kaitak744
Topic Author
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:13 am

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

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

What are the down sides to this?

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

What I really want to know, is what are the technical down sides of having a 737-MAX line in Long Beach.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:17 am

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

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

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

It would likely take a lot of work on a state level at least to make it feasible. Doing manufacturing business in California is more trouble than it's worth.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
kaitak744
Topic Author
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:35 am

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

The way things are right now, yes. But if you threaten them with nearly a thousand jobs, I feel things could be different.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:10 am

The MAX for Boeing means minimum investement for banning the thread by the NEO, so Boeing will not invest much to build an extra line. I remember though that Boeing wants to increase 737 production to up to 60 a month to reduce per unit costs and be able to compete with Airbus over the price, and I don't know if there is enough place in Seattle area to do so. If they open another final assembly line, I'm sure it will be in a place where the tax payer pays all investement, workers are cheap and unions have little to say. Check this for Long Beach.
 
kaitak744
Topic Author
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:18 am

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

From what I hear, the city of Renton is not as friendly with Boeing as Boeing would like them to be.
 
LV
Posts: 1546
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 6:02 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:40 am

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

Can anyone say NUMMI? Yeah, that cost the bay area thousands of jobs and tens of thousands more indirectly. Did California's leaders care.... no all they did was stand up there and blame Toyota. There is a reason why new warehouses are still being built in Nevada despite the economic crunch that has hit this state. I had a chance recently too look at the benefits packet for a client of mine. In the packet under certain benefits it says "this is less than what is offered by law in California"... that alone tells you something. I wouldn't want to own a taco stand in California let alone an aircraft plant. There is a reason Boeing is throwing so many resources at South Carolina all of the sudden. It's come to the realization that SC is a state where the legislature will play ball, the business climate is right and the unions are easier to control.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:06 am

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

Boeing has already sold much of the Long Beach property it got in the MD merger, and the rest of it goes after the C-17 line closes.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 4960
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:49 am

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

Yes, the buildings and facilities exist in California. But those are one-time costs. Other costs for a business the size of Boeing will be far, far more, and with Boeing's union problems (granted, they are not all the unions' fault) the last thing Boeing is going to do is expand in a non right to work state. I think they have learned their lesson and will be very careful about public statements that even hint at this, but if their executives have IQ's above room temperature that will be their policy. In addition, the regulatory climate in California is probably the worst in the nation, and it will hit a business like Boeing the hardest. They would have to be suicidal to expand in California.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:55 pm

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

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

So Cal is just too expensive and its being run by a bunch of idiots. The state wont offer enough incentives that is the biggest problem and the cost of living is just so high even no union the cost of living is just so high. It would be so sad for LGB given its rich history for MD/boeing to have nothing there in production   but i can see it happening they said 800 jobs leaving boeing in 2012 already to Oklahoma City that offered up huge incentives to get boeing jobs. Cal and its horrific government would be the deterrent from so cal not unions LGB has proudly made some of the best planes in the skies for years and years. Whats really bad economically is that even alot of the office and highly paid jobs are leaving long beach and California is sitting back and letting them pack up to states that are offering huge incentives.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:34 pm

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

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

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

If they spiked it before, I see no reason why they would not spike it again.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:38 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:14 pm

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

Tom.

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

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

If a second line is needed, ICT and kelly/SAT would be prime contenders.
powered by Eierlikör
 
KarlB737
Posts: 2634
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:18 pm

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

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

Long Beach Hoping To Capture 737-MAX Production

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...hid=5265568&s=Long+Beach#ID5265568
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4961
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:32 pm

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

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

The state and county have much more of an incentive than the city to keep the plant operating.
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:36 pm

You said it yourself:

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

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

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

"Hey! Where did all the corporations go??!! Who is going to provide jobs and pay for all these social services we created!"
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:54 pm

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

Totally unthinkable here, Airbus as a good comparison, has a prime waterfront location on the river Elbe, Blankenese, across on the other side, is one of the prime residential locations. The city of Hamburg would never get the idea to relocate Airbus., Also, property taxes are the same in the cities, regardless of location.
powered by Eierlikör
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 924
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:16 pm

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

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


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

Seems like South Carolina would be the place to build a new line. It might be smarter to spread out the plants, but there are a lot of advantages to keeping plants close together.
 
