Stitch wrote:

Lootess wrote:

Sour antics.

While the 40% reduction in the Business and Occupation tax originally grantees in 2003 under HB 2294 for producing "superefficient airplanes" was repealed earlier this year, there are probably other tax breaks and incentives that Boeing received for both the 787 and 777X that could become forfeit in the case of those tied to the 787 now that the plane will no longer be produced in Washington.

It will be interesting to see how the IAM and SPEEA approach their next contracts. At Boeing's insistence, IAM agreed to an eight-year (versus the traditional four year) term in 2014, though it passed by less than 2% and SPEAA approved a six-year contract earlier this year by a literal handful of votes. Both unions will see members' jobs terminated with the 787 program leaving.

Yep, this is surely a backhanded way to cut IAM and SPEEA numbers. Granted the virus has led more to this decision than the sake of the contracts themselves, just unfortaunte because both those groups had good tenure and relationships with Boeing in the last several years despite the narrow votes. Remember how chaotic SPEEA was in the previous contact.

Lootess wrote:

Yep, this is surely a backhanded way to cut IAM and SPEEA numbers. Granted the virus has led more to this decision than the sake of the contracts themselves, just unfortaunte because both those groups had good tenure and relationships with Boeing in the last several years despite the narrow votes. Remember how chaotic SPEEA was in the previous contact.

Except that its not. The 787-10 can only currently be built in Charleston. It would be very expensive and time consuming to move machinery and start processes in Everett for that.

The Corona-Virus moved things up... but, Boeing no longer needs 2 fully active assembly lines for many years. Otherwise - the consolidation to 1 line was probably 7-10 years out.

There is no evidence that with the 787-10 situation that there was any other realistic choice at this time. Also, my understanding is that Charleston is the lower cost assembly line. Union Status, Washington State Status, etc. just were not major considerations on this; and I doubt even a minor consideration. Those are just effects of the decision.

Have a great day,

Sokes wrote:

Noshow wrote:

job secure, higher productive staff can even be an advantage.
I am aware that unions have had their share in where we are right now.

I understand Boeing doesn't want to depend on one place. Even if Washington had to be a better decision, for future bargaining power it makes more sense to maintain a second location.

Do employees in Charleston earn bad?
Are they less productive?

Well, there have been quality issues from Charleston. So there is that.

2175301 wrote:

Lootess wrote:

Yep, this is surely a backhanded way to cut IAM and SPEEA numbers. Granted the virus has led more to this decision than the sake of the contracts themselves, just unfortaunte because both those groups had good tenure and relationships with Boeing in the last several years despite the narrow votes. Remember how chaotic SPEEA was in the previous contact.

Except that its not. The 787-10 can only currently be built in Charleston. It would be very expensive and time consuming to move machinery and start processes in Everett for that.

The Corona-Virus moved things up... but, Boeing no longer needs 2 fully active assembly lines for many years. Otherwise - the consolidation to 1 line was probably 7-10 years out.

There is no evidence that with the 787-10 situation that there was any other realistic choice at this time. Also, my understanding is that Charleston is the lower cost assembly line. Union Status, Washington State Status, etc. just were not major considerations on this; and I doubt even a minor consideration. Those are just effects of the decision.

Have a great day,

Yes it seems apparent that CHS production cost is less than at Everett, certainly more economical to run one line at 6 than two at 3 per month. If it gets worse, running a line at rate 4 is better than two at rate 2.

The Everett building is a very valuable asset, plans for its reuse are sure to be in the works. A lot of pieces to the puzzle: 3 bays used for the 747, with production ending at least one bay should be open within a year, the other 2 like 6 months after the last one rolls out. Huge spaces great for finishing up the MAX's in.

Moving one 737 line now when it isn't needed currently makes decent sense, it would give space to work on MAX's there in its place. It doesn't open up Renton for a sale yet, but it brings that date 5 or more years closer. There will be a period at the end of MAX production where only one line is needed, allowing Renton to then close. I'm not sure of the relative areas though, are the 3 747 bays more area than Renton has, or is it short a good bit?

If Boeing holds open these bays it is a sign a future program is scheduled there. I envision the eventual NSA line one makes sense at Everett, but the future line 2 & more will be at another location. Risk management would recommend a different site than CHS or Everett, Boeing then gets to see what deals are available like they did with CHS.

If Boeing fills Everett with the 737 program it pretty much says any new program is going elsewhere.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Sokes wrote:

Noshow wrote:

job secure, higher productive staff can even be an advantage.
I am aware that unions have had their share in where we are right now.

I understand Boeing doesn't want to depend on one place. Even if Washington had to be a better decision, for future bargaining power it makes more sense to maintain a second location.

Do employees in Charleston earn bad?
Are they less productive?

Well, there have been quality issues from Charleston. So there is that.

