The Dreamliner nightmare: where is Boeing going wrong?

[sr81]

Interesting piece from Reuters re posted by The Age.

http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/the-dreamliner-nightmare-where-is-boeing-going-wrong-20110121-19z6z.html

One can't help thinking that it is not the most unbiased piece. Interesting to hear from some other suppliers but I think that some unions have their heads in the sand regarding product development and costs.

The fact is that business is becoming global and you need to compete with new tech and skills. Simply relying on a skills base that built aircraft the same way for 40 years is not going to keep the market fresh or minimise costs. Culture at a company is great and helps to facilitate profits but the if the order books aren’t full…….

 

[samh004]

I do agree both companies tend to make components in the factories furthest apart, when brining most work together under one roof would seem like a much easier option.

 

[nlagalle]

I do agree both companies tend to make components in the factories furthest apart, when brining most work together under one roof would seem like a much easier option.

Although it sounds simple in theory to make it all in house, in actual fact it can cost more and what you produce may not be as good as a specialised company.

Here are some examples:

Does a car company make all the components for it's vehicles?

Does a computer company make all the components for a PC?

The answer is no. They outsource to companies who make those specific components.

 

[Flying High]

And having multiple suppliers around the world reduces the potential risk. Theoretically...

I think everyone has to recognise that this plane is the most radically different jet Boeing has done in a generation. I suspect the only thing the company has been guilty of has been being overly optimistic with its delivery dates.

Delays with delivering something this new and different was always to be expected.

 

[samh004]

Although it sounds simple in theory to make it all in house, in actual fact it can cost more and what you produce may not be as good as a specialised company.

Here are some examples:

Does a car company make all the components for it's vehicles?

Does a computer company make all the components for a PC?

The answer is no. They outsource to companies who make those specific components.

I could understand for little components, even shipped in bulk, for a computer or car, but planes tend to be a lot bigger, and especially Airbus in this regard, make wings and all sorts of huge sections on completely different places.

So I can understand the parts that make up a wing, but not the whole wing

 

[Fyfie]

So I can understand the parts that make up a wing, but not the whole wing

Wing building is one of the processes that can give an aircraft manufacturer substantial competitive advantage (either through efficiency in manufacturing or efficiency in operation). Thus, the manufacturers do like to keep the manufacturing in house. That being said, they are often built in different places from final assembly (e.g. A380 wing built at Filton (UK) IIRC) if the economics are better.

In the case of the 787, there have been rumours that Japan was selected for place of manufacture as the Japanese government offered substantial subsidies for the new factories (both for building the factories and wing development). US factories could not compete due to the fact that if such subsidies were offered in the US, they would fall foul of WTO bans on subsidies, whereas the Japanese subsidies fall in a legally grey area. The area was sufficiently legally grey that the economics of the subsidies in Japan presented a more compelling argument for manufacture than in the US.