing an airplane which is being sold almost entirely to foreign customers (except for 50 planes for Continental and Northwest). I have no doubt that the roll out was scheduled to prop up the stock price so a few more stock options could be exercised by upper management before the delays became public and the stock price tanked.

Or maybe now that the executives are far away from the manufacturing, they were not aware that the airplane being rolled out was going to be rolled right back in and disassembled. I certainly looked good in the satellite feed!!

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Boeing doesn't actually manufacture any commercial products at Boeing Field, nor is the commercial headquarters located there.

Sorry. My mistake. Renton and Everett. Maybe now that Boeing is subcontracting all their work to cut-rate contractors they can close the plants in Renton and Everett and move the remaining skeleton operations back to Boeing Field where the company originated.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
You're aware that the US is still, by far, the world's largest manufacturer, right?



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Quality is primarily a manufacturing/assembly function, not a design function. Boeing (and Airbus) have outsourced a huge amount of their manufacturing/assembly for decades. The big difference on the 787 was the outsourcing of more design and the outsourcing of manufacture of some components (notably the wing). This isn't as much a leap as you might think, given that they'd already outsourced fuselages, nacelles, landing gear, avionics, leading and trailing edges, actuators, and empennage on other programs. Boeing (and Airbus) already know pretty much all their is to know about controlling supplier quality.

If this is true, why are we running this thread about the quality control problems at Vought? I am missing something here.
Nowadays, it is hard to tell when the commercials end and real life begins
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:25 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move their headquarters to Chicago?

To get away from the unions at Commercial Aircraft who kept picketing HQ.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Whose dippy idea was it to promote the Sonic Cruiser which they withdrew because none of the airlines wanted it?

The CEO of AA said he wanted the first three years of production to keep it out of his competition's hands.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend countless hours and PR to paint the A380 as a failure because nobody wanted large four-engined aircraft only to make a 180 degree turn later on and introduce the 747-8?

Because nobody wanted a 747-X or a 747-X Stretch, but some did want the 747-8.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend billions on producing the enormously complicated 787 rather than just shortening the 777 fuselage by a few frames like Airbus did with the A319?

Because a 777-100 would weigh too much for the payload it carries and would have been less efficient.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing move so much production away from Seattle?

They went where the risk-sharing parters were.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing stage a huge roll-out ceremony for the 787 when the airplane was nothing but a bunch of pieces held together with masking tape and chewing gum?

PR.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:36 am



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 32):
All that matters is what the competition is producing. At the time Boeing spent $10 billion or so developing the technologically difficult 787, Airbus's plans were for a warmed-over version of the A330 with new engines

The simple fact is a short 777 could not compete with the A330-200, which is an overall lighter frame and better optimized in the market. I'm sorry, but the disadvantages of a shrink are no easily surmounted, and I'd respectfully suggest investigating the engineering issues and business cases of the proposed 777-100 vs. the 787 before making a claim that simply can not be substantiated.
CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
 
SUPRAZACHAIR
Posts: 474
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 3:27 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:32 am

Outsourcing is the economic reality of today's world. Like it or not, its here and its not going anywhere. It sucks, but what are you gonna do about it? Complaining about the good ol' days doesn't change anything. We got to where we are for a reason. As far as importing products go, I'll just say that maybe Ford and Chevy would regain market share if they would produce a car that doesn't... whats the word? Oh, a car that doesn't 'suck'. I'll take a Toyota over any American car any day.
 
PlaneInsomniac
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:34 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:44 am



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 30):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 23):
I am new on this site also and I agree with Eghansen also, in our time we have watched this self destruction of the US manufacturing superiority due to greed of the US companies and their executives trying to bleed every dime out of anything they make, and we all know we do not make much anymore here in the US.

You're aware that the US is still, by far, the world's largest manufacturer, right?

