Boeing 7E7 gets its new name - DreamLiner

[Yeager]

However, many in Boeing refer to the 7E7 as the un"E"mployment Liner.

Due to its rumored modular construction this plane will only be final assembled in the US.  Most of the modular components (ei fuselage sections, wings, hor and vert stabs) will all be built by cheap overseas non union labor. The going estimate is that this plane will require a measely 800 to 1200 positions to final assemble, most likely in Everett.  Figure in 30,000+ Puget Sound jobs dropped by Boeing since 9/11 and this is a huge net loss to the dedicated people of Boeing. The Boeing Corporate folks are doing a tremendous job saving Boeing Commercial Airplanes during this economic crises in commercial aviation but the people who have invested their lives in the company by enabling the corporate suites to succeed are losing big time.

DreamLiner sucks as the name for this supposed plane.  The dream for most people still working at Boeing is to win the lotto.

[Mike_2851]

I agree, but didn't the Airforce just announce that it was going to upgrade it's tanker fleet. And didn't Boeing get the contract for the new tankers (the Everett facility). From what I saw on the news that was a sigh of relief for the workers at Boeing, plus the after market contractors to do the military additions.

[fd ski]

mike, do the math:

airforce is paying you 20mil ( example ) per plane.
To build it in US costs you 18 mil. 2 mil profit.
To make it in cheap labor location costs you 10 mil, 10 mil profit.

It's a question of how fast they can move production, nothing more.
They'd make it on north pole if it made them bigger profit.

[Mike_2851]

Oh I certainly agree! That is the corporate way anymore. The CEO's, CFO's, VP's etc. need to make as much or more than they do now, and of course it's all in the name of good business or keeping the stock holders happy. If there are any sacrifices to be made it it happens with the worker that creates or builds the products that make those people (executive officers) the money they make in the first place.

All I am saying is that I thought it was a done deal that those planes would be built in Everett WA, by the people and facility that builds that model plane on a regular basis.

I'm not saying I'm right-that's just the way interpreted the news story.

[Chairboy]

If only we could replace this complicated, heartless capitalism with something more structured and fair...  I hear that there are some unemployed economic advisors who could assist in putting this together, anyone here speak russian?

[mjolnir]

Just a pile-on, it seems the AF is indeed going to be slowly replacing the ancient KC-135 Stratobladders with new KC-767s.  I have no idea where they'll be built and all that, but that's certainly a lot more planes for Boeing to make.

[CavPuke]

As I understand it Congress rammed the deal down the Air Force's throat.  The Air Force is going to lease the next generation tanker aircraft not purchase them.

This leasing program also will require between $600 million and $1.2 billion in military construction funding to build new hangars, since existing hangars are too small for the new 767 aircraft. The government would also pay another $30 million to $60 million per aircraft on the front end to convert these aircraft from commercial configurations to military; and at the end of the lease, the government will to pay for $30 million more, to convert the aircraft back. All these costs raise the total cost of the Boeing deal to $30 billion over the ten-year lease.

The cost to taxpayers would be more than $2 billion per year, with a total price tag of as much as $30 billion over 10 years. This leasing plan is significantly more expensive to the taxpayer than an outright purchase. CBO and OMB said they would score this lease agreement not as a lease but as a purchase, costing $22 billion. According to a December 2001 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimate, the lease plan would cost $26 billion, nearly three times the cost of simply purchasing the planes. The lease plan represents more than 20 percent of the Air Force's annual cost of its top 60 priorities. But critics note that this program is not actually among the Air Force's top 60 priorities, nor do new tankers appear in the 6-year defense procurement plan for the Service.

The link for the for the full story is here Global Sercurity Org

This is just another example of Congressional Pork Barrel Politics at it's worst

[Dowding]

A subsidy by any other name...

[Pongo]

Airbus just announced it will pass boeing in deliveries for the first time this year.

[Paxil]

Interesting article on Airbus and how they won (or should I say bribed their way to) market share.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1842124

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Paxil
Interesting article on Airbus and how they won (or should I say bribed their way to) market share.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1842124

Hey, just because the aircraft are subsidized by their Gov't's (read into that "Taxpayer money") doesn't mean they cheat by under cutting any Boeing price (and pass that shortfall of profit onto the taxpayer)

[Dowding]

Boeing and the US Government is doing exactly same according to the article posted by CavPuke.

[fd ski]

From the economist article..

For years, as they steadily lost market share to the European challenger, the Americans have been outspokenly critical of Airbus. In the 1980s the beef was the huge subsidies that European governments poured into the industry. Now that Airbus repays such launch aid, that is less relevant, especially as Boeing receives indirect subsidies through America's defence budget and space programme.

Raise taxes people !!!! Rip needs another BMW

[Staga]

Originally posted by fd ski
They'd make it on north pole if it made them bigger profit.

Corporates are responsible to their stock holders, not to their workers or to the countries.
As a real americans I'm sure you understand this and support your industry even if it drives your economy down

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by fd ski
From the economist article..



Raise taxes people !!!! Rip needs another BMW

You need to look up the definition of "Subsidy"...and, I told you before, YOU paid for my BMW (Microsoft stock)