PARIS -- Boeing's vice president of airplane programs, Pat Shanahan, suggested that the American airframer is nearing a decision on a second 787 production line and labor stability is a key factor in determining its location.Shanahan called his company's decision on a second line "more mature and advanced than it was a year ago," emphasizing that Boeing is "not going to ponder [a decision on a second line] a long time."
Boeing has long entertained the idea of a second 787 production line to raise production rates beyond 10 per month to meet customer demand and make up for 22 months worth of program delays.
"The sooner you make a decision, the better. We won't be pressed into making a decision. [It will be] very measured. It won't be emotionally based," said Shanahan.
Though, despite some deferrals from early 787 customers, Shanahan says Boeing is still committed to ramp up 787 production to 10 aircraft per month by 2012.
"The demand is there. Obviously there are factors around things outside the demand like financing issues, but that's so far out there," he added.
Boeing has accumulated 865 order from 56 customers for the 787.
Shanahan added that Boeing is not even discussing the possibility of not meeting the 787 demand forecast.
"Two and a half years isn't that far away, it's just a lot of work and I think second guessing that at this point, would not serve any value now."
Shanahan declined to specify what locations were on the "short list" for a second 787 production line, but said there are "lots of geographical options...the real options are around 'how do you secure assurance of delivery?' And I think that's been a discussion topic around some of the disruption we've realized...at Boeing."
The disruption Shanahan referenced was the 57-day machinist strike that halted jetliner production at Boeing's commercial manufacturing facilities during September and October of 2008.
Likely candidates for a second 787 production line include Everett, Washington, current site of final assembly, San Antonio, Texas and Charleston, South Carolina. Charleston is currently home to center fuselage integration by Global Aeronautica, as well as aft fuselage fabrication by Vought. San Antonio will host refurbishment and change incorporation operations for the six flight test aircraft and early production 787s.
"There are opportunities that we need to assess and I've worked there for 24 years, I like the people in Seattle, I grew up in Seattle, It's a great community, but when you have the customer telling you you're making it really hard to choose your product because when we buy it you can't give it to us," said Shanahan.
Sir Richard Branson, whose Virgin Atlantic Airways has 15 787-9 aircraft on order, discussed the disruption in February at the time of delivery of the first 777 for V Australia:
"If people in Seattle build our planes and deliver them on time and, to be frank, don't go on strike, then we'll continue to work with Boeing. If we have our airline completely messed up, with tremendous damage done to our own work force, then we'll go to Embraer or Airbus."
"We have a have a hard time explaining it to our shareholders how we're making some of these decisions," Shanahan added. "I think this is more the corporate responsibility piece is to evaluate all scenarios. I won't speak to specifics of those scenarios, but [it is] something we're evaluating, considering our options quite seriously and make a determination on a broad variety of criteria."
Shanahan cited "functional logistics" and access to "skilled labor...and high tech skills" as key criteria in any decision.
on June 17, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply
The new Boeing Math...57days = 2+ years of management failure.
Ask Pat why it takes days to get permission to install a fastener?
Ask Pat why tool boxes are kept as far from the acft as possible?
Ask Pat why every management effort has been made to keep workers off the aircraft through methodology that is best best described as "Planned Failure."
Instead of trashing the generations of loyal Boeing IAM members at an international event, he should be looking at his management tiers for the real answers.to their problems.
Long story short- Boeing has planned to move out from day 1- if you doubt that why has no Boeing leader mentioned building any more than the Dreamliners already in Everett?
on June 17, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply
This reminds me of the painful series of comments we would read before and during the strike.
Workers would issue antagonistic and angry comments about how production was interfered with by incompetent management and criticize everything about supervision and executive decisionmaking.
Those who were promanagement would be critical of the poor attitude and work of Union Labor .and their inefficient ways
And here we are again as outsider trying to understand where the truth is,
on June 17, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply
Jerry1t,
I suspect that, as is so often the case, both sides have legitmate complaints, but will continually agree to disagree.
on June 17, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply
Air Airbus workers paid less than Boeing workers? It surprises me that Boeing has to worry about labor issues and Airbus doesn't.
on June 17, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply
Jaypee...yes. You are right. One would hope that there is a constructive dialogue.
On the Second line, there must be alot of factors which determine the choice. I wonder if the Unions would be willing to cooperate in some way that allows for competitive wages and outsourcing yet could share in some production gains in terms of bonuses...or some other terms.
