To the few remaining folks that think outsourcing is a good idea, the Wall Street Journal and others are reporting the following:
Boeing Co. is in negotiations to purchase operations from one of its main suppliers, as part of an effort to gain more control over the supply chain of its troubled 787 Dreamliner program, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The company is close to announcing that it will buy a facility from Vought Aircraft Industries that makes sections of the 787 fuselage. The facility is located in North Charleston, S.C. The person familiar with the matter said negotiations have been under way for months....
This has been correctly characterized as "Backtracking" on the oursourcing strategy that Boeing attempted. Outsourcing has been a disaster for Boeing, but unlike some true believers on this thread, Boeing is starting to make the proper corrections.
Carl
So, because Boeing makes an a$$ of outsourcing, you're gonna claim outsourcing as a whole is bad news?
Millions of firms around the world manage to make a success of outsourcing. Since when did Boeing become the yardstick for modern business practices?
You're really convinced outsourcing is bad. Why not try and convince firms like GE, Rolls Royce, Airbus, Snecma, Messier Dowty, Thales, BMW, Toyota and P&W to cease all their outsourcing. Be sure to let me know how well you do.
BTW, the problems aren't just in the production. Problems in the composite materials are on the horizon after the A/C enters service!
Carriers keep those ultrasounds handy. The eye can only see so much!
Position: Probably in a country that doesn't have TP :(
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvrb211
So, because Boeing makes an a$$ of outsourcining, you're gonna claim outsourcing as a whole is bad news?
Millions of firms around the world manage to make a success of outsourcing. Since when did Boeing become the yardstick for modern business practices?
You're really conviced outsourcing is bad. Why not try and convince firms like GE, Rolls Royce, Airbus, Snecma, Messier Dowty, Thales, BMW, Toyota and P&W to cease all their outsourcing. Be sure to let me know how well you do.
BTW, the problems aren't just in the production. Problems in the composite materials are on the horizon after the A/C enters service!
Carriers keep those ultrasounds handy. The eye can only see so much!
Outsourcing, per se wasnt the downfall or chink in the armor here.
It was the direct lack of oversight when production started that caused the snarl ups and has led to Boeing having to do more vertical integration.
If that were true, Boeing would be shipping additional inspectors to Vought. They didn't do that. Instead they are trying to purchase this division from Vought. Why would they do that if all they needed was a little more oversight??
Carl
__________________
I'm an airline pilot - so I got that goin for me....which is nice.
So, because Boeing makes an a$$ of outsourcing, you're gonna claim outsourcing as a whole is bad news?
Millions of firms around the world manage to make a success of outsourcing. Since when did Boeing become the yardstick for modern business practices?
You're really convinced outsourcing is bad. Why not try and convince firms like GE, Rolls Royce, Airbus, Snecma, Messier Dowty, Thales, BMW, Toyota and P&W to cease all their outsourcing. Be sure to let me know how well you do.
BTW, the problems aren't just in the production. Problems in the composite materials are on the horizon after the A/C enters service!
Carriers keep those ultrasounds handy. The eye can only see so much!
Some of the example you have held out are not exactly prime canidates for managerial excellence. Thales, P&W and Airbus have all had major problems with their production capacity due to outsourcing. Sure there are other example where it has worked, but the overwhelming evidence is that outsourcing is not the panacea it was touted to be in the 90's
Flightblogger
A quick first thought on this: If ever there was a clearer starting gun on the race to win the second 787 line, this is it. Boeing has signaled their willingness to invest outside of Puget Sound for aerostructure fabrication and integration. Boeing chose to cut out the middle man between itself and Vought's supply chain, but the company could have just as easily seen the Charleston site divested to a more financially stable third party.
As for the high speed taxi tests (also from Flightblogger, a guy who's acknowledged to be an authority on the 787 by most in the industry):
Quote:
Yesterday brought the first taxi tests for ZA001, the latest major step on its way to the sky. Chief project pilot Mike Carriker (left seat) and test pilot Randy Neville (right seat) took N787BA out of Stall 105 starting around 10:00 AM PT and had the first 787 back by 4:30 PM PT.
The tests looked at the low speed handling characteristics of the aircraft by exploring of the anti-skid system, steering, nose gear shimmy and ground loads validation, says a program source.
Boeing says that the testing brought Dreamliner One to a top speed of just over 100 knots on runway 16R, still within the low speed range. The company adds that the high speed taxi range is between 120 and 130 knots, with Vr (takeoff) speed closer to 150 knots. Yesterday also saw the first rejected takeoff ( RTO) test which was executed using manual toe braking, not the autobrake function.
The autobrake setting, which is located just below the landing gear lever, has seven settings (plus an off setting) that automatically specifies the braking power required. Five of those settings (1, 2, 3, 4 and MAX AUTO) provide a specific rate of deceleration upon landing, while the sixth, DISARM, disengages the autobrake system and releases the brake pressure. The final setting, RTO, which is the standard takeoff setting, automatically applies maximum braking when the throttles are retarded above a certain speed. For the 777, this speed is 85 knots.
If that were true, Boeing would be shipping additional inspectors to Vought. They didn't do that. Instead they are trying to purchase this division from Vought. Why would they do that if all they needed was a little more oversight??
Carl
Ever had a look at how Toyota, the world's most efficient producer of automobiles operates?
They do business in over 120 countries. They are very involved in every aspect of their vendor's production and quality control.
Every manufacturer has to deal with quality control issues from time to time. That's the nature of man made products. It will always be that way.
Outsourcing is the future. That's globalization for you. If you don't agree with it or don't like it, you're in for a lot of disappointment!
I won't convince you to accept the value of it. But, let me assure you, all the big corporations the world over are committed to it.
Despite the problems at Boeing, just you watch, they will remain commited to it too!
Some of the example you have held out are not exactly prime canidates for managerial excellence. Thales, P&W and Airbus have all had major problems with their production capacity due to outsourcing. Sure there are other example where it has worked, but the overwhelming evidence is that outsourcing is not the panacea it was touted to be in the 90's
Dude, ALL the companies I've mentioned have had problems in the past. Guess what, they will encounter problems in the future. That's manufacturing!
As for managerial excellence, every firm I've mentioned is world class!
Outsourcing is on the increase and will continue to be. When we get out of this recession, you'll really see globalization at work.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
