I'm surprised this is starting so early, given that the ink on the IAM contract is not even dry and the engineers' union is still contemplating the offer. I certainly expect a bidding war for the next aircraft--most likely the 737RS. This might be a good opportunity for Boeing to exit what some have called the in the "strike zone". An overseas line would be nice insurance as well. One thing is for certain: the company will have to insulate itself from industrial action(s) that have become as predictable as nasty Chicago winters.
http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories...17/daily99.html



Richard Aboulafia has an interesting read on the situation (as always).
http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=280

Boeing came very close to moving the 787 assembly out of Puget Sound with the last decisoin. There will be large cost benefits from the SE to make the move and lack of the same for Puget Sound politicians. I expect the next new airplane will be assembled somewhere in the SE where labor is cheaper and there are fewer union issues. I sure hope to heck that the IAM leadership gets the proper credit for this move when it happens from the rank and file where it belongs. The IAM will jump up and down and blame Boeing but they wrote their own death warrant with this strike, it was just too expensive to ignore by Boeing management. This type move will occur when there is a totally new aircraft not a derrivative.

If there is, as some say there must be, a second 787 line, I suspect it will be in one of three places: Texas, Alabama, or Japan. I would give odds that the next aircraft Boeing produces will be built in the southern U.S., with a second line in Japan or Europe (yes, Europe, as in Poland, Romania, etc.).

Poland, Romania - Are you sure? These people can't even make cars that can drive for more than 20,000 miles without a bumper falling off, let alone an airplance. And there's virtually no supplier base of any shape or form. Plus, the risk of industrial action could actually worsen.

I tend to agree with you. The Coup d'etat of the century would be a Boeing factory where the planned NG/EADS FAS in Mobile would have been built.
With the incoming Obama Administration, there is almost no way Boeing could justify setting up a factory overseas. But a second factory in the South is very likely in my opinion.

Of the century? You need to figure out what is important and taking over a potential factory location sure isn't. It needs to be changing a staunch airline from one vendor to another to just starting to matter.

Get over your A vs B fixation.

The move won't happen 1) the supplier base is not there 2) the unions will smell this and do what they need to keep their jobs (even the autoworkers are waking up to this) 3) Wa state will bend over to keep boeing 4) the 787 fiasco cann't happen to the 737replacement because there is an alternative out there.

Everything I've read indicates that Mobile is nowhere close to rivaling WA state, but that could change. San Antonio has a healthy aerospace industry, but if they moved to Texas, my bet would be the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Texas has lots to offer:
no state income tax, right to work laws, very affordable housing, mild climate and excellent infrastructure with respect to airports, roads, and rail.

I’m going to put a couple of ideas on the table with little support to see what comments they will generate before I support them.

1. The 787 will stay permanently in Washington. There will be no second line.
2. The 737 replacement will be built on two lines from the start. One in Washington and one in UK, Japan or Australia with UK being the most likely. Italy will fight very hard for it but not get it. There will be a lot of talk about putting it in Eastern Europe but it will not happen.
3. Next wide body will be built in US but not in Washington. It will be in a southern state selected based on incentives offered.
4. Asia (excluding Japan) will never get a FAL but they will do plenty of sub assembly.
5. Washington will remain main design center but work will increasingly be done at other locations.
6. When it is time to replace the 787 (talk about long time prediction) Washington will mainly be a project management and design verification center.

I expect that so-called "right to work" laws will be unenforceable soon. Increasingly, the U.S. Supreme Court is ruling that comprehensive federal statutes over-ride all state law. Although this has primarily been in the context of situations that benefit corporations, it then becomes hard for the Court to reverse trends when the other side assets the same doctrine. Also, I would expect that we will see changes made by the near filabuster proof Congress that will change Federal labor law and protect employees' rights to organize into collective bargaining groups. Sure the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will complain nonstop, but to no avail for the next eight years. Complain all you want, the economy can't get much worse than it is right now.

No second line for the 737 replacement it will be built in Washington. Everything else I pretty much agree with.

Very interesting and thought provoking.

I agree on the 787 second line - I think the programme has lost a lot of crucial momentum just as orders are going to collapse.

As for the 737 - UK production?!?! Please discuss.

My crystal ball says it's the A350 program that will collapse. The whole program was launched in desperation, with no planning, no partners and no prototypes in place. On top of that, Airbus does not, and will not, have the cash flow to solve problems as they arise. I think that when the collapse happens, Boeing will be ready to cash in by having a 2nd 787 line to fill A350 cancelled orders. That second line will certainly be no where near IAM offices.

A second 787 line probably won't be required for some time, given the economic climate compounded by Boeing's missteps and the militant unions.

As for UK participation, unlikely if they ban happy hour. Boeing might as well produce in Utah.

http://www.fleetbuzz.com/forums//index.php...c=21589&hl=

...thing about putting it in a Southern coastal state, which I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned--- hurricanes.

Barring even Katrina-like disasters, what would be the cost of having to completely shut down your lines, abandon all work, come back and pick up the pieces, then do it all over again three or four times every late summer/fall?

Also, what of production-finished aircraft that are off the line, but still not yet ready to fly? What happens to them with only a week's worth of notice?

Good points. That's why Texas, either San Antonio or DFW, should receive extra weight. Texas is a costal state of course; just very (very) large.

Can I have some of what he's smoking?!