There has been equal or worse quality issues with MAX and KC-46s built in WA. So that's pretty much a wash.

Noshow wrote:

That's true. But the whole factory is newly set up for the MAX. Moving it away now would be very costly and interrupt the MAX line another time. Now that the FAA might clear it soon.
Renton might be sold after the MAX and P-8 lines close one day. Given, maybe sooner than expected and hopefully with some NSA not far away.

Lots of white tails means they could shut it down and move things & restart production before new frames will be needed.

Everett needs the NSA not the MAX.

Noshow wrote:

Everett needs the NSA not the MAX.

Someone will be better off if they spend a lot of money they don't have? Wow that is a really a good and novel idea!

My point was about NOT moving the MAX to save money.

It makes little economic sense for Boeing to move MAX production to Everett considering the money they have already spent to design Renton for high-rate MAX production. The two main buildings are optimized to run three lines at up to (if not beyond) Rate 20 each and their workforce likely lives much closer to Renton than Everett.

The 737 MAX FAL at Renton consists of two large open areas side by side (4-81 and 4-82). There may not be enough room with the three existing 747 buildings to hold all of that and even if there is, having seen those in person, there would be significant re-work necessary. It might be necessary to run one FAL per building which would make things less efficient than the current side-by-side FALs in 4-20 and the third in 4-21 with the fuselage build-up next to it.

Then you have to find room for the stuff in Building 4-20/21 at Renton, which is the P-8 FAL along with the two wing assembly lines. That will certainly not fit in the 787 section (it might if you don't carry over the P-8 FAL and instead build those on the MAX line - maybe make the third, single line ITAR compliant so you can run both down it. But then you have to move wings from one end of PAE to the other.

Stitch wrote:

It makes little economic sense for Boeing to move MAX production to Everett considering the money they have already spent to design Renton for high-rate MAX production. The two main buildings are optimized to run three lines at up to (if not beyond) Rate 20 each and their workforce likely lives much closer to Renton than Everett.

The 737 MAX FAL at Renton consists of two large open areas side by side (4-81 and 4-82). There may not be enough room with the three existing 747 buildings to hold all of that and even if there is, having seen those in person, there would be significant re-work necessary. It might be necessary to run one FAL per building which would make things less efficient than the current side-by-side FALs in 4-20 and the third in 4-21 with the fuselage build-up next to it.

Then you have to find room for the stuff in Building 4-20/21 at Renton, which is the P-8 FAL along with the two wing assembly lines. That will certainly not fit in the 787 section (it might if you don't carry over the P-8 FAL and instead build those on the MAX line - maybe make the third, single line ITAR compliant so you can run both down it. But then you have to move wings from one end of PAE to the other.

Thanks for the knowledgeable post. It is really hard to see how it makes any financial sense to move such specialized facilities to another location.

scbriml wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Sokes wrote:

I understand Boeing doesn't want to depend on one place. Even if Washington had to be a better decision, for future bargaining power it makes more sense to maintain a second location.

Do employees in Charleston earn bad?
Are they less productive?

Well, there have been quality issues from Charleston. So there is that.

There has been equal or worse quality issues with MAX and KC-46s built in WA. So that's pretty much a wash.

Yep, I think people focused too much on Akbar Al Baker's 787 comments then they are wanting to look at the Seattle backyard of a bigger mess, the MAX and KC-46s.

The 787 hasn't had a fatal crash, the battery wasn't that bad of an issue.

Lootess wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Well, there have been quality issues from Charleston. So there is that.

There has been equal or worse quality issues with MAX and KC-46s built in WA. So that's pretty much a wash.

Yep, I think people focused too much on Akbar Al Baker's 787 comments then they are wanting to look at the Seattle backyard of a bigger mess, the MAX and KC-46s.

The 787 hasn't had a fatal crash, the battery wasn't that bad of an issue.

I expect most of the quality issues were simply related to the plant being new, nothing intrinsically bad about Charleston workers or manufacturing ability. Fundamentally, if BMW can build X5s (etc.) for the world at GSP there’s no reason Boeing can’t build 787s for the world at CHS.

Cubsrule wrote:

Lootess wrote:

scbriml wrote:

There has been equal or worse quality issues with MAX and KC-46s built in WA. So that's pretty much a wash.

Yep, I think people focused too much on Akbar Al Baker's 787 comments then they are wanting to look at the Seattle backyard of a bigger mess, the MAX and KC-46s.

The 787 hasn't had a fatal crash, the battery wasn't that bad of an issue.

I expect most of the quality issues were simply related to the plant being new, nothing intrinsically bad about Charleston workers or manufacturing ability. Fundamentally, if BMW can build X5s (etc.) for the world at GSP there’s no reason Boeing can’t build 787s for the world at CHS.

Yep, newer plant, newer hires. Teething issues for any new plant, but I imagine with this move some from Everett will transfer there.