Not to be a smart aleck, but which metric are you using for this statement? As far as I know, according to the WTO, Germany has been the largest exporter of merchandise for the last three years in absolute numbers, and will almost certainly keep that title in 2007 (see www.wto.org -> Resources). If you view the entire EU as a single entity, it's not even a competition at all.
Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
 
wjcandee
Posts: 5188
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2000 12:50 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:48 am



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 36):
Germany has been the largest exporter of merchandise

Well, remember that it's not all about exports; gross domestic product is going to include stuff produced and consumed in the same country, and the US still makes a lot of what it consumes. Just a thought...
 
PlaneInsomniac
Posts: 356
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:34 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 8:09 am



Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 37):
Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 36):
Germany has been the largest exporter of merchandise

Well, remember that it's not all about exports; gross domestic product is going to include stuff produced and consumed in the same country, and the US still makes a lot of what it consumes. Just a thought...

Granted, the US certainly has the world's largest GDP, unless you consider the EU a single entity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29). (The GDP, however, also includes all sorts of domestic industries and services, e.g., agriculture, food processing, health care, financial services, which are not directly related to any sort of technologically advanced industrial manufacturing). It's just that the previous poster appeared to be a little too enthusiastic and absolute with his statement.
Am I cured? Slept 5 hours on last long-haul flight...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:05 pm

In a small blurb in this morning's Seattle Times, Boeing and Torray noted they are considering increasing CFRP production by 40% - sufficient to build 14 787s a month from the current planned 10 starting in 2010.

EDIT - Zeke was kind enough to direct me to a much more in-depth article at Bloomberg.com - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=alwGtWMV8OYk&refer

[Edited 2007-11-20 06:23:26]
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:46 pm



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Everything Boeing has done in the last 10 years has always seemed bizarre.

Do mean decisions like developing the 773ER/2LR/F?

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 31):
I can't answer for the in-house reasoning used by Boeing at the time, but considering the resulting company is called "Boeing Aircraft"

Actually, its called The Boeing Company.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 32):
Quoting Eghansen (Reply 13):
Why did Boeing spend billions on producing the enormously complicated 787 rather than just shortening the 777 fuselage by a few frames like Airbus did with the A319?

Because a 777-100 would weigh too much for the payload it carries and would have been less efficient.

Stitch is correct. A 777-100 would have been a poor competitor to any model of the A330 and Airbus could have dominated this market segment with no need to create the A350.

Do a little homework before you post.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:01 pm



Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 39):
Do a little homework before you post.

hey guys, lets give him some slack, not everyone here is an expert like some of you or is this forum only for the cognoscenti?
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:08 pm



Quoting Suprazachair (Reply 34):

I would say that we got to where we are because of the insatiable demand for cheap products in the US, everyone wants to make a ton of money and then pay the next guy a pittance, this includes companies, union people, non-union people, doctors lawyers and indian chiefs.(nothing insulting here, I hope) Boeing Aircraft is now doing it big time and will we all be richer for it? I seriously doubt it. the trickle down theory is not working too well in this global economy which has affected the living standards and future employment opportunities at Boeing and thousands of other companies in the US, Canada. I cannot speak for other countries, where I have not traveled., I have witnessed it in my many travels to Canada, it is harder to find a Canadian made product just like in the US.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
parapente
Posts: 1287
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 5:38 pm

Boeing will get this aircraft right. They always have done.And what an aircraft it will be!

By the way you moaner's over the pond- I wish we Brits still had a civil aircraft industry at all!

If the 787 is anything like they claim, and I have no reason to doubt them, it will be -as they say-a game changer. It covers the whole 767 market and the -200 aspect of the 777.No wonder it sells like hot cakes. Considering what its made of (the colour) it reminds me of a quite successful guy who sold alot of something that was "any colour you want as long as its black" It will sell as well as that I believe.

Boeing are usually (always) conservative with their performance figures. Lets see what it does in the air. Then lets see if Airbus (who sadly tend to miss their claims) can match it with the A350. I hope they do but it's going to be tough I believe.
 
