Boeing Dreamliner 'coming to life'

LOL! I think us 'round-eyes' named it the "zero."

[ They're building parts of it in Japan. Which translates into more sales of the aircraft to Japanese carriers.]

Not only that, but the Japanese taxpayers are also subsidizing some of the manufacturing of the plane... Airbust is going to be pissed.

[Inter-American Products]

LOL, I'm buyin'!

The Japanese have been practically exclusive boeing customers for decades. They have also been component manufacturers for boeing for decades. This has kept the japanese from becoming another competitor in the airliner market.

From the graphic in the linked article, it looks like Japan and Italy are in charge of the plane's axis.

I agree, my bitch is how the liberals in the Washington legislature and unions, (oxymoron), strong armed Boeing into moving to greener pastures.

I agree, my bitch is how the liberals in the Washington legislature and unions, (oxymoron), strong armed Boeing into moving to greener pastures.{aka Galt's Gulch}

If Ayn Rand hadn't been such a horrible writer, then she could've gotten that point across in about 100 pages in Atlas Shrugged!

How do people like XR7 not 'get' this?

Okay. Okay. Okay!!!
I get it. I get it!!!

Time out. Okay?

Flames off.

A friend of mine in Calif. is leasing part of his building to a company that is streatch forming skin parts for Airbust.

It's not just a one way street.

"They tuk arr jiobs!"

Whatever hogwash that statement is in the long run, it still doesn't cover the fact that....

Sorry, but if you'd look at what one of our remaining successful manufacturing exports currently are...you might get a sense of disquiet...

Planes. And we're losing that by virtue of importing these subassemblies. By value, there isn't really that much left for America...the tail section, a forward fuselage section, and some of the engines, and hopefully most of the avionics. Boeing will be doing the "final assembly" and getting its cut only then.

...the BRAINtrust, the DESIGN, is based in America.

Actually I know quite a bit about Boeing and its engineering operations. As a matter of simple fact, they have outsourced most of the engineering to the fabricators of the componentry.

I'll take brain-power jobs over manual jobs any day.

So would I, but guess what...they go hand-in-hand. Manufacturing is integrated. And outsourcing the fabrication engineering means we lose out.

It means we have the ability to *truly* sustain ourselves, as long as we have the brains and the freedom to use them.

You are hoist by your own petard.

I am enthused quite a bit about the new Dreamliner, from a technology standpoint...but I think a sobering reality-check is in order.

We are building the Dreamliner as a last-gasp to save Boeing, the company, which has been ravaged mercilessly by EU-subsidized [GATT/WTO Scofflaw] Airbus and EADs. It is an attempt to save the commercial side of the corporation...at the expense of throwing a good chunk of the national aerospace capacity overboard.

And by relying on the outsourcing vendor countries to supply subsidies, and engineering monies, and oh yea, customer orders...they will essentially be fighting fire with fire. Boeing's non-EU subsidies against EU subsidies.

The picture just three years ago looked mighty grim. It could still turn out that way....

As a thought-provoking warning, I commend this study performed by The University of Buffalo in the UB Reporter, Thursday April 27, 2003.

Study predicts Boeing downsizing

Geographers say airplane manufacturer will exit from passenger jet manufacturing

By ELLEN GOLDBAUM
Contributing Editor

The red ink flowing from the airline industry in recent months has consistently grabbed headlines, but during the next decade the U.S. economy will be affected by an even more significant loss with the nation's eventual exit from the building of passenger aircraft, a market the U.S. has led for more than half a century, according to a research paper by two UB geographers.

The paper, which was published last month in the journal Futures, provides a detailed look at the decline and eventual demise of an industry it describes as "the single most important sector of the U.S. economy in terms of skilled production jobs, value added and exports."

UB geographers expect Boeing to cease manufacturing passenger planes like this 747-400 Jet Aircraft.

In the first in-depth analysis of the commercial aircraft industry since Sept. 11, 2001, the authors stress that the loss of this sector will have severe consequences for tens of thousands of U.S. workers, as well as for the nation's economy.

The authors focus on Boeing Corp., the only remaining U.S. manufacturer of large commercial aircraft—those with more than 100 seats.

"Ten years from now, Boeing, the last remaining U.S. firm in the business, will be making military and special aircraft, but its days of manufacturing large passenger jets will probably have come to an end," said Alan MacPherson, professor and chair of the Department of Geography in the College of Arts and Sciences, and co-author.

"This is the first analysis that documents the entire shifting of commercial aircraft manufacturing away from the U.S.," said David J. Pritchard, co-author of the paper, who wrote it as part of his doctoral work in geography at UB and who runs a consulting firm specializing in aerospace.

Pritchard worked for 20 years in commercial airframe manufacturing for suppliers servicing global aircraft manufacturers. He has visited every major aircraft plant in the world.

The dramatic shift in the geography of aircraft production overseas to Airbus and other government-financed firms in Japan, Italy and China, the researchers note, is in large part a result of subcontracting agreements in which foreign governments require that in order for them to buy planes, key technologies for aircraft production must be transferred to their companies from the U.S. or a certain percentage of the planes they buy must contain locally produced parts.

The recently published Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry http://www.aerospacecommission.gov cites Pritchard discussing this issue.

The authors note that although Boeing officials have not stated officially that the company is ceasing commercial aircraft production, there is overwhelming evidence that it will.