Mercedes builds vans in Charleston now as well instead of just final assembly, and their biggest customer is Amazon.

Base on the drop in demand these days as well as political conflicts, any news that Boeing would also scrap its completion center in Zhousan, China PR?

Antaras wrote:

Base on the drop in demand these days as well as political conflicts, any news that Boeing would also scrap its completion center in Zhousan, China PR?

Very unlikely as it's arguably a quid pro quo for some Chinese 737 orders.

Stitch wrote:

Antaras wrote:

Base on the drop in demand these days as well as political conflicts, any news that Boeing would also scrap its completion center in Zhousan, China PR?

Very unlikely as it's arguably a quid pro quo for some Chinese 737 orders.

And its a cheaper quid pro quo than Airbus, which also assembles the A320 series in China.

FLALEFTY wrote:

The faulty "stack 'em high and sell 'em cheap" Boeing business strategy for the 787 is now about to bite them in the tush. They were counting on linear demand for the type to continue deep into this decade, thus the 2-FAL's. However, most airlines that needed and wanted the 787 already have them in service (or parked), so the demand curve peaked last year and will be trending down, even after the COVID crash.

As for moving the whole 787 line to CHS, don't forget that many of Boeing's best airline customers complained bitterly about the poor QC of the planes coming off the CHS assembly line. The skilled labor pool in Charleston is much smaller and engineers being forced there from Seattle will probably be looking for other jobs, rather than move to a far less cosmopolitian city like Charleston. Labor is cheap in Charleston for a reason.

With this inevitable move, Boeing will find yet another way to hand signifcant future market share gains to Airbus. Why hasn't Boeing fired everyone in Chicago yet?! Boeing Chicago has piled one bad decision on top of another. They are being kept alive with debt. Yet those fools in Boeing's C-Suite still have their jobs?!

Labor will be no cheaper in CHS than PAE since they're all in trhe Same Union and the IAM hasn't given Boeing any break in Labor Rates at CHS nor SEA.
you mistake a matter of logistics with intent. In fact? Moving the 787 assembly to CHS will open room in the SEA Area for development of other models to come as the 747 is winding down. I could see a 737-8 or -9 freighter as well as a follow on 767 and 757 sized Passenger liner with Digital Flight controls as well. Boeing will need a new lineup of airplanes that will establish Boeing's re-dominance. in the commercial airliner market. becuse they'll HAVE to out engineer and out produce Airbus, Comac,Hindustan snf anything coming out of the Baltic area in the Future. Boeing cannot afford to fall behind anybody in the future. Ans they certainly cannot afford another case of Bad headwork that the MAX has suffered from.

strfyr51 wrote:

Labor will be no cheaper in CHS than PAE since they're all in trhe Same Union and the IAM hasn't given Boeing any break in Labor Rates at CHS nor SEA.

CHS isn't unionized, that was the whole point of going to SC, besides taking over the mess Vought left Boeing with

trex8 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Labor will be no cheaper in CHS than PAE since they're all in trhe Same Union and the IAM hasn't given Boeing any break in Labor Rates at CHS nor SEA.

CHS isn't unionized, that was the whole point of going to SC, besides taking over the mess Vought left Boeing with

Thanks trex8 for explaining this one for me.

The sticky issue will be convincing engineering talent to move to Charleston. I come from the aerospace world (now retired) and remember the difficulty that Lockheed Martin had convincing engineers to move from their space operations at Sunnyvale, CA, trying to relocate them in Huntsville, AL (which engineers referred to derisively as "Huntspatch"). Boeing will face the same challenges.

Imho, its not just about the labor costs in SEA, its also about the strikes and slowdowns.

What would have been the plan B for Charleston if the only remaining 787 line would have been kept at Everett? Closing the whole site? Move the factory to defence?

Noshow wrote:

What would have been the plan B for Charleston if the only remaining 787 line would have been kept at Everett?

It's clear that never would have happened so speculation is, frankly, pointless. Charleston was created with the intent to always build 787s - either in conjunction with Everett or on its own.

The site is large enough to support more FAL buildings and could have handled the peak Rate 14 on its own with the required expansion. So if 787 sales somehow rebounds back to pre-COVID towards the end of this decade, CHS will expand as necessary to meet that demand - that work will not be coming back to PAE.

Noshow wrote:

What would have been the plan B for Charleston if the only remaining 787 line would have been kept at Everett? Closing the whole site? Move the factory to defence?

That was never an option due to the 787-10, Boeing would never walk away from 145 firm orders (I consider only 6 of those at risk) and a good potential future market. IMHO, The 787-10 is but one fuel reduction engine PiP away from great sales as a little more range is needed. Look at how much A330NEO sales improved as range went from 5200nm to 5700nm to 6200nm. The 787-10 is a built combi that needs more payload at range. If GE just puts in the LEAP variable turbine cooling and the GE9x CMCs, that is another 350nm of range or more. 6,780nm of range would sell much better than 6,430nm.
Plan B would have been split production.