Many seem to feel that it is inevitable that the 2nd line be elsewhere because agreements have been impossible.
Does anybody have any ideas which are the determinates ? Is it only Labor. There is also labor availability. The community and the logisitics in setting up the line and possible other future operations.
How does Boeing come up with the right mix?
on June 17, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply
Ask IAM why they have to strike every time.
Ask IAM why they all planned vacations and lined up temp work before the new contract was even drawn up.
Ask why IAM has better benefits, bonuses, and wages than many engineers with actual degrees
Ask IAM why they tried to sink Boeing, and force them into a contract that was unfair to the company and the rest of its workers, when the economy is so bad.
Ask IAM how they fell about being responsible for 3000 people being laid off
on June 17, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply
Anonymous is right.... Having worked at Boeing for years, the 787 is the most pathetic program we have ever witnessed. It's like watching a third world country trying to build an airplane for the first time! No one can make a decision and when they do, it's changed by the next shift.
There is NO communication between all of the departments and every department is run like a little kingdom. There is no sense of urgency when trying to get things done. Everything and I do mean everything, is strictly geared for day shift. Of course that's where careers are built, second shift builds airplanes and third shift cleans ups the mess.
The ONLY people being held accountable for others are the quality inspectors. They are being used as cannon fodder by senior management to prove to the FAA that the "system" is working. If a mechanic stamps off a process without a proper certification and the inspector doesn't check his record, you get a Corrective Action Memo and a day off!
And where in hell is the FAA? There are a few thousand of us who would like to know. Either they are getting paid to look the other way or they are just as incompetent as the Boeing management that designed this mess. Either way, this would not fly in the "real" world.
We honestly believe that engineering, does not want this plane to fly. They drag their feet trying to make decisions and come up with last minute changes requiring disassembly of systems/structure. They know that when it flies, they are out of a job.
As you have already read, senior management said ZA001 "will fly" by the end of this month, (read - ready or not). From all the problems encountered so far, this is just going to add to a possible disaster!
Qatar Airways chief executive Akbar Al Baker summed it up best: "Unfortunately Boeing is not run by commercially minded people, it is being run by bean counters and lawyers".
And that my friends, is why Boeing is the way it is. Until the stock holders vote these clowns out and get some real aviation management in place, then it will only get worse.
In closing, I mentioned the clowns. Because on a daily basis, we say to one another, It's just another day at the circus. The only place in town that pays you to be entertained!
on June 17, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply
I don't see any cooperation between the IAM and Boeing management. They hate each other. The relationship between management and the union is a pissing contest. Each side wants to be seen as tough,macho and in control. They forget that we're building airplanes. I'm guessing that line 2 will be in Texas.
on June 17, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply
The unions in America have out lived any usefulness’. All I see is a huge protection program for folks who want to get something for nothing.
The first commenter / moron who is complaining about Boeing's “math” needs to look in the mirror and there he will find the person to blame for the next 787 assembly facility being moving to a place south and east of Seattle.
Your Liberal reward is in the brewing. You can only rape privilege and plunder for so long before you have taken it all.
Boeing has long needed to move out of Seattle. Before long you will have a huge empty building, long unemployment lines and downward spiraling home values. Put that in your union crack pipe and smoke it!
I am disgusted with what I see on a daily basis. Mechanics, who can't drill a straight hole, can't read the blueprints, can't read the planning and think that is what earns them the big bucks.
further more, the FAA needs to make it mandatory that all people who work building an aircraft are licensed and accountable! Yes there are good folks but the bad out weigh the few good ones.
on June 17, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply
Mr. Mechanic,
You forgot one group of people who are running Boeing....The kings of the bigtop!!! The Union (IAM).
on June 17, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply
Whether we like it or not, the value of assembly workers are going down and down. Look at the number of workers required in the CFRP factories for 787. Look at the auto industry where GM went from over 600K workers to under 100K. Airplane industry is next and it is true whether it is in US or in Japan or even in China, the industry will need fewer assemblers.
