Wonder when EADS will outsource their work to the States like Mercedes and BMW do?

Absolutely. And, those costs affect thousands of companies worldwide. And, that's even before we consider the cost to the airlines that ordered the aircraft.


JJ

1 October 2009. :D

Ironic you mention Mercedes who came to Alabama because don't forget Airbus in Mobile Alabama:

http://iam751.files.wordpress.com/20...bus-mobile.jpg

As to where this stands ^^^ I don't know. Take a few more minutes to research than to post a picture.

People are far from perfect and a company with tens of thousands of people are far from perfect. Boeing has in the past been a very arrogant company at times and has had significant problems from unethical conduct to industrial espionage to the story I pasted below.

As to if they would only allow their workers to build the planes the planes would be better, I'm going to pass. IAM 751 could be great, might be far from it, but if Boeing knew what it was doing from the top down it could build better planes. Boeing gets a lot of credit for the great planes it put into operation 30-40 years ago and a 777 that started out as the 767-X.

Sometimes I wonder if Boeing would be better with DC Jets and Lockheed still competing with them?

---
Internal Boeing Documents Support Whistleblower's Allegations: Aircraft Quality Control Problems Cited

May 8, 2008

Internal Boeing documents obtained by the Project On Government Oversight show that the allegations of a former Boeing quality control inspector facing criminal charges have merit. Quality control problems at Boeing increase the likelihood that defective aircraft parts end up on planes and flaws in the manufacturing of planes remain uncorrected. This can potentially threaten public safety and drive up the cost of aircraft maintenance. These documents are linked at the bottom of this release.

Gerald Eastman, the former Boeing inspector, is facing a second trial of criminal charges for disclosing Boeing information to the press. His first trial last month resulted in a mistrial when jurors could not agree on whether Eastman committed "computer trespass." Mr. Eastman claims that his involvement with the press stemmed from the lack of corrective actions taken by Boeing and the government in response to his disclosures of wrongdoing to them.

An internal Boeing memo sent to Boeing employees in October 2000 stated that misuse of "production stamps" or "roller-stamping" can result in negative consequences for the company and the individual misusing their stamp. Roller-stamping is the misuse of production stamps to stamp work on critical parts and assemblies as complete and fully inspected when there has only been a cursory inspection, if one at all, of the part or assembly in question. Eastman's central claim is that he had perceived widespread "roller-stamping" and Boeing did little to curtail the practice.

"These documents show that Eastman clearly had a reasonable basis for his belief roller-stamping was occurring," according to Nick Schwellenbach, POGO investigator. "It's one thing to break company policy on releasing documents and getting fired, it's another matter to file criminal charges. Who do the prosecutors work for?"

The Boeing memo came months after the Federal Aviation Agency conducted a special technical audit of Boeing that concluded that there were systemic quality control problems. The 2000 FAA special technical audit found "in some cases, manufacturing planning was not adequate, requirements were not followed, inspections were not specific, or personnel were not knowledgeable about requirements." Thus, "parts, assemblies, and installations are released through the system that do not conform" to approved designs. Also, in 2000, the FAA proposed "a record $1.24 million in civil penalties against Boeing for inadequate supplier oversight and for failing to quickly report cracked parts on two older jetliners," according to a news report (James Wallace, "FAA Audit Rips Boeing Over 100 Production, Design Problems Detailed; Company Plans Corrective Action," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 11, 2000.).

Years later, roller-stamping was still occurring when Eastman acted on his concerns.

Boeing certainly was aware of the practice because a Boeing document dated January 2004, states that, "There appears to be a systemic issue within BCA [Boeing Commercial Aircraft] involving parallel process breakdowns of mechanics and inspectors involved in assembling and inspecting aircraft, assemblies and parts." The 2004 document also states that the FAA examined 55 issues at Boeing between 2002 and 2003 and found that "24% of these issues have involved instances where the mechanic and inspector created and accepted nonconforming conditions"—i.e. roller-stamping.

In further support of Eastman's claims, other Boeing employees became whistleblowers when they reported that Boeing supplier Ducommun was regularly supplying non-conforming parts to Boeing, according to the whistleblowers' False Claims Act lawsuit obtained by POGO. Now-former Boeing employees Taylor Smith, Jeannine Prewitt and James Ailes were then retaliated against by management because Boeing allegedly did not want to deal with the repercussions of their findings.

Airbus will build the fuselage sections for the A350XWB in Kinston, North Carolina. Also, Rolls Royce recently opened a purpose built factory in Virginia. This plant is the first Rolls plant in the US to build modules for the large Trent engines.

Too many people equate outsourcing with low price. In many cases, it's about core compentancy and specialisation.


JJ

Question, Bears, Beets, Battlestar Gallactica... and is the 787 going to become the new L1011? And why is it that Rolls Royce keeps winning engine contracts when they have compressor design philosophy that continues to create problems.

http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...oBid/temp4.jpg

Now the irony, the L1011 had RR engines, A380 and 787.

The reason Rolls keeps winning engine contracts is because they are a world class engine builder who's products are in demand.

The recent uncontained engine failure of a Trent 1000 occured on a test bed in England and NOT on a B787. The engine was being tested beyond operational limits when it failed.

Conversley, the recent uncontained failures of large GE turbofans occured on a few aircraft while in service under normal conditions. And yes, the recent uncontained failure of a Trent 900 did occur in service under normal conditions. This was the first uncontained failure of a large RR engine in 142 million service hours. This speaks volumes in terms of reliability!

Regardless, both GE and RR build world class engines and the demand from Boeing, Airbus, and literally hundreds of airlines worldwide proves it.


JJ

Irony? Are you kidding?

Good luck finding an airline or aircraft, with the exception of SWA and the B737, that doesn't operate RR engines.

Try the same with Air force, Army & Navy. They are all major RR customers and that includes the US DOD!


JJ

I don't think there is a single airframe at UAL that uses RR power? I could be wrong on that but I don't think so.

Who produces IAE? Is that a RR conglomerate?


As far as Boeing goes with this disaster. THANK YOU you fine management who once again has proven that stepping over dollars to pick up pennies is a stupid idea. Outsourcing will always cost you big time in the long run. Maybe they should start teaching that at Wharton an Harvard business school.

Yes, UAL is a big RR customer as RR is a senior partner in IAE. The V2500 is essentially a scaled down 2 stage version of a Rolls Trent.

Have faith. Boeing will get there. The Airbus A350XWB won't be a walk in the park either. It's the nature of the business!


JJ