It is no surprise production is moving to Charleston. Most thought that was the foregone conclusion. In effect, Boeing was just deciding what machinery and jobs would move from Washington.

Lightsaber

Noshow wrote:

What would have been the plan B for Charleston if the only remaining 787 line would have been kept at Everett? Closing the whole site? Move the factory to defence?

The aft fuselage sections 47 and 48, for the 787 are fabricated at the North Charleston site ( ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_South_Carolina ) so the site would not have been closed.

Honestly this was a matter of time. Boeing can make the planes cheaper at CHS due to overall lower labor cost (lower wages, better work rules from the company's point of view), fewer Dreamlifter flights, and having a second viable production site does put pressure on the unions to take concessionary stands.

The real question was when would demand be such that they can get away with just the CHS facility. CV19 reset the demand so CHS is going to take over production sooner than anticipated before CV19 struck.

Stitch wrote:

Noshow wrote:

What would have been the plan B for Charleston if the only remaining 787 line would have been kept at Everett?

It's clear that never would have happened so speculation is, frankly, pointless. Charleston was created with the intent to always build 787s - either in conjunction with Everett or on its own.

The site is large enough to support more FAL buildings and could have handled the peak Rate 14 on its own with the required expansion. So if 787 sales somehow rebounds back to pre-COVID towards the end of this decade, CHS will expand as necessary to meet that demand - that work will not be coming back to PAE.

We were authoring at the same time...
This is the first I've read that CHS could support rate 14. As much as I'd love to see that, I think the A321xLR and a hypothetical -9ER MAX will cut too much into widebody needs (as well as I think we will see an A220 with a centerline tank).

The reality is, as narrowbodies gain range, they are a low risk way for airlines to expand off an existing pilot and parts pool. This means future widebody sales will be less (but certainly not zero). I just see too many future hubs: new-IST, ADD (replacement for Ethiopian?), the new Mumbai airport, new DEL, the new 4 runway Long Thang airport in South Vietnam, and maybe even ME3 growth (although I think their era came and went, but I think they'll survive), 6th runway at ATL, SLC growth, DEN growth, IAD growth, 2nd runway at DUB, Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport expansion, Jakarta airport's 3rd runway and new terminal, new Sydney airport, and eventual the LAX terminal expansion (with runway spacing that takes it from 3 effective runways up to 4).

So I just don't see the forward demand for rate 14 for the 787. I can for up to rate 12 and certainly to rate 10. Is there any link to the available expansion?

Lightsaber

The State of Washington quite frankly is not a particularly business friendly environment. Boeing moved its Corporate Headquarters to Chicago, Amazon is building a huge Corporate campus in Northern Virginia, and Starbucks has moved a lot of jobs out. The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

Charleston is a vibrant rapidly growing area located in a Right to Work State with a much lower cost of living and much lower taxes. That is the business reality. Boeing is doing what it must in a very difficult time economically for the aviation industry.

lightsaber wrote:

This is the first I've read that CHS could support rate 14. As much as I'd love to see that, I think the A321xLR and a hypothetical -9ER MAX will cut too much into widebody needs (as well as I think we will see an A220 with a centerline tank).

I agree I don't think the 787 will return to Rate 14 - it might never return to a double-digit rate - but CHS has plenty of empty land that can be used to add more final assembly lines if that ever became necessary.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The State of Washington quite frankly is not a particularly business friendly environment. Boeing moved its Corporate Headquarters to Chicago, Amazon is building a huge Corporate campus in Northern Virginia...

Boeing moved their HQ to Chicago to get away from the IAM striking in front of HQ every four years. They also wanted to be closer to Saint Louis where the huge former McD defense plants were as well as other Boeing military facilities in the eastern half of the country. Chicago (via O'Hare) also has better airline connectivity to the world for visiting customers.

As for Amazon, they're adding 25,000 professional jobs to Bellevue, which is across Lake Washington from Seattle. That is five times the number of people they expect to have at their Virginia HQ2 by the mid-2020s.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The State of Washington quite frankly is not a particularly business friendly environment. Boeing moved its Corporate Headquarters to Chicago, Amazon is building a huge Corporate campus in Northern Virginia, and Starbucks has moved a lot of jobs out. The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

Charleston is a vibrant rapidly growing area located in a Right to Work State with a much lower cost of living and much lower taxes. That is the business reality. Boeing is doing what it must in a very difficult time economically for the aviation industry.