on June 17, 2009 7:52 PM | Reply
"And here we are again as outsider trying to understand where the truth is, "
Somewhere in between...:-)
on June 17, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply
Interesting that the union guys on this blog are ignoring the comment of the customer. Without the customer you don't have a job and they said to stop striking and deliver planes. I thought Boeing should have left Seattle with the 787 when it was first started. There is engineering and assembly talent available at several locations in the U.S. in right to work states. The IAM isn't needed to build airplanes. Time to move the second line away from Seattle or follow in the footsteps of GM and Chrysler to bankruptcy court. The IAM has no more sense than the UAW. It will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
on June 17, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply
It's still funny to see folks dog the IAM for the delay...If you had any idea what was delivered in the beginning you too would be amazed. 8 to 9 huge assemblies that were delivered were either 75% incomplete and/or wrong! The mechanics that were trained to "snap" it all together now had to be instantly proficient at "rework". In the 11th hour on plane 1 Engineering still requests items to be torn apart and redone..So if the IAM had anything to do with that, then so be it. But unfortunately the concept of outsourcing everything to save a buck has actually cost more than a buck...Just My opinion
on June 17, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply
Leaving aside the union vs management for a moment, the idea of a second line is a good one. The second line would allow Boeing to delive the aircraft at an increased rate to clear the backlog and potentially bring in new orders as airlines see 787s being delivered much quicker than A350s. Further, putting a second line outside of Seattle isn't a bad idea either as there are plenty of parts of the country with the talent to produce the aircraft that really need the work.
on June 17, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply
If Boeing had let the suppliers deliver their sections at 100% complete instead of forcing them to ship incomplete to make the 7-8-07 rollout, things would have been different. It's not like the suppliers wanted to ship traveled work.
on June 17, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply
Based on the above comments, it sure appears that there was complicity on both Management and Labor on the 787 project.
In retrospect, it was inevitable that the supply chain was faulty and created a monster in the early deliveries that just spun things out of control. The Union probably was driven a little crazy and increased its demands as they felt empowered by their need to remediate and could blame Boeing management for the screw up.
The number of orders were sufficient for the Union to increase its demands and try to keep outsourcing from encroaching on them. There were even allegations, prehaps so, that Boeing would use strike time to catch up .
So, there is a history that shows a complex set of decisions and reactions that left an angry Union and a harassed management blaming others for their mistakes. Each side was unsympathetic to the other and this was exacerbated by the economy and corporste pressures.
Put simply, the blaming game will continue and will be factored in to the decision as to whether to move the second line. Based on the comments from above, it sounds inevitable unless the Unions recognize the issues with GM, etc. and are willing to make concessions that will keep the work in their backyard.
This is a chess game but the game plan may already be known.
on June 17, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply
I guess if things were left to the supply chain, maybe it would have been better named "789". On the flip side, with the down turn in the economy, more airlines may have been more apt to delay orders....So maybe it's all working out for the best. My vote is for Charleston....It's warmer. ;-)
on June 17, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply
If Vought and all the other "vendors" had to use Velocity and Delmia (also known as Atrocity and Dilemma),it's not surprising that the assemblies came in so screwed up!
on June 17, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply
With Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson running for Governor of Texas, what will she do, to talk Boeing into moving the second 787 assembly to the Port San Antonio Facility? Someone needs to ask her if she is willing to use her political clout to bring more aerospace jobs to Texas! I have noticed a bunch of Washington License Plates around San Antonio...
on June 18, 2009 1:03 AM | Reply
Many are quick to criticize the 787 program for all of its problems. However, people tend to forget that even with the 2 year delay the 787 is three years ahead of the 777 despite a brand new airplane and major outsourcing in design and build. The key problem was unrealistic scheduling from the very beginning. For Boeing to make the initial schedule more than just the stars had to align.
on June 20, 2009 7:00 AM | Reply
Boeing, in their less than infinite wisdom, made more than a few pathetic blunders:
1- The original 787 program schedule was absurd Why were they so fixated on the 07JUL2007 rollout date and hoopla? By so overhyping this date merely served to emphasize the ensuing delays. And ofcourse the so-called rollout was merely that of an empty shell.
2- Boeing certainly succeeded in maiximizing the complexity of the entire production process; which means (industrial engineering 101) the more complex any process becomes the more likely it will suffer glitches, which then will propagate down thru the remaining production sequence.
3- . The viability of the all-CRP structure and the all-electric architecture and no engine bleed design and the common computer platform and all perhaps overreaching. The reliability and operating economics are all questionable.