Stratofortress
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:16 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:08 pm

Dear Mr. Eghansen:

Seeing that you just joined recently, here is a small piece of advice, that may enable you to keep some credibility. Do some research and thinking before posting obtuse comments. May I suggest a little more research into economics, world politics, and large enterprise management. Additionally, look into the history of the The Boeing Company (NOT Boeing Aircraft) and current sources of its revenue (think government contracts).

There are perfectly reasonable and correct explanations posted by several members (Iwok, Tdscanuck, Stich) that should address your concerns and questions.

Now, I realize that you are new to the site and cant wait to have many, many replies to the posts that you have started and that is OK... Just make sure you don't destroy your credibility along the way.

Sincerely,

Stratofortress
Forever New Frontiers
 
threepoint
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:49 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:32 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 41):
it is harder to find a Canadian made product just like in the US.

Indeed, many of today's product labels proudly claim "Designed in Canada" with cheerful little maple leaves that all but obscure the small print: 'Fait au Chine'.


It was interesting reading Eghansen's list of pertinent observations, many of which I have been asking myself as well. What was more interesting was the way many of you responded. To the three of you who chirped in immediately and focused on the 'Boeing basher' aspect, please save our time in future and work on adopting a less defensive attitude.
To those of you (Stich, Dw747400, WarRI1, Tdscanuck, etc) who replied with thoughtful posts, thank you for your contributions.
The nice thing about a mistake is the pleasure it gives others.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:43 pm



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 30):
I would question the part about the largest manufacturer,

2003 (newest I have handy) industrial output/manufacturing numbers:

#1 US: $2,271B / 1,523B
#2 Japan: 1,307B / 894B
#3 China: 893B / 889B
#4 Germany: 721B / 495B
#5 UK: 496B / 319B

So manufacturing in the US is 85% as much as number two and three put together.

Also, from '89 to '04, manufacturing output in the US is up 51% (which basically continues a very long trend).

IOW, overall manufacturing in the US is quite healthy.

Now as a proportion of our total economy, it's shrinking fairly fast, but that's a different issue. Industry down to about 18% of the US economy, about two-thirds of that is manufacturing. Services are now about 80%..

OTOH, and this is where the real complaint is coming from, manufacturing *employment* has been taking a nose dive over the last 30 years, even as manufacturing output has increased dramatically. I can't find the exact link I'm looking for, but in the 1980-1999 interval manufacturing output more than doubled, while manufacturing employment basically halved. Further, net imports of manufactured items and related stuff (so this is actually a broader category then manufacturing, but not as broad as industrial) into the US is currently ('04 numbers) on the order of $400B/yr, so that's at most a limited effect. Increases in productivity have had a much larger negative effect on manufacturing employment than all other factors, including imports, combined. IOW, it's not that the jobs have gone overseas, it's that they've just gone away.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:20 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 30):
I would question the part about the largest manufacturer, I know we are the largest importer, In my lifetime the outsourcing as in the case of the 787 has become epidemic in this country, like a fever, we older folks call it greed. As for Airbus as far as I recall it outsourced for political gain because of the future EU and to compete against the US by joining forces with other European countries, hence they all got a bite of the pie.



Quoting PlaneInsomniac (Reply 35):
Not to be a smart aleck, but which metric are you using for this statement? As far as I know, according to the WTO, Germany has been the largest exporter of merchandise for the last three years in absolute numbers, and will almost certainly keep that title in 2007 (see www.wto.org -> Resources). If you view the entire EU as a single entity, it's not even a competition at all.

Actual manufacturing output. For a huge internal market like the US, that is a *very* different thing than export output.

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 45):
2003 (newest I have handy) industrial output/manufacturing numbers:

#1 US: $2,271B / 1,523B
#2 Japan: 1,307B / 894B
#3 China: 893B / 889B
#4 Germany: 721B / 495B
#5 UK: 496B / 319B

So manufacturing in the US is 85% as much as number two and three put together.