No, it certainly isn’t. From both a policy and an attitude/political perspective, it’s not going to have a growing industrial sector for many years. This is what their illustrious governor (who is a rabid partisan) posted a few days ago;

“Let me be clear - when the market for airplanes comes back, Boeing must bring these jobs back to Washington state.”

https://twitter.com/govinslee/status/13 ... 56576?s=21

That’s not going to lead to a ‘positive relationship’ with Boeing, or any other business.

texl1649 wrote:

No, it certainly isn’t. From both a policy and an attitude/political perspective, it’s not going to have a growing industrial sector for many years. This is what their illustrious governor (who is a rabid partisan) posted a few days ago;

“Let me be clear - when the market for airplanes comes back, Boeing must bring these jobs back to Washington state.”

https://twitter.com/govinslee/status/13 ... 56576?s=21

That’s not going to lead to a ‘positive relationship’ with Boeing, or any other business.

FWIW, Washington has given Boeing a lot, and Boeing hasn't returned the favor, in fact they've taken advantage of the state. Washington has given Boeing tax breaks, without any strings attached. In many ways the state hasn't wised up to the fact that Boeing isn't a hometown company anymore. Its a Chicago based McDonald Douglas in Boeing clothing. One of our local commentators put it pretty well Jilted again, the problem isn’t Boeing, it’s us

glbltrvlr wrote:

I could see the delivery center moving up to Everett and the sale of Boeing Field.

I'm guessing you mean the Boeing operations and buildings at Boeing Field. Boeing won't be selling Boeing Field because they don't own it. King County does. (It is officially King County International Airport.) I don't see Boeing moving the delivery center to Paine Field in Everett for one reason: It'll take too long for customers to get there. Boeing Field is great because is 15 minutes away from SeaTac, whereas Paine Field is 40 minutes away on a good day, and two hours away on a bad day. Yes, some customers could fly into Paine Field, but its has a very limited number of destinations and airlines.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

What political unrest? I live in Seattle. For the City of Seattle proper 99% of it has no unrest. Oh and Boeing has very few operations in the city proper, most are in Everett or Renton. Both of those cities have had no notable unrest.

2175301 wrote:

There is no evidence that with the 787-10 situation that there was any other realistic choice at this time. Also, my understanding is that Charleston is the lower cost assembly line. Union Status, Washington State Status, etc. just were not major considerations on this; and I doubt even a minor consideration. Those are just effects of the decision.

Have a great day,

It's easy to argue that the entire Charleston situation (only site of the -10) was set in motion to arrive at this day. Of course they want lower wage and benefit costs from a non-union workforce in an area where average manufacturing wages are notably lower.

https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes519199.htm

USAirKid wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

No, it certainly isn’t. From both a policy and an attitude/political perspective, it’s not going to have a growing industrial sector for many years. This is what their illustrious governor (who is a rabid partisan) posted a few days ago;

“Let me be clear - when the market for airplanes comes back, Boeing must bring these jobs back to Washington state.”

https://twitter.com/govinslee/status/13 ... 56576?s=21

That’s not going to lead to a ‘positive relationship’ with Boeing, or any other business.

FWIW, Washington has given Boeing a lot, and Boeing hasn't returned the favor, in fact they've taken advantage of the state. Washington has given Boeing tax breaks, without any strings attached. In many ways the state hasn't wised up to the fact that Boeing isn't a hometown company anymore. Its a Chicago based McDonald Douglas in Boeing clothing. One of our local commentators put it pretty well Jilted again, the problem isn’t Boeing, it’s us

glbltrvlr wrote:

I could see the delivery center moving up to Everett and the sale of Boeing Field.

I'm guessing you mean the Boeing operations and buildings at Boeing Field. Boeing won't be selling Boeing Field because they don't own it. King County does. (It is officially King County International Airport.) I don't see Boeing moving the delivery center to Paine Field in Everett for one reason: It'll take too long for customers to get there. Boeing Field is great because is 15 minutes away from SeaTac, whereas Paine Field is 40 minutes away on a good day, and two hours away on a bad day. Yes, some customers could fly into Paine Field, but its has a very limited number of destinations and airlines.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

What political unrest? I live in Seattle. For the City of Seattle proper 99% of it has no unrest. Oh and Boeing has very few operations in the city proper, most are in Everett or Renton. Both of those cities have had no notable unrest.

It's interesting how I've seen different, moving to the Puget Sound region in 1984. When Boeing first built Everett, they paid for building the 4 lane freeway from I-5, now HWY 426. Then when they were expanding Everett for the 777, the State took Boeing hostage to pay AGAIN for the freeway, expanding it by several lanes and additional overpasses. Why, because traffic from others had sucked up all the capacity of the freeway, so it was only fair that Boeing pay again.

I was involved with the new Boeing Field Paint Hanger in the early '90s. King County couldn't review the building permit plans in anything under 16 months, but if Boeing paid huge added fees the could do it in 8 months. To start building before this Boeing had to buy performance bonds to ensure any changes required were already paid for. Boeing was really happy about the several millions spent for that bond, in SC their plans were approved in days.