PanHAM
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:42 pm

Quoting ADent (Reply 16):

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

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

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

I think the best reason for Boeing to stay at Renton is the skilled workforce and that the plant and real estate must be paid for long time ago.
powered by Eierlikör
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3644
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:45 pm

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


Quite true... really why would one spend $100's of millions to duplicate an existing plant and infrastructure that will be essentially empty if the production moves?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23074
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:08 pm

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

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

And let us not forget that those folks who worked at the Renton plant might not have lived or performed commerce in Renton, so Renton might not have earned any tax revenue from them (Renton does not charge a city income tax). They do earn tax revenue from all the folks who live and commerce at The Landing.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 2453
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:32 pm

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

I believe that the city of Bremerton is making a proposal. Last night there was a report that Spokane is very likely throwing their hat in the ring (yeah, I know, that one is not Puget Sound area). San Antonio and Wichita seem the most likely contenders if the work's moved out of WA, but my feeling is at the end of the day it'll be built right where the current version is, beautiful downtown Renton.
 
bonusonus
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:35 pm

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

Boeing also has a large engineering/design workforce in Long Beach. Is this something that they would want to move as well?
 
MD-90
Posts: 7835
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:49 pm

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

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

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

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

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

If they can't profitably use them in California, then yes.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 6:51 pm

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

You're telling me. There is a reason why companies such as Intel are building FABs in other states other than California. Its one thing for California to lose to a Fab in say China or Malaysia, its another thing for California to lose against another state. What a shame.
"Up the Irons!"
 
starrion
Posts: 972
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:04 pm

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

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

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


Then they are surprised that they keep losing.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
n471wn
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 12:23 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:05 pm

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

You are so right----California is done as a business state and as a native it hurts to face the truth----California businesses are moving out in droves and they should as the anti-buiness and environmental whackos who run the state with their incredibly high guaranteed for life pensions have ruined our state....no way is Boeing going to build anything here.......
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6013
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:09 pm

Quoting starrion (Reply 14):
Obviously, people will say "California is the worst place to do business, blah blah blah...."

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

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

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

What state has the second most Fortune 500 corporations (behind only NY)? What state has the largest economy? Which state is in the top ten for adding the most jobs in the first half of 2011?

I have said it before, California will sort out it's problems and be just fine. While people like to knock the state, other states have their own problems too, Different problems but just as impacting.

California is not alone in having problems and is VERY fortunate that it has all the resources (human, business, and natural) that it has.

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

You do know that Fab's are water intensive facilities don't you? Water is a tough thing in California unless you are in the northern reaches of it, area's where Fab's don't want to set up as the worker population is just not there.

By the way this thread is fast becoming a non-av discussion on California and what its business climate is.

If Long Beach and California are interested in keeping Boeing here then they will offer a package of incentives to Boeing to compete with the other communities that are also vying for the business. The biggest thing California has going for is a good work force, the biggest problem it has is the high cost of doing business. Some can be addressed with an incentive package but others can't. We'll have to see what happens though I do doubt that the MAX will come to Long Beach. It s a very impacted area and really not the best place for them. I would think an area further out would be better but then would lose the benefit of existing facilities. Area's like Lancaster and Palmdale could be viable but the developed aviation facilities are all military oriented. It would be interesting to see if the area could develop a civilian aerospace sector, it actually has the workforce that is needed.

Tugg

[Edited 2011-11-28 11:26:39]
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
aircal62
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 2:08 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:45 pm

Commenting on Tuggs comments on Lancaster and Palmdale. Mojave would actually be a better manufacturing site, it is out of the county of Los Angeles and its problems, away from the Los Angeles Department of Airports and their problems and is the center for some of the truly high tech development in the state, say Virgin Galactic. CA however in many metrics is just no longer the place to site a business, not just regulatorty issues but social issues like the schools being almost the worst in the nation. Sad, sad, sad for such a state with a strong tradition and history in aviation.
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1376
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Even Ohio would be far preferable, and that's saying something.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
kaitak744
Topic Author
Posts: 2086
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:05 pm

So far, we have come to agreement that the politics are far from favorable. Ok.

What about technical issues? rail links, land, etc.?
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 3270
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:47 pm

Plus another factor is how much money boeibg will get for its LGB and Anaheim properties whicj is alot of millions. Last i heard plan was to consolidate alot to Huntington Beach which is commutable from both so no moves necessary
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:59 pm

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 29):
What about technical issues? rail links, land, etc.?

I think the EIR process is somewhat onerous in California as well, which would render the process of building or expanding new structures, rail lines, etc., more expensive and more time consuming than other states.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:18 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Doing manufacturing business in California is more trouble than it's worth.

