With Airbus manufacturing planes in USA, China, France and Germany, giving them strong political relationships and better maintenance facilities to airlines and markets around the world, should boeing follow suit soon? Or is that too much of a "no go" for their reputation with the national pride?

Whether they do or not, one thing that’s for certain is that “reputation” and “national pride” will have zero to do with the decision.

Yes, they need to open a plant in Bordeaux and manufacture the MoM there...

If it makes economic sense to...of course...but doing it in retaliation to A for the Mobile plant is pure stupidity.

hOMSaR wrote:

Whether they do or not, one thing that’s for certain is that “reputation” and “national pride” will have zero to do with the decision.

Maybe being Naive, but I was under the impression that a lot of people would be very upset if boeing took the Airbus approach.

Boeing Does not need a plant outside of the USA at the moment. Airbus is trying to gain market share in the USA and possibly a defence contract or two.
Boeing doesn't have that problem

Samrnpage wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Whether they do or not, one thing that’s for certain is that “reputation” and “national pride” will have zero to do with the decision.

Maybe being Naive, but I was under the impression that a lot of people would be very upset if boeing took the Airbus approach.

People can be upset all they want. Boeing won’t care, nor will the airlines buying the planes.

hOMSaR wrote:

Samrnpage wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

Whether they do or not, one thing that’s for certain is that “reputation” and “national pride” will have zero to do with the decision.

Maybe being Naive, but I was under the impression that a lot of people would be very upset if boeing took the Airbus approach.

People can be upset all they want. Boeing won’t care, nor will the airlines buying the planes.

It was a union nightmare just to put a FAL in CHS. Imagine the shit show the unions, and even politicians, would throw if Boeing put in an offshore FAL.

The best chance Boeing has for a foreign FAL is if their talks with Embraer go through and they slap their name on the E2 and future Emb types.

Yes, they should. There's a world beyond the US and Boeing should have global manufacturing facilities if they want to be a true global aerospace company.

neomax wrote:

Yes, they should. There's a world beyond the US and Boeing should have global manufacturing facilities if they want to be a true global aerospace company.

But what about "national pride" ? some people couldn't bear the fact a Boeing airliner wouldn't have "Manufactured by the Boeing company in Seattle" plate attached to it.

Samrnpage wrote:

With Airbus manufacturing planes in USA, China, France and Germany, giving them strong political relationships and better maintenance facilities to airlines and markets around the world, should boeing follow suit soon? Or is that too much of a "no go" for their reputation with the national pride?

They should also have plants in other countries that can manufacturer the entire range of Boeing aircraft. This will give more influence if there are problems with the local workforce, production can simply be moved elsewhere and USA plants could be closed (or that threat could be made).

Samrnpage wrote:

Maybe being Naive, but I was under the impression that a lot of people would be very upset if boeing took the Airbus approach.

I cant imagine anyone upset because of that.

Boeing is actually constructing a 737 outfitting center in Zhoushan, China.

Arion640 wrote:

neomax wrote:

Yes, they should. There's a world beyond the US and Boeing should have global manufacturing facilities if they want to be a true global aerospace company.

But what about "national pride" ? some people couldn't bear the fact a Boeing airliner wouldn't have "Manufactured by the Boeing company in Seattle" plate attached to it.

So what about the "Manufactured by the Boeing company in South Carolina" plate?

I've always wondered why Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants. Sure, we are in a remote location but we have sh*t tones of space and rather good political relationships with a lot of other countries.

If you look at some components which are incorporated in Boeing aircraft, you will see, in essence, there are parts from all over the world. Having an assembly plant wouldn't add much other than the labor costs. That alone would be a very big headache as right not aircraft are sold in US$. Boeing has a fairly stable price while if you add foreign labor in you have a situation similar to airbus where the price fluctuates based on the exchange rate.

mmo wrote:

If you look at some components which are incorporated in Boeing aircraft, you will see, in essence, there are parts from all over the world. Having an assembly plant wouldn't add much other than the labor costs. That alone would be a very big headache as right not aircraft are sold in US$. Boeing has a fairly stable price while if you add foreign labor in you have a situation similar to airbus where the price fluctuates based on the exchange rate.

If you call the USD stable.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

I've always wondered why Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants. Sure, we are in a remote location but we have sh*t tones of space and rather good political relationships with a lot of other countries.

Then what do you call the GAF, Commonwealth Aircraft & Victa aircraft manufacturing plants?

Gemuser

LoganTheBogan wrote:

I've always wondered why Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants. Sure, we are in a remote location but we have sh*t tones of space and rather good political relationships with a lot of other countries.

