Skip to main content

View Diary: Excessive outsourcing probably added 140% - 260% to Boeing's 787 launch costs (260 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We are both right. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, koNko, Lefty Coaster

    From the Boeing Wiki

    Subcontracted assemblies included wing manufacture (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan, central wing box)[30] horizontal stabilizers (Alenia Aeronautica, Italy; Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea);[31] fuselage sections (Global Aeronautica, Italy; Boeing, North Charleston, USA; Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan; Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, USA; Korean Air, South Korea);[32][33][34] passenger doors (Latécoère, France); cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door (Saab, Sweden); floor beams (TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, India);[35][36] wiring (Labinal, France);[37] wing-tips, flap support fairings, wheel well bulkhead, and longerons (Korean Air, South Korea);[38] landing gear (Messier-Dowty, France);[39] and power distribution and management systems, air conditioning packs (Hamilton Sundstrand, Connecticut, USA).[37][40] Boeing is considering bringing construction of the 787-9 tail "in house"; the tail of the 787-8 is currently made by Alenia.[41]

    To speed delivery of the 787's major components, Boeing modified several used 747-400s into 747 Dreamlifters to transport 787 wings, fuselage sections, and other smaller parts. Japanese industrial participation was very important to the project, with a 35% work share, the first time Japanese firms had taken a lead role in mass production of Boeing airliner wings, and many of the subcontractors supported and funded by the Japanese government.

    •  Kawasaki makes multiple secions for each plane (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bablhous, koNko, geraldlaslo

      the others make one section for each.

      "Those old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 03:44:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kawasaki & Mitsubishi (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yaque

        Both of whom are long time and very trusted suppliers of Boeing.

        The basic problem is on of managing a technology change on what was probably a too optimistic schedule based on supplier performance data on different, and more well-proven/perfected technology.

        Both the A380 and 787 are revolutionary changes in Airframe design and both suffered teething problems.

        I don't want to bore people here with the technical detials, but fabricating large airframes from composities of carbon fiber, kevlar and glass fabrics, plastic and metal is not a simple as it sounds and involves a learning curve between factories, none of which is capable of building entire composite bodies (and none would risk the financial investment to do so).

        It may be fun here to bash Alan Mulally but I honestly don't think he was as incompetent as many people like to suppose. He made some tough and (initially unpopular) decisions that probably saved the company, like canceling the supersonic to make room for the 787, and facing the music to delay the 787 when it was necessary, neither of which made him popular with Wall Street or Main Street.

        But the end result of the 787 is pretty damn good and something Americans should be proud of.

        As an R+D/Design engineer with 20+ years experience, I'll ask people to take my word that any project of this scope and complexity will not be on schedule because if the people involved were not optimistic but hardworking they would never try and never get it done.

        What about my Daughter's future?

        by koNko on Mon Feb 07, 2011 at 11:49:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site