Which is, of course, why we still have so much of it.   

Quoting LV (Reply 5):
Can anyone say NUMMI? Yeah, that cost the bay area thousands of jobs and tens of thousands more indirectly.

You can say NUMMI, but you should now say Tesla Factory. 1000 direct jobs.

Oh, you forgot to mention where Toyota took most of those jobs. "Socialist" Canada.   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Actually, unions could have very much to do with this.

The union environment isn't as friendly in California as in Washington either.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 8):
So Cal is just too expensive and its being run by a bunch of idiots.

You really don't know what you are talking about, and showed it with this.

Quoting tugger (Reply 26):
While people like to knock the state, other states have their own problems too, Different problems but just as impacting.

Indeed, those people who knock California are happy to spend California's money to fund their own state projects.

Quoting tugger (Reply 26):
Area's like Lancaster and Palmdale could be viable but the developed aviation facilities are all military oriented. It would be interesting to see if the area could develop a civilian aerospace sector, it actually has the workforce that is needed.

That has always been something I didn't get. Boeing has had big facilities out there for quite some time (legacy MDC). They should make a deal with the military to move more commercial.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 29):
What about technical issues? rail links, land, etc.?

1) California has criminally low property taxes, which benefits corporations like Boeing (and Disney, and Fox, etc.) immensely.

2) Long Beach Airport sits on both rail and super highway infrastructure. That has never been the issue.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 31):
I think the EIR process is somewhat onerous in California as well, which would render the process of building or expanding new structures, rail lines, etc., more expensive and more time consuming than other states.

The State has repeatedly shown a willingness to speed up EIR processes for high priority projects that don't show a potential to eat up lots of resources or poison the water.

Also, the State doesn't need new rail or other structures. Everything Boeing needs is already in place in Long Beach.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 12:50 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Boeing is moving things out of California because the costs and red tape are out of control.

No. Like everyone else said, in one word: California.

I worked with a firm out there that was trying to open a new office. To get an occupancy permit, one local government agency said that to be ADA compliant they had to remove a tree and reshape an outside ramp. Another government agency said they could not take out the tree. This is not an isolated incident and not a recent phenomenon. Ronald Reagan told a similar story when running for office in the 70's. In his case it was a hospital that was told by the health department to line trash cans as they were a health hazard and by the fire department not to as they were a fire hazard. It happens in many places but far worse in California that the 46 other US States in which I have worked.
...are we there yet?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:31 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
It has all the disadvantages of Washington, a worse regulatory environment, is far from the existing 737 supply chain, know-how, and engineering.

   The only thing better about California compared to Washington is the weather. And that is a nonfactor.

Quoting flylku (Reply 33):
I worked with a firm out there that was trying to open a new office. To get an occupancy permit, one local government agency said that to be ADA compliant they had to remove a tree and reshape an outside ramp. Another government agency said they could not take out the tree.

Somewhere I heard that every time a C-17 is painted that a government inspector has to test the air in the hangar before the doors can be opened.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
Which is, of course, why we still have so much of it.

Still have isn't the same as attracting more.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3882
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:48 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
Quoting redflyer (Reply 31):
I think the EIR process is somewhat onerous in California as well, which would render the process of building or expanding new structures, rail lines, etc., more expensive and more time consuming than other states.

The State has repeatedly shown a willingness to speed up EIR processes for high priority projects that don't show a potential to eat up lots of resources or poison the water.

That's a pretty broad statement and I'd like to see where that has been codified. What qualifies as not showing a "potential to eat up lots of resources or poison the water"? Every time I flush my toilet after using it I poison the water to a certain extent.
My other home is in the sky inside my Piper Cherokee 180.
 
timpdx
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:54 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:03 am

And with the new Stadium deal in L.A. for whatever NFL team we get, California has shown its self darn agile to get a deal done, cut the EIR process down to size and push through what needed to be done right quick. If Boeing were serious about a line at LGB, then you know the deal would get done at the state / local level and there would be as little impediment to building the line there as anywhere else.

the endless bashing of Cali is getting so tiresome, seems to be the red state sport-de-jour.

Despite trying to build "silicon prairies" and "biotech hubs" and whatever, there is no sign whatsoever that the top level innovation and leadership is leaving this state.