GAF (Government Aircraft Factories) Nomads were being built at a factory in Melbourne a while back, and I think that factory produced other types as well too.

Wasn’t Boeing mulling opening an FAL in China at one point recently?

[Edit 051159 Gemuser beat me to it]

I could see Boeing opening international production lines. More likely for military orders in my opinion,

Boeing has been moving work to many countries to offset military orders. When India bought military planes, they required offsets to keep the money in India. Did Boeing build a production line in India? No, but they opened an IT center in Bangalore and are having work done in India that makes sense.

I struggle to see how Airbus’ international final assembly in places like Mobile makes financial sense. Everything is shipped in from Europe. I understand that the purpose was to have a US footprint so that they can be more competitive trying to sell to the largest aviation customer in the world... The United States Military.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/maga ... -line.html

China didn’t treat McDonnell Douglas well. A completion center for interiors and paint makes sense, but I think Boeing is more focused on streamlining it’s production lines. They can win politically influenced defense deals by using their supply chain and engineering work where possible.

The United States is actually a rather attractive country for manufacturing

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/m ... index.html


A more favorable policy environment for manufacturing: Executives throughout the United States, Europe, and China indicated their respective nations have a number of more favorable policies around key elements of manufacturing competitiveness than even three years ago. Specifically around the areas of technology transfer, as well as science and innovation, executives indicated their nations have favorable policies to encourage manufacturers to increasingly use advanced technologies to improve their manufacturing competitiveness. Intellectual property protection also rose towards the top of competitive advantages in the US and Europe, while it was absent from the list of advantages in China.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

I've always wondered why Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants. Sure, we are in a remote location but we have sh*t tones of space and rather good political relationships with a lot of other countries.

Australia has higher labor costs in manufacturing than the United States

https://www.conference-board.org/ilcpro ... m?id=38269

mmo wrote:

If you look at some components which are incorporated in Boeing aircraft, you will see, in essence, there are parts from all over the world. Having an assembly plant wouldn't add much other than the labor costs. That alone would be a very big headache as right not aircraft are sold in US$. Boeing has a fairly stable price while if you add foreign labor in you have a situation similar to airbus where the price fluctuates based on the exchange rate.

The first point is exactly what I wanted to state. Boeing aircraft are essentially already made outside of the US. Final assembly is only one stage in the manufacturing process, one which is already significantly globalized. They are already taking advantage of lower cost talent inputs where they can. Perhaps one day moving a FAL will be a bridge they choose to cross, but for now the answer to the OP's question is: aircraft manufacturing is already offshored to a significant extent.

Boeing are opening a new component production facility here in Sheffield, UK.
http://www.boeing.co.uk/boeing-in-the-u ... field.page

Gemuser wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

I've always wondered why Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants. Sure, we are in a remote location but we have sh*t tones of space and rather good political relationships with a lot of other countries.

Then what do you call the GAF, Commonwealth Aircraft & Victa aircraft manufacturing plants?

Gemuser

Never knew they were still going.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I could see Boeing opening international production lines. More likely for military orders in my opinion,

Boeing has been moving work to many countries to offset military orders. When India bought military planes, they required offsets to keep the money in India. Did Boeing build a production line in India? No, but they opened an IT center in Bangalore and are having work done in India that makes sense.

I struggle to see how Airbus’ international final assembly in places like Mobile makes financial sense. Everything is shipped in from Europe. I understand that the purpose was to have a US footprint so that they can be more competitive trying to sell to the largest aviation customer in the world... The United States Military.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/maga ... -line.html

China didn’t treat McDonnell Douglas well. A completion center for interiors and paint makes sense, but I think Boeing is more focused on streamlining it’s production lines. They can win politically influenced defense deals by using their supply chain and engineering work where possible.

Quite a bit comes direct from the USA, like engines or avionics. From Hamburg by ship comes fuselage, wings and empennage..

Boeing also ships in parts from all over the world, also big items like wings.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

I've always wondered why Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants. Sure, we are in a remote location but we have sh*t tones of space and rather good political relationships with a lot of other countries.

the (ex) Boeing plants in Australia manufacture(d) many parts for many aircraft, including tip fences for Airbus...

According to Wikipedia, Boeing Australia is still "Boeing's largest footprint outside the United States":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Australia

Newbiepilot wrote:

I struggle to see how Airbus’ international final assembly in places like Mobile makes financial sense. Everything is shipped in from Europe. I understand that the purpose was to have a US footprint so that they can be more competitive trying to sell to the largest aviation customer in the world... The United States Military.