I have never seen folks in Northern Alabama (Huntsville/Decatar for example) evacuated for Hurricanes. Hurricanes are a coastal thing. Of course there is lots of rain and a little wind but no more than other locations.

With Boeing moving some 787 finishing work to San Antonio, I would put Texas on the inside track if Boeing begins looking for a final assembly site. I also expect that Boeing now has confidence in their ability to airlift major components, and the requirement of a deep water port will not be as important as it was when they chose to stick with PAE for the 787.

Edit: didn't see your reply #16 Aurora

Frankly I think Boeing needs to build a second 787 FAL now. At this point, if ZA007 is delivered before June 2010 I'll be truly surprised. So Boeing is going to be probably three years behind on every single delivery if they stay at a single FAL unless the program sees a 50% cancellation rate. And that assumes nothing happens to the PAE FAL - natural disasters, industrial accidents, etc.

But even more then just delivering 10 787s a month to start (5 per FAL) and 30 within two years (15 per FAL), Boeing needs to plan for their future and that future will be in a Right-to-Work state with lower overall costs - not just for them, but for their employees so they can enjoy a quality standard of living at a lower overall wage and benefit package. If I was Boeing, I'd be calling up Mobile and asking about those monies they were going to give to Airbus to build KC-45s there. Especially when they sweeten the pot with not just a 787 FAL, but also a future 737RS FAL and perhaps even a 777RS FAL. Texas wanted the original 787 FAL, so see what they're willing to offer, as well. If they're smart, they optimize the 787 FAL not just for the -10 model, but also for the 777RS (be it a 787NG or a clean-sheet design).

By 2015, Boeing should be ready to shutter Renton and start 737RS production at the new FAL. The city/county/state won't be crying too hard because RTN is prime real estate and paving it over for waterfront condos and a huge mall and other things will bring in plenty of tax money and provides shedloads of jobs. Sure, they won't pay as much, but volume, folks, volume.

PAE will soldier on for decades building 747 and 777 freighters and 787s. If Boeing wins the KC-45 re-bid, then the 767 will be there for a long time, as well.

With the economy woes and all the other ills on Boeing's plate, I am sure the 787 second procution line won't even be considered for a long time.

You're opinion.



Again your opinion.



Mine and most others who follow this industry.

^

Great post

What was it you said about attacking?

This might just be the reason to do it.

States needs jobs. Mobile and Alabama were willing to pick up a not-insignificant part of the up-front costs of building the KC-45A plant and that would have "only" brought in about as many jobs.

It also keeps the IAM a bit more honest. Even with a four-year contract, they'll just be starting 787-9 production when it comes up for renewal.

Then there is the backlog. I now feel a three-year delivery delay for every frame is now a possibility, if not a probability, if Boeing stays at a single FAL with a ~12 frame monthly delivery schedule, itself that likely won't be reached until 2012. And that means the 787-9 might be delayed not because the plane is not ready to be built, but because there are no production slots to build it. And with the A350-800 due to start deliveries in 2014, that could put 787-9 orders in jeopardy, especially for airlines who have only ordered the -9 and also ordered the A350-900 (SQ, for example). Airbus might even try and push the A350-800 release to 2013 to try and get those airlines to cancel their 787-9 orders and take the A350-800, instead.

If Boeing builds a second FAL for the 787-9 and 787-10, that leaves 40-26 free to build the 787-8 and the 787-3. Those two models together are almost 700 sales which will take over a decade to construct. And the 787-8 will likely land more orders, as will the 787-3 if Boeing tries to improve it or turns it into the 787-8D, which means the line can keep going.

...that's basically what it already is.

Essentially it goes like this:
Only countries with "good reputation" will be considered.
There must be a reasonably sized work force to recruit from.
The country should not have aspirations to build their own competing products.
Logistics must be sound.

Well something must be different to explain why with an OEW only 10t lighter, it's MTOW is 55t lower which is why it cannot carry any appreciable fuel load at MSP. I doubt they didn't put in the center tank or most of the wing tanks, so the plane should have identical fuel volume to the 787-8, but nowhere near the fuel weight capability.

A true 787-8 with the -9's undercarriage and the -3's wingtips would allow the plane to carry anough fuel to push it's range with MSP from 1250nm to at least 3000nm and probably more which would allow it to handle the A300-600Rs and "domestic" 767-300 missions. And for the Japanese, Boeing can just paper de-rate the MTOW by 50-60t to keep the landing fees down since they don't need that extra MTOW to fly around the islands.

If you don't have plenty of good paying jobs no one will be able to afford waterfront condo's and malls. Besides after a few decades of manufacturing planes the site will be a superfund site.

Well over half the original complex is now office space, apartments and retail so Boeing evidently hasn't turned it into Love Canal.

At least one of my former employer's work sites that did aerospace work in So California is a golf course becuase it was the cheapest way to mitigate the pollution, most of the others are surrounded by monitoring wells to track the plume of crap in the groundwater, and they won't be building condo's for a long time.

What was done in that part, 707? Where was it?

The first phase was once parking lots. Then they started to demolish a good chunk of the old one-story structures south of the main factory and did other work.

Since the Renton factory abuts against Lake Washington, I can only assume the State, County and City held Boeing to very high environmental standards which is why the property is not contaminated to any serious extent and therefore can immediately be converted to non-industrial uses.