Washington is a high tax and cost state for business, very high workmen's comp for example. They do not have income tax but have a Business and Occupation tax that charges the business on revenue, not profits. Sales outside of the state don't count though. The states Sales Tax includes the cost of field labor in construction, adding about half of the cost of the building to the tax bill at 8.6%. Yes Boeing got lots and lots of exemptions from taxes and fees other businesses should pay, but it still is more than any business gets charged in SC or Texas.

Boeing has now gone out to Bid for the 787 original production, 787 line 2, the MAX, and the 777X. Why - in order to get a fair shake in terms of the costs Government imposes. Same with Amazon, the HQ2 bids was so Amazon could get a level playing field. Their competition would love a several point advantage.

In terms of Unions, I see a similar case occurring that killed the US Steel Industry. They just couldn't partner with the companies in the ways where the industry stayed competitive. Rather insist on wages, work rules, and strikes that the competition didn't have to endure. I watched both McLouth Steel and Great Lakes Steel killed by this, their customers went with import steel instead of that produced just miles away.

Boeing's move of the 787 is the same battle, different contestants. Will WA and the workers wake up to reality enough to keep the next program here - stay tuned.

USAirKid wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

No, it certainly isn’t. From both a policy and an attitude/political perspective, it’s not going to have a growing industrial sector for many years. This is what their illustrious governor (who is a rabid partisan) posted a few days ago;

“Let me be clear - when the market for airplanes comes back, Boeing must bring these jobs back to Washington state.”

https://twitter.com/govinslee/status/13 ... 56576?s=21

That’s not going to lead to a ‘positive relationship’ with Boeing, or any other business.

FWIW, Washington has given Boeing a lot, and Boeing hasn't returned the favor, in fact they've taken advantage of the state. Washington has given Boeing tax breaks, without any strings attached. In many ways the state hasn't wised up to the fact that Boeing isn't a hometown company anymore. Its a Chicago based McDonald Douglas in Boeing clothing. One of our local commentators put it pretty well Jilted again, the problem isn’t Boeing, it’s us

glbltrvlr wrote:

I could see the delivery center moving up to Everett and the sale of Boeing Field.

I'm guessing you mean the Boeing operations and buildings at Boeing Field. Boeing won't be selling Boeing Field because they don't own it. King County does. (It is officially King County International Airport.) I don't see Boeing moving the delivery center to Paine Field in Everett for one reason: It'll take too long for customers to get there. Boeing Field is great because is 15 minutes away from SeaTac, whereas Paine Field is 40 minutes away on a good day, and two hours away on a bad day. Yes, some customers could fly into Paine Field, but its has a very limited number of destinations and airlines.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

What political unrest? I live in Seattle. For the City of Seattle proper 99% of it has no unrest. Oh and Boeing has very few operations in the city proper, most are in Everett or Renton. Both of those cities have had no notable unrest.

Well, your Mayor did call the situation over the summer "The Summer of Love," so there's that.



https://www.newsbreak.com/washington/se ... l-conclude

trex8 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Labor will be no cheaper in CHS than PAE since they're all in trhe Same Union and the IAM hasn't given Boeing any break in Labor Rates at CHS nor SEA.

CHS isn't unionized, that was the whole point of going to SC, besides taking over the mess Vought left Boeing with

I and SC is a right to work state beg to differ. CHS is in a right to work state. However? The IAM is the incumbent Union. And they have the right to Negotiate the wage rates for all the Aircraft techs on site. You don't have to join the Union if you don't want to But if you work there in an IAM classification? You will be paying An agency fee to the union for your representation to offset what the Union spends in negotiating and industrial work the do with Safety and Benefits. And that is Federal Labor Law. It's not up to debate.

That move is certainly interesting but not surprising. Boeing can't focus the majority of their assembly in the Seattle Region. Airbus has final assembly lines in Mobile, Hamburg, Toulouse, and Tianjin. Boeing by comparison, has only Everett, Renton, and Charleston for their commercial aircraft.

I can see the south getting more and more of the manufacturing share. If Boeing ever comes out with the NMA it would not surprise me if they manufacture it in Charleston. There is certainly space to do so and southern states are very business friendly to make expansion attractive. I do hope that Boeing moves their headquarters out of Chicago and into a city that has one of their manufacturing plants though.

strfyr51 wrote:

trex8 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Labor will be no cheaper in CHS than PAE since they're all in trhe Same Union and the IAM hasn't given Boeing any break in Labor Rates at CHS nor SEA.

CHS isn't unionized, that was the whole point of going to SC, besides taking over the mess Vought left Boeing with

I and SC is a right to work state beg to differ. CHS is in a right to work state. However? The IAM is the incumbent Union. And they have the right to Negotiate the wage rates for all the Aircraft techs on site. You don't have to join the Union if you don't want to But if you work there in an IAM classification? You will be paying An agency fee to the union for your representation to offset what the Union spends in negotiating and industrial work the do with Safety and Benefits. And that is Federal Labor Law. It's not up to debate.