"Boeing has a lot of aircraft just sitting in the desert," said MacPherson, who adds that those planes have been purchased by airlines, but since Sept. 11, 2001, none of them is in any condition to take delivery.

In the paper, the authors cite the loss of more than 30,000 Boeing workers following Sept. 11, 2001 and subsequent announcements of future cuts, shifts in its emphasis into telecommunications and air-traffic control, and symbolic changes, such as the recent move of its headquarters to Chicago from Seattle, which is geographically closer to the emerging markets for new passenger jets in Asia.

As further evidence, Pritchard and MacPherson note:

Boeing's sale or closure of approximately 10 million square feet of space devoted to commercial and military aircraft production in the past decade
a 60 percent decline in Boeing's commercial aircraft production, with less than 50 aircraft in backlogs of four of its six commercial aircraft models, when most viable, mature aircraft programs have backlogs in excess of 100
the lack of new aircraft programs—Boeing's most recent aircraft is the 777, designed in the early 1990s
Boeing's announcement on Dec. 20 that it would shelve its futuristic, high-speed, sonic-cruiser design in favor of a cheaper alternative, its second cancellation of a proposed commercial jetliner program

"Our paper traces the transformation of Boeing from a manufacturing corporation to a global service corporation," MacPherson said.

That strategy probably will be positive for the corporation and its stock price, he explained, because traditionally aviation services and high-tech military aircraft manufacturing have had higher profit margins than the commercial side.

But, said MacPherson, there is a downside.

"The real cost will be to Boeing's workforce, which has already taken a major hit, and its subcontractor base in the U.S., sending a ripple effect throughout the sector and beyond," MacPherson said.

"The biggest loser in all this is the membership of the International Association of Machinists, the traditional aerospace workers who mainly do riveting and aircraft assembly," explained Pritchard. "These were well-paying positions and there will no longer be a need for them as Boeing aircraft programs are downsized and eventually closed. Now these people will need new sets of skills.

"My belief is that by the time Boeing comes out of this current 'downsizing,' the job losses will have reached between 45,000 and 50,000," he said.

At the same time, the authors document a major decrease in the number of scientist and engineer positions in the U.S. aerospace industry, which plummeted by 800 per cent from 1970 to 2000. More cuts are anticipated, they say.

The paper also documents the strengths of Boeing's new competitors, most significantly Airbus, whose market share has grown from zero in 1970 to 50 percent, as well as other firms—all of whom have benefited from the subcontracting offset agreements.

The paper forecasts a similar fate for other sectors of strategic importance to the U.S. economy, such as machine tools, where offset arrangements are becoming common.

MacPherson and Pritchard write that U.S. government policies have only been concerned with preventing the delivery of sensitive technologies to potentially hostile nations, rather than the potential economic consequences of such offset agreements, such as major job losses for American workers.

The UB authors characterize these agreements as prevalent in markets where "unit costs are high…and sellers are desperate to make a sale…"

"Direct offset agreements between airlines and aircraft producers are designed to transfer a segment of the manufacturing work to the buyer," they write.

In one striking example they cite from 1995, South Korean producer Hyundai obtained the engineering and technical specifications required to build wings for a Boeing/McDonnell jet.

Within two years, Hyundai had purchased state-of-the-art equipment and had successfully built wings for the Boeing 717. Meanwhile, the authors point out, Boeing's own equipment for building the same parts was around 30 years old.

"The competitors have the leverage to turn these deals very much to their advantage," said Pritchard.

The authors also note that Russian firms now are advancing technologically and are in the process of receiving FAA/JAA (Federal Aviation Administration/Joint Aviation Authorities, the European equivalent) certifications for several aircraft programs.

The Chinese aerospace industry is not far behind, they add, and currently is embarking on manufacturing a 70-seat regional jet featuring Western engines and avionics.

"We're foreseeing a radical shift in production of commercial aircraft from the U.S. to overseas," said Pritchard, "and it's not going to come back."

Re: "TIME OUT!!!"

LOL, XR7! But...you....win....after all..{Sam says as he is mortally wounded.}

Paul Ross has materialized out of thin air to hijack the thread and remind us that capitalism is a secret Chinese Communist plot to destroy America.

Next, I expect safisoft to show up and tell us all that he's a pilot. (How do you know if someone's a pilot? Don't worry, they'll tell you!)

;-P

it looks like Japan and Italy are in charge of the plane's axis.

Sorry. I've been away from the thread for hours and was unable to give this a [GROAN....]

8-o

Exactly. The Machinist's president isn't too bright. Every time he trashes Boeing execs in the paper/to employees and goes out on strike, 10,000 potential jobs fly away.

Oh, no sam_paine has misrepresented Paul yet again. Trying to hijack the thread? You're guilty as charged.

Next he'll probably be staunchly defending the free market ways of AirBus and the CCP.

Hello..does this go to Paul Ross's mailbox?

Today, labor costs are cheaper in the U.S. than in Japan.

This entire article is flawed. Events in the three years since publication blow it out of the water.

If anything endangers aircraft production, it's the Machinists.

Events in the three years since publication blow it out of the water.

Not quite. There have been some heroic measures taken by Boeing management...but at a real risk to U.S. industrial infrastructure survival in the commercial sector.

If anything endangers aircraft production, it's the Machinists.

No argument there...can't have Americans making too much, now can we? But that is not the half of it. U.S. engineers are apparently considered too expensive by Boeing as well...and they have been pushing for H1-Bs and the new business model of outsourcing everything if they can...leaving "systems integration."