Everett's SurgeOver the next two years or so, Boeing will continue to ramp up 787-8 production with the help of the newly-announced temporary surge line. The line will be established on the existing 767 line inside Building 40-24, two bays down from the current 787 line, say company sources. The 767, which will continue operating at around a 1-per month production rate, will be turned around in the back of 40-24 and roll out of Building 40-34. Boeing may have to make provisions to ensure a fully assembled 767 can transit to the flight line. Sometime in 2012, Boeing will begin final assembly and testing of the first 787-9 in Everett, where the aircraft will be built. Seven of the 10 787s assembled per month will originate in Everett.
Charleston Timeline
Boeing says that the Charleston line will be up and running by July 2011, with groundbreaking in the next few weeks. For the sake of comparison, Global Aeronautica ground breaking was February 7, 2005, with tooling and equipment moved into the facility by December 2006. Initially the plan is to have Boeing Charleston build 3 787-8s per month as part of the 10 per month ramp up. First delivery of a 787-8 from Boeing Charleston is planned for the first quarter of 2012.
Dreamlifter Dynamics
With the second line set to be up and running by 2012, the small fleet of modified 747 LCF Dreamlifters will be deployed differently than they currently are now. The number of inbound structural delivery flights to Everett is now seven per aircraft. For Charleston, best estimates show that that number would reduce to six. This is mainly because without the aft and center fuselages will be built on site in Charleston. Boeing saves flights of the horizontal stabilizer, however, the wings will have an additional flight from PAE to CHS and the vertical tail plane will also likely be flown from BFI (closer to Frederickson, WA) to CHS. The total distance traveled by the LCF is 16405 nm to Everett vs. 13933 nm to Charleston.
| EVERETT | ROUTE | Flights | Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WINGS (Nagoya, JP) | NGO-ANC-PAE | 2 | 4369 | |
| FWD FUSE (Wichita) | IAB-PAE | 1 | 1258 | |
| HTP (Foggia, IT) | TAR-CHS-PAE | 2 | 6574 | |
| CENTER & AFT (Charleston) | CHS-PAE | 2 | 4205 | |
| TOTAL: | 7 | 16405 | NM |
| CHARLESTON | ROUTE | Flights | Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WINGS (Nagoya, JP) | NGO-ANC-PAE-CHS | 3 | 6471 | |
| FWD FUSE (Wichita) | IAB-CHS | 1 | 891 | |
| HTP (Foggia, IT) | TAR-CHS | 1 | 4472 | |
| VTP (Washington) | BFI-CHS | 1 | 2099 | |
| TOTAL: | 6 | 13933 | NM |
Delivery Geography
Though not officially announced, there is a the possibility of shaping the 787 firing order based on the geographical location of the customer. I spoke with one program source yesterday who said that Boeing may consider delivering European and African 787s through Charleston and Asia/Pacific 787s through Everett to take advantage of the relative proximity of each line.
The Tanker Wild Card
Hanging out in the not so distant future is the USAF KC-X tanker deal. If Boeing wins this iteration of the competition, the KC-767 or KC-777 will be built in Everett, however the mission systems installation will be done elsewhere. That location was always thought to be McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, Kansas, however, Boeing now says they will choose the cheapest location for the modifications, which could now mean that Charleston is in the mix. Boeing went to great lengths to say that the Charleston line is only for 787 work, but let's file this one under wild card.
Photo Credit Boeing
on October 29, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply
What are the turnaround times for the LCF
in view of the complexity of the swing tail
( compared to the frontal "maw" of the Beluga ).
uwe
on October 29, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply
I've seen lots of Dreamlifers load and unload, and I've seen an An-124 a couple of times now. The Dreamlifter is definitely faster, assuming that the factory is ready for the parts and the tug vehicle is ready to go.
Here is a mostly uncut video of a Dreamlifter landing and unloading... there were times when nothing happened for 3-5 minutes, and I cut those out, but pretty much all action is shown: http://vimeo.com/4244339
I'd say the average unload takes about 20-30m from when they crack the tail to when it's closed again.
on October 29, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply
Jon,
You have described some different possibilities and options that are opened by this expansion. But underneath it all is the need for the supply chain to be smoothly operating and consistent in its work.
The cost of generating the infrastructure to accomplish this along with the additional costs incurred by the suppliers until deliveries ramp up are looming factor not included in the analysis
on October 29, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply
I would imagine the systems installation for tanker would probably be only at Witchita or perhaps Long Beach. Would probably be a headache to set up an ITAR area while trying to iron out the kinks in the new 787 line.
Unless the labor costs in Charleston are enough to outweigh any rework/schedule work that might come around with a new set of labor.
on October 29, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply
Flight better give you a raise, no one else comes up with such good stuff.
on October 29, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply
I would highly doubt Charleston. They will have enough problems coming up to speed with the 787. I would think San Antonio.
on October 30, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply
The funny thing about this logistical train, it's almost as stupid as the A380. It boggles my mind how much waste is in these systems. Flying parts from all over the world in the case of the 787, or using an ocean going ship, then dragging huge sections of airplane across southern France.
Had both Airbus and Boeing had their heads in the right place they would not have done these things. The A380 should have logically been built in a port city. The 787 should have been built all at one site, or at least relatively close sites. For that matter, all Airbus aircraft have that problem too, but that's more historical based on where Airbus came from than a dumb design decision. I wonder how much money Boeing and Airbus waste shipping these parts needlessly around.
on October 30, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply
Howard, the thing about the logistics is, a lot of the way both Airbus and Boeing do business is inextricably linked to politics. Back in the 60s and 70s, we could sell airplanes to people without having to worry about a "scratch your back you scratch mine" attitude. These days, if you want a Russian airline to buy Boeing planes, you gotta outsource the titanium venture to them. Want China to buy some of the estimated 3,000 new widebodies ALONE? Gotta give them a piece of the pie.
In the end, it's profitable to Boeing, and it supports American jobs too. To force the companies to come closer to a single megasite is very tough and would entail some very interesting political moves. A 747 is made with materials from Japan, Russia, Europe, and Canada. It's nothing new.