Its not unionized
https://www.postandcourier.com/business ... d67c1.html

CHS was actually represented by the IAM under Vought when Boeing took over, however the workers voted to de-certify in late 2009 so the IAM has not served as their bargaining representative since that time.

ElroyJetson wrote:

The State of Washington quite frankly is not a particularly business friendly environment. Boeing moved its Corporate Headquarters to Chicago, Amazon is building a huge Corporate campus in Northern Virginia, and Starbucks has moved a lot of jobs out. The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

Charleston is a vibrant rapidly growing area located in a Right to Work State with a much lower cost of living and much lower taxes. That is the business reality. Boeing is doing what it must in a very difficult time economically for the aviation industry.

Yep, Boeing also has to compete with Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft for engineering talent in the Puget Sound. Building planes in Silicon Valley North has a price. It didn't used to be this way, and certainly that's okay in normal times but the other three companies are printing money every second, Boeing not so much so.

Having the MAX grounded didn't help matters either, they might have weathered the 787 storm if the MAX failure wasn't part of the pandemic plan.

Stitch wrote:

It makes little economic sense for Boeing to move MAX production to Everett considering the money they have already spent to design Renton for high-rate MAX production. The two main buildings are optimized to run three lines at up to (if not beyond) Rate 20 each and their workforce likely lives much closer to Renton than Everett.

The 737 MAX FAL at Renton consists of two large open areas side by side (4-81 and 4-82). There may not be enough room with the three existing 747 buildings to hold all of that and even if there is, having seen those in person, there would be significant re-work necessary. It might be necessary to run one FAL per building which would make things less efficient than the current side-by-side FALs in 4-20 and the third in 4-21 with the fuselage build-up next to it.

Then you have to find room for the stuff in Building 4-20/21 at Renton, which is the P-8 FAL along with the two wing assembly lines. That will certainly not fit in the 787 section (it might if you don't carry over the P-8 FAL and instead build those on the MAX line - maybe make the third, single line ITAR compliant so you can run both down it. But then you have to move wings from one end of PAE to the other.

To put numbers to this using the measure tool on Google Maps, it looks like the two main buildings comprise about 1.7 million square feet. The 787 will only be freeing up about 0.5 million square feet, it appears.

FLALEFTY wrote:

The sticky issue will be convincing engineering talent to move to Charleston.

Nothing has been said about moving the engineers as a whole to Charleston, and they don't need to. Production does require some engineering support on an continual basis, but a small fraction of the overall engineering workforce.

lightsaber wrote:

That was never an option due to the 787-10, Boeing would never walk away from 145 firm orders (I consider only 6 of those at risk) and a good potential future market.

Despite the way it gets discussed here, it was an option to move the 787-10 production. It was just never likely to be an economically compelling one. It would have involved adding a small line to Everett to perform the center fuselage section sub-assembly. However, the center fuselage parts are already flown to Charleston from Italy and Japan. The composite layup machines, mandrels, autoclaves, trim machines, and frame installation stations could stay where they are.

No surprise they didn't choose this option though.

I've noticed articles discussing the impact of the 787 consolidation as anywhere from 900 jobs to 10,000 jobs in Everett (out of ~30,000 total, although perhaps that was the count before the recent layoff of 15% of the Boeing's commercial workforce).

The bottom end of the estimates are surprisingly low, but it occurs to me, less 787 work takes place in Everett compared to other programs. For the 787, they do final assembly, test, and delivery, and a few minor component operations. Someone mentioned above the 787 tail in Frederickson. Runway Girl reported also there are interior parts for the 787 produced in Everett that will mostly be consolidated to Charleston:
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2020/10/0 ... -carolina/

For the 747, 767, and 777, they build up the fuselage barrels, the spars and wing skins, and the wing major assemblies, then do final assembly, test, and delivery. That's actually quite a significant additional scope of work compared to the 787.

Granted, the 747 is going away, but it was already at just 0.5 per month since late 2016. The 767 and 777 rates will be low, too, but the former will be steady for most of the decade until the tankers are delivered, and the latter should eventually ramp up.

It's also mentioned in the Runway Girl article that the Everett interiors center produces parts not only for the Everett programs, but also for the 737.

This is not good news, but it seems like far from a death knell for Everett.

Has any NMA or NSA future production site quietly been guaranteed to Everett with removing the 787? If that has happened no worries. If not it remains to be seen how firm the future in WA is. The governor has reacted a bit emotional/frustrated it seems. I hope there is not more going on in the background?

trex8 wrote:

Its not unionized
https://www.postandcourier.com/business ... d67c1.html

From your link:
"the proposed flight-line bargaining unit of just two job descriptions did not meet federal standards because the workers aren’t distinct from the site’s overall workforce of about 2,700 maintenance and production workers."