As they say, "would you rather make the CD or what goes on the CD?" California makes what goes on the CD by a long shot and good for Huntsville or Mobile if they want to churn out the blank CDs at 9 cents a pop and call themselves a "tech city"

it ain't a perfect state, but I'm a proud Californian and hope to see the MAX take its first flight out of LGB.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 2:46 am

Quoting timpdx (Reply 36):
And with the new Stadium deal in L.A. for whatever NFL team we get, California has shown its self darn agile to get a deal done, cut the EIR process down to size and push through what needed to be done right quick. If Boeing were serious about a line at LGB, then you know the deal would get done at the state / local level and there would be as little impediment to building the line there as anywhere else.

This stadium discussion has been going on for decades. Numerous sites were proposed, as well as rebuilding the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum. It was hardly a fast process. And ultimately, it was placed in a godawful location for political reasons, and one that will cost huge amounts of money, cause massive amounts of traffic choking down the 110, etc.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5449
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 3:13 am

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

When I worked in Renton in the late 90's and early 2000's, that was true from what I saw, heard, and read. I remember once post-9/11 when Boeing was deciding if they should move/consolidate manufacturing away from Renton that the then-mayor pretty much said "Let 'em. We'll be fine." I just remember thinking about how much business we did with Boeing employees - directly due to being in Renton - and how devastating losing those high wage jobs would have been for Renton (in my humble opinion).

But, hey, Renton is "ahead of the curve" (as their city motto says).  
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
That's a property tax thing...the Renton plant is waterfront property in one of the highest real estate markets in the US.

It's definitely a changed landscape down there. I just wonder if all those employees at fast casuals and retailers are more beneficial for the city/area than Boeing union wage jobs would be?

-Dave
-Dave
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 4:38 am

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 21):

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

Boeing has laid many off, but has found that in-sourcing works quite well. Much of the design work for the 747-8 was in-sourced to Long Beach. It's a lot easier to have someone within the company doing design work and using all the same tools than it is to outsource it to a supplier and have to coordinate that way. I'd expect Long Beach to stay fully engaged with design with the Tanker, 787-10, 777x and 737-max.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:05 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
Quoting tugger (Reply 26):
Area's like Lancaster and Palmdale could be viable but the developed aviation facilities are all military oriented. It would be interesting to see if the area could develop a civilian aerospace sector, it actually has the workforce that is needed.

That has always been something I didn't get. Boeing has had big facilities out there for quite some time (legacy MDC). They should make a deal with the military to move more commercial.

Working at military facilities on non-military projects is, on a good day, "challenging." Doing it at Palmdale is a freakin' nightmare. And, as federal facilities, the military has nearly none of the motive to attract the business that the state might.

Tom.
 
SRT75
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:42 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:03 pm

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

Well, the same thing is true in So Cal. Large, highly-skilled, workforce. You don't have that in place in South Carolina, and it is a multi-year investment to recruit or relocate the engineering, technical, and skilled worker base. Not like you can go to the local McDonalds and hire a line worker for 737 production.

Quoting tugger (Reply 26):
California is not alone in having problems and is VERY fortunate that it has all the resources (human, business, and natural) that it has.

Agree. Infrastructure and workforce are commodities that you can't invent out of whole cloth. Doesn't matter how much in tax breaks a state is willing to give if the logistics don't work.

Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 29):
What about technical issues? rail links, land, etc.?

I would hope that the (relatively) new Alameda rail corridor is capable of handling rail traffic that could include fuselage sections.

Aren't rockets delivered by rail to Vandenberg? I know Boeing Space Systems is located in El Segundo, and they have to ship pretty large sattelites to Florida, etc.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing 737 MAX Line In Long Beach (potential?)

Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:37 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 8):
So Cal is just too expensive and its being run by a bunch of idiots.

You really don't know what you are talking about, and showed it with this.
Quoting timpdx (Reply 36):
the endless bashing of Cali is getting so tiresome, seems to be the red state sport-de-jour.
Quoting timpdx (Reply 36):
but I'm a proud Californian and hope to see the MAX take its first flight out of LGB.

Perhaps you guys are right. We don't have anyone like Governor Jerry Brown, who when governor back in the 1980s wanted California to fund its own space agency, or John Perez, Speaker of the Assembly, or Speaker Pro Tempore Fiona Ma. Most US states (except MA, NY, and IL) have never had a governor like Gray Davis, either.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 32andBelow, 76er, Austin787, babastud, Bing [Bot], BN727227Ultra, Bostrom, dabpit, Dallas, douglasyxz, Dutchy, FAST Enterprise [Crawler], flyguy89, JoeCanuck, mclewis1, Menzenski, msycajun, sassiciai, shez, usflyer msp, ZK-NBT and 343 guests