That's not the only reason. Mobile is a heck of a lot cheaper for Airbus than anywhere in Europe. Labor is cheaper. Energy is cheaper. Lower taxes. A lot of components are manufactured right here in the U.S. The currency is fairly stable. The country is stable. The economy even at it's worse is still strong. And it offers another layer of diversification which lowers risk. The BRIC countries are slowly losing the manufacturing allure they once had. China, currently the largest manufacturing country in the World is already making the transition away from cheap manual labor and towards automation due to the rising costs of its middle class labor force. The U.S. is expected to take over the top spot from China by 2020 and although this trend started years ago I'm sure a certain someone will claim that achievement for himself

Arion640 wrote:

But what about "national pride" ? some people couldn't bear the fact a Boeing airliner wouldn't have "Manufactured by the Boeing company in Seattle" plate attached to it.

What people? Nobody really cares where their stuff is made. The same people who stick out their chests and yell USA USA USA, won’t hesitate to buy a ticket on an Airbus if the price is three dollars cheaper, or buy imported goods from Walmart if it’s .40 cents cheaper than the American product.

mjoelnir wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I could see Boeing opening international production lines. More likely for military orders in my opinion,

Boeing has been moving work to many countries to offset military orders. When India bought military planes, they required offsets to keep the money in India. Did Boeing build a production line in India? No, but they opened an IT center in Bangalore and are having work done in India that makes sense.

I struggle to see how Airbus’ international final assembly in places like Mobile makes financial sense. Everything is shipped in from Europe. I understand that the purpose was to have a US footprint so that they can be more competitive trying to sell to the largest aviation customer in the world... The United States Military.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/maga ... -line.html

China didn’t treat McDonnell Douglas well. A completion center for interiors and paint makes sense, but I think Boeing is more focused on streamlining it’s production lines. They can win politically influenced defense deals by using their supply chain and engineering work where possible.

Quite a bit comes direct from the USA, like engines or avionics. From Hamburg by ship comes fuselage, wings and empennage..

Boeing also ships in parts from all over the world, also big items like wings.

I would love to see an analysis on whether it is any cheaper for airplanes that go through final assembly in Mobile versus Germany. My gut feeling is that it probably costs more to complete the airplanes in Mobile and the factory is all for political reasons, but I may be wrong.

I wouldn't mind 777X being assembled at DWC as long as Dubai can match or beat WA incentives. I would be even happy if Emirates buys A380 program/production line and moves it to DWC. Good for both Boeing and Airbus.

A.net need to have a new rule on starting these innocent clickbait threads. Too many nowadays.

I don't think there is any advantage to Boeing in opening final assembly plants abroad. To my mind there are only two major Countries that have such a degree of nationalistic fever as to demand final assembly of aircraft of at all possible, The USA and France. Everyone else sees the wider picture of final assembly being the amalgamation of parts produced all over the World. Whilst it makes sense for Airbus to open a US plant, due to the sheer size of the market and there being a good number of US airlines run on commercial lines, in France there is but one customer, and even if a Boeing was built in France, cost less and came with lower operating costs, they still wouldn't buy it as Airbus is "more French"

B737900ER wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

But what about "national pride" ? some people couldn't bear the fact a Boeing airliner wouldn't have "Manufactured by the Boeing company in Seattle" plate attached to it.

What people? Nobody really cares where their stuff is made. The same people who stick out their chests and yell USA USA USA, won’t hesitate to buy a ticket on an Airbus if the price is three dollars cheaper, or buy imported goods from Walmart if it’s .40 cents cheaper than the American product.

There seems to be enough people on the AA A350 thread on here saying they need to buy the 777X instead....

Saw a thread on here from the original BA A318 order in 1999, even then someone said "BA shouldn't buy french junk and buy the 717 instead".

KarelXWB wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

neomax wrote:

Yes, they should. There's a world beyond the US and Boeing should have global manufacturing facilities if they want to be a true global aerospace company.

But what about "national pride" ? some people couldn't bear the fact a Boeing airliner wouldn't have "Manufactured by the Boeing company in Seattle" plate attached to it.

So what about the "Manufactured by the Boeing company in South Carolina" plate?

Easy enough to miss that one out.