How many % of workers does a union have to at least represent in each state respectively?
If Boeing had to deal with 30 unions of 1000 workers each, that would be difficult.

Lootess wrote:

Yep, Boeing also has to compete with Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft for engineering talent in the Puget Sound.

That makes sense.
Nothing as permanent as change, specially in capitalism.
Industries come, industries go.
I'm just a bit surprised that same is true for aviation. It's not like a textile unit or TV producer is shifting.

Is it possible that housing prices are so high that workers have to demand outrageous salaries? I'm not familiar with the US, but heard something like this from California.

Sokes wrote:

Lootess wrote:

Yep, Boeing also has to compete with Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft for engineering talent in the Puget Sound.

That makes sense.
Nothing as permanent as change, specially in capitalism.
Industries come, industries go.

The one difference between these companies is that Amazon etc. have a strong focus on software and electrical engineering, whereas Boeing employs many mechanical engineers and plenty of skilled workers (mechanics, electricians, ...).

iamlucky13 wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

The sticky issue will be convincing engineering talent to move to Charleston.

Nothing has been said about moving the engineers as a whole to Charleston, and they don't need to. Production does require some engineering support on an continual basis, but a small fraction of the overall engineering workforce.

It is a bad idea to keep your engineering unit separate from production. Airbus, for example, has their engineering for certain components adjacent to the plant where these are assembled. Wing design and manufacturing are done in the UK, fuselage design and assembly are done in Germany, ... but the large plants are still linked by daily shuttle flights to provide support and facilitate exchange.

Separation leads to poor communication, and poor communication leads to manufacturing failures like the early 787 or A380.

USAirKid wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

What political unrest? I live in Seattle. For the City of Seattle proper 99% of it has no unrest. Oh and Boeing has very few operations in the city proper, most are in Everett or Renton. Both of those cities have had no notable unrest.

Umm, the lawsuits are piling up for months; https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/chop- ... it-bozeman

Mayor Durkan has been pleading for the rioting to stop. This is the beating heart of the greater metropolitan area; other companies are fleeing and some occupancy rates are hitting 20 percent.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/b ... ny-n564758

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/l ... and-chaos/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/im-leaving ... 1593211124

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... ps-n799570

Businesses like Boeing (as well as smaller ones) notice the little things like riots/looting being encouraged (police chiefs quitting in disgust), minimum wage for uber drivers set at ludicrous levels, Vladimir Lenin statues, etc. Washington ranks somewhere around 44th as a state for doing business;

texl1649 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

The ongoing political unrest in Seattle I am sure does not help either.

What political unrest? I live in Seattle. For the City of Seattle proper 99% of it has no unrest. Oh and Boeing has very few operations in the city proper, most are in Everett or Renton. Both of those cities have had no notable unrest.

Umm, the lawsuits are piling up for months; https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/chop- ... it-bozeman

Mayor Durkan has been pleading for the rioting to stop. This is the beating heart of the greater metropolitan area; other companies are fleeing and some occupancy rates are hitting 20 percent.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/b ... ny-n564758

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/l ... and-chaos/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/im-leaving ... 1593211124

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... ps-n799570

Businesses like Boeing (as well as smaller ones) notice the little things like riots/looting being encouraged (police chiefs quitting in disgust), minimum wage for uber drivers set at ludicrous levels, Vladimir Lenin statues, etc. Washington ranks somewhere around 44th as a state for doing business;

While Cali and NY are the worst, but despite this most businesses flok to these states. I wonder why...

JonesNL wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

What political unrest? I live in Seattle. For the City of Seattle proper 99% of it has no unrest. Oh and Boeing has very few operations in the city proper, most are in Everett or Renton. Both of those cities have had no notable unrest.

Umm, the lawsuits are piling up for months; https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/chop- ... it-bozeman

Mayor Durkan has been pleading for the rioting to stop. This is the beating heart of the greater metropolitan area; other companies are fleeing and some occupancy rates are hitting 20 percent.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/b ... ny-n564758

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/l ... and-chaos/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/im-leaving ... 1593211124

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/t ... ps-n799570

Businesses like Boeing (as well as smaller ones) notice the little things like riots/looting being encouraged (police chiefs quitting in disgust), minimum wage for uber drivers set at ludicrous levels, Vladimir Lenin statues, etc. Washington ranks somewhere around 44th as a state for doing business;

While Cali and NY are the worst, but despite this most businesses flok to these states. I wonder why...

Yet NYS was loosing population to internal migration for many years. For a few years, that was offset by immigration into NYC from overseas, but the latest data shows 2 years of net population loss for NYS (all pre-covid). Hardly correlates with "businesses flock to these states". Lots of businesses in NYC are purely financial, so no large assets, construction or workers comp...

Good, WA state is bad for business.

texl1649 wrote:

What's the source?