Originally Posted by
alvrb211
Really? The most complex part of the B787 that wasn't made in Seattle came from England. It was delivered on time and on budget. It also made sfc target. It's called the Rolls Royce Trent 1000 and, unlike the 787, it was ready to fly a very, very long time ago.
Boeing normally uses in excess of 15,000 vendors (as does Airbus). All of a sudden, Boeing want to shift blame out of Seattle to their vendors? This is Boeing's mess! I'm familiar with many of Boeing's vendors. Feel free to correct me and tell me which ones are holding up the Dreamliner. Are you trying to tell me Boeing doesn't know how to manage outsourcing and Foreign Direct Investment?
The issue isn't the number of vendors. This time around Boeing tried to have the vendors take on a larger work scope. Instead of supplying parts to Boeing that are then put into large assemblies at the Boeing plant, this time around Boeing tried to have the vendors deliver complete assemblies. The idea was to transfer the work load to the vendors and reduce complexity at the Boeing plant. This was supposed to allow Boeing to only perform FINAL assembly of the major components thereby reducing line time for Boeing. The idea has failed though. Only for expample purposes - In previous projects the barrels or wing sections would be plumbed at Boeing. Now Boeing asked the vendors to do that job. What is happening is Boeing is either having to take the responsibility back or they are in many cases training the vendors to accomplish what they said they could do in the first place. This is the same type of thing that caught Airbus short and then Boeing somehow thought they could do it only make it work. Guess what, it hasn't yet.
Not the number of vendors - The work scope of the vendors has been the issue.
Period.