Still got made in the USA attached though.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

I don't think there is any advantage to Boeing in opening final assembly plants abroad. To my mind there are only two major Countries that have such a degree of nationalistic fever as to demand final assembly of aircraft of at all possible, The USA and France. Everyone else sees the wider picture of final assembly being the amalgamation of parts produced all over the World. Whilst it makes sense for Airbus to open a US plant, due to the sheer size of the market and there being a good number of US airlines run on commercial lines, in France there is but one customer, and even if a Boeing was built in France, cost less and came with lower operating costs, they still wouldn't buy it as Airbus is "more French"

FAL location is not about national pride, it is about incentives, tax avoidance, export credits and about the public perception that American technology is protected from IP theft. The general public doesn't know most of it coming from other countries.

I'd like to see some Boeing manufacturing occur in Sáo José dos Campos, Sáo Paulo, Brazil.

Apple is a bigger name than Boeing both in the US and outside of it and everything is made not in the USA.

Is there confusion as to the difference between assembly and manufacture? The UK does not assemble Airbus products like in USA, China, France and Germany. But UK does design and manufacture a lot of high-end stuff for Airbus, little things like wings and engines.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

I don't think there is any advantage to Boeing in opening final assembly plants abroad. To my mind there are only two major Countries that have such a degree of nationalistic fever as to demand final assembly of aircraft of at all possible, The USA and France. Everyone else sees the wider picture of final assembly being the amalgamation of parts produced all over the World. Whilst it makes sense for Airbus to open a US plant, due to the sheer size of the market and there being a good number of US airlines run on commercial lines, in France there is but one customer, and even if a Boeing was built in France, cost less and came with lower operating costs, they still wouldn't buy it as Airbus is "more French"

See I disagree. Take China for example, need some more Airbus A320s or 737s. They could buy 737s, nothing wrong with that, give america all the money and so on. Or buy a320s, give the Chinese plant more work, more people employed = more taxes for china, more corporate tax for china and they can say "made in china" for publicity. Same in America, America now wants airbus to sell in America for the taxes, jobs, indirect revenues etc, and airbus are all over america like a rash now. In this world where people at the top have so much money, political gain is so much more important these days.

KarelXWB wrote:

Boeing is actually constructing a 737 outfitting center in Zhoushan, China.

Outfitting plant? Is that final assembly or ?

Samrnpage wrote:

Outfitting plant? Is that final assembly or ?

No final assembly, just cabin outfit and paint. Boeing will fly empty 737s to Zhoushan.

Samrnpage wrote:

Bongodog1964 wrote:

I don't think there is any advantage to Boeing in opening final assembly plants abroad. To my mind there are only two major Countries that have such a degree of nationalistic fever as to demand final assembly of aircraft of at all possible, The USA and France. Everyone else sees the wider picture of final assembly being the amalgamation of parts produced all over the World. Whilst it makes sense for Airbus to open a US plant, due to the sheer size of the market and there being a good number of US airlines run on commercial lines, in France there is but one customer, and even if a Boeing was built in France, cost less and came with lower operating costs, they still wouldn't buy it as Airbus is "more French"

See I disagree. Take China for example, need some more Airbus A320s or 737s. They could buy 737s, nothing wrong with that, give america all the money and so on. Or buy a320s, give the Chinese plant more work, more people employed = more taxes for china, more corporate tax for china and they can say "made in china" for publicity. Same in America, America now wants airbus to sell in America for the taxes, jobs, indirect revenues etc, and airbus are all over america like a rash now. In this world where people at the top have so much money, political gain is so much more important these days.

Disagree, You've fundamentally missed the point, aerospace manufacturing is a global business these days, no one "gets all the money" if they have the final assembly plant, just the money/profit associated with the work carried out, and the prestigous photo opportunities that go with shiny new aircraft. In many cases the Country that makes one sub structure for every A320, (over 50 a month now i believe) has a greater work share than the USA who does the final assembly on 4 each month.

Look at us here in the UK, we produce no complete civil aircraft at all, yet via Airbus UK's wing factories, Rolls Royce, and other suppliers we make by far the largest proportion of the A350 of any nation. Same applies to the A330 and RR powered A380's. We also produce the wings for every C series as well.

No need, once an airplane is completed you can fly it anywhere in the world!

They could take a leaf out of Caterpillars book, who have been doing this for years, they could build everything in the US and Ship, but they like to build local to the market they are serving when they can and it makes financial sense to do so. I don’t see anyone complaining about a CAT wheel loader being used in Spain that was built in the UK, it’s still a CAT and the money comes home eventually. Yes you can fly a plane anywhere much like you ship a product anywhere, but it can be easily done locally if economics make sense

airbazar wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

I struggle to see how Airbus’ international final assembly in places like Mobile makes financial sense. Everything is shipped in from Europe. I understand that the purpose was to have a US footprint so that they can be more competitive trying to sell to the largest aviation customer in the world... The United States Military.