Bingo. Thank you for nailing down the figures. The reason the US has an enormous trade deficit and is seen by the outside world as losing its manufacturing prowess is because the vast majority of US manufacturing is consumed internally.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 31):
I can't answer for the in-house reasoning used by Boeing at the time, but considering the resulting company is called "Boeing Aircraft"

As noted, it's "The Boeing Company" but, much more importantly, The Boeing Company's logo is...the McDonnell-Douglas logo. Boeing got the name, MD got the logo.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 31):
What I did hear Boeing spokespeople officially say many times was that in the future the airlines would be buying aircraft designed to fly more thin point-to-point routes instead of dense hub-to-hub routes. Now Boeing sells the 747-8 as the perfect size for routes where the 787 is too small and the A380 is too big. They seem to be acknowledging that there is a market for large aircraft after all.

Boeing never said there was no market for large aircraft...their own market predictions showed that there was. What Boeing thought, as reflected in the comments you note, and as borne out by the marketplace, was that there is a bigger market in the 787/A350 class than in the A380/747-8 class.

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 45):
OTOH, and this is where the real complaint is coming from, manufacturing *employment* has been taking a nose dive over the last 30 years, even as manufacturing output has increased dramatically.

Exactly! US manufacturing productivity is still among the highest in the world...as a result, you need less people to produce the same amount. The US is very very good at making tons of stuff with relatively few people. Hence enormous manufacturing, primarily to supply the domestic market, but low manufacturing employment.

Tom.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Wed Nov 21, 2007 4:40 am



Quoting Threepoint (Reply 44):



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 46):

Ok, I cannot dispute the figures given in reply 46, they are after all trade figures put out by industry and the government and we know that we can bet the farm on the word of those folks. this is what I know and that is up to the 787 aircraft by Boeing, most of the manufacturing was done by Boeing and their subcontractors in the US and you could probably find made in the US on them or trace their history back to the US. I am sure they subbed out some to none US companies. I am not an expert on these matters and do not pretend to be. I do know that today when you try to find made in the US, it is damm near impossible, for awhile we at least made our own toothpaste and toothbrushs, not so anymore, look at the labels on the products. Plumbing, hand tools, electrical and electronics, clothing, food, fruit juice concentrate, toys, hardware,nails,bolts and such and the list goes on adnauseum, all 90% gone overseas. I would like to know how someone can afford to buy toilet paper, made in the US so productively that there is no need to pay anyone so there are no jobs to earn a living to buy the toilet paper. I would suggest that everyone in the US start scratching off those little price tags that are so conveniently put over the place where the article is made and then tell me about our manufacturing output. Look at the parts percentage on so called US made cars. Then we have the service sector jobs which pay so handsomely you have trouble buying the so efficiently produced toilet paper. I hope they do not put those little tags on aircraft parts which go into the aircraft we all fly on.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:37 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 47):
this is what I know and that is up to the 787 aircraft by Boeing, most of the manufacturing was done by Boeing and their subcontractors in the US and you could probably find made in the US on them or trace their history back to the US.

Please do a little research on the world wide content of Boeing airplanes prior to the 787. Major components such as 767 body sections (Japan), 767 flaps (Italy), 757 flaps (Northern Ireland), 777 body sections (Japan), 777 flight control systems (England) and some engines for all three (England and France) were made overseas. These are only a few of the components Boeing bought outside the US.

Boeing sells its commercial airplanes to the world. For the past decade, foreign sales have been well over 65% of the Boeing's commercial aircraft sales. It's naive to think that Boeing can lock out the rest of the world from participation in production of these airplanes yet still find a global market for them.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
trex8
Posts: 4618
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: 787 Troubles Shine Spotllight On Vought

Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:38 pm

isn't something like about 20% of the 777 airframe from overseas and about half that on the 767