That's not the only reason. Mobile is a heck of a lot cheaper for Airbus than anywhere in Europe. Labor is cheaper. Energy is cheaper. Lower taxes. A lot of components are manufactured right here in the U.S. The currency is fairly stable. The country is stable. The economy even at it's worse is still strong. And it offers another layer of diversification which lowers risk. The BRIC countries are slowly losing the manufacturing allure they once had. China, currently the largest manufacturing country in the World is already making the transition away from cheap manual labor and towards automation due to the rising costs of its middle class labor force. The U.S. is expected to take over the top spot from China by 2020 and although this trend started years ago I'm sure a certain someone will claim that achievement for himself

I see the advantages but I am not so convinced about the pure cost advantages. Especially Labor cheaper than in all of Europe. Is that for employers or employees. The Us is a very high income country even if comparing Alabama only. Only some parts of Europe fall into that category. Here the recession of the late 00's changed everything. Perhaps someone will know.

mmo wrote:

If you look at some components which are incorporated in Boeing aircraft, you will see, in essence, there are parts from all over the world. Having an assembly plant wouldn't add much other than the labor costs. That alone would be a very big headache as right not aircraft are sold in US$. Boeing has a fairly stable price while if you add foreign labor in you have a situation similar to airbus where the price fluctuates based on the exchange rate.

Both Boeing and Airbus use offset contracts, especially with military contracts, and in the past, when more airlines were State owned. The offset doesn't necessarily need to be for the model purchased, or even aviation related.

Airbus use to create natural currency hedges, as this can shave a meaningful amount off the unit price, even if only a fraction of one percent.

The differences in the cost of labor are pretty much even around the world when productivity is factored. There is no Chinese labor advantage when you have to ship the product. The savings to be found are now in the shipping budget - build the factories near your market. Flipping the argument around, why wouldn't Boeing try to further consolidate within and produce more near their assembly plants? How much could they save from schlepping doors, wings and fuselages around the world that they made themselves at one time? The Japanese seem sensitive to this and have opened up facilities in the Puget Sound area.

Building a foreign FAL would just incur even more shipping with no productivity gains. One real issue is having a workforce, this works both for and against.

This thread totally ignores where Boeing's emphasis has been. They have been moving toward automation, and the 777X wing is an excellent example of this. Who cares where the robots that build much of the aircraft are located? Seattle robots, versus North Carolina robots versus...whatever. They're still robots. That's where Boeing is going. Obviously humans are going to have a role for the indefinite future, but it will be increasingly focused on tasks like final assembly.

Bongodog1964 wrote:

I don't think there is any advantage to Boeing in opening final assembly plants abroad. To my mind there are only two major Countries that have such a degree of nationalistic fever as to demand final assembly of aircraft of at all possible, The USA and France. Everyone else sees the wider picture of final assembly being the amalgamation of parts produced all over the World. Whilst it makes sense for Airbus to open a US plant, due to the sheer size of the market and there being a good number of US airlines run on commercial lines, in France there is but one customer, and even if a Boeing was built in France, cost less and came with lower operating costs, they still wouldn't buy it as Airbus is "more French"

Air France does fly 777's and 787's. They have flown many non Airbus frames. Cheap and wrong shot.

Apart from the B777/787, they have flown B737, B747 and 767.

Sorry I forgot the B727.

Arion640 wrote:

There seems to be enough people on the AA A350 thread on here saying they need to buy the 777X instead....

Saw a thread on here from the original BA A318 order in 1999, even then someone said "BA shouldn't buy french junk and buy the 717 instead".

And I bet every single one of them will jump on the A350 when the price and schedule fits their needs.

In the real world nobody cares about point of origin or outsourcing. Nobody cares that their aircraft is overhauled in El Salvador. Nobody cares that their baby formula manufactured in China has lead in it. As long as it’s cheap and convenient that’s all that matters. Boeing could produce all of their aircraft in East Timor if they wanted and it wouldn’t hurt a single sale. Because if it doesn’t hurt the wallet nothing else will matter.

LoganTheBogan wrote:

Gemuser wrote:

LoganTheBogan wrote:

I've always wondered why Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants. Sure, we are in a remote location but we have sh*t tones of space and rather good political relationships with a lot of other countries.

Then what do you call the GAF, Commonwealth Aircraft & Victa aircraft manufacturing plants?

Gemuser

Never knew they were still going.

They are not! BUT you said " Australia has never housed any aircraft manufacturing plants". It's the "never" part that I reacted to.

Gemuser