Union making more and more demands. Boeing making more concessions. Many other states trying to get Boeing to build there. Is it realistic to think it will not be built in Washington? Boeing 777x Deal Delayed: Union Members May Get Direct Vote - Part 2
Supposedly Boeing now has 22 different states trying to get them to build it there... But don't they already have a 777 line in Washington that could be used more cheaply?
It makes sense that Boeing wants to get alternatives to the Seattle workforce. Boeing and the union made a deal that the local members then turned down. The union then realized that maybe they needed to come back to the table because Boeing was serious about taking the 777 somewhere else. They met and again any possible deal falls apart. The 777 is going to be the future big aircraft for Boeing for decades. It may even kill the 747-8 because of its better economics. Why get stuck with a union that has caused problems and sure looks to be inclined to continue causing them into the future. This is a union that has yet to grasp that they are the reason that there is a second 787 production line in South Carolina. There will be a day when the 737 is finally replaced. With alternative locations in place maybe the union will be more flexible when that happens. Keep in mind that Boeing moved the corporate headquarters out of Seattle about 10 years ago. Jeff
The 747-8 is dead. And the old 777 killed it from a passenger aircraft (the plane I suspect will survive purely as a freighter). The new 777 just ensures that there is no 747-9 or any other variation. And Boeing should have petitioned Congress even harder to get permission to sell the C-17 as the BC-17 (commercial freighter) as there is demand (albeit limited) for it. I suspect that we'll eventually end up seeing the 777X split between S.C. and Seattle. I don't see any other state (California included) getting this. I'm still puzzled why Boeing themselves refer to the new 777 as the 777X when they have clearly identified it as the 777-8 and the 777-9.
^^Yep. The 748 is much like the 753. A lot of money spent for little return. This makes the most sense. They have two factories now with all the infrastructure and resources working. No reason to add another facility. What Boeing is doing is forcing the union to re-negotiate a contract that isn't over for a couple more years. I imagine there are some real onerous details in the offer with respect to medical, in addition to the changes already made public regarding pensions. What will also happen, that many in the union probably have no clue about, is that the 777X manufacturing will be outsourced considerably more than the current airplane. The wing is going to be composite, yet very very little of the 787 composite structure is made here in WA. Only final assy will be taking place here for the 777X, which means a much reduced workforce from what they have now.
Actually I think you meant the 767-400. The 753 got a fuselage stretch and minor cockpit/engine updates. Sold 55 units. Minimal I agree, but minimal amount of R&D was spent. The 767-400 got an all new wing, new windows, updated engines, new landing gear, and an all new cockpit. And it only sold 37 units (to Delta and Continental only). This was a money loser for Boeing, and aircraft built really for only one airline (Delta) and input from Continental resulting in an aircraft no one else wanted.
I agree 100%. I remember reading an article a couple of years back that Richard Branson admonished the union membership in Washington in public/person, because their work stoppage had delayed the launch of his Virgin Australia line which was waiting for the triple 7's..from the Boeing line, basically telling them any delays in the future like this would cause all his airlines to rethink purchasing from Boeing in the future...ie shape up, or we buy Airbus.... My friend that is a 747-400 cpt for Virgin tells me this delay is/was the main reason Virgin Atlantic have yet to replace their aging fleet of 747's...... While I totally understand how and why unions used to be necessary, I cant believe they are all prepared to loose all the jobs present and future...for the sake of a better pension/healthcare......its a new world people and you cant bite your nose of to spite you face...
Boeing has made no concessions. Union only wants to keep what they have. Boeing , for example, offers to cancel the present pension program to a 401K that they want to have complete control over the manipulating the funds. They have repeatedly demanded that the union surrender payment increases for long time employees and have stretched the time required to gain payment increases for their expertise. I have never been a union man but I take the side of the union in this matter. The company that calls itself "Boeing" is not the company for which I worked for 48 years. "They" have become a cynical group of manipulative MBA money jockeys who have no feeling for the heritage of the company or the great airplanes that the real Boeing Company produced. The engineering guys have come up with some incredible design concepts that the business whizzes have almost killed with their with their money making schemes that are designed to do everything on the cheap real quick. They have no appreciation for producing the best design FIRST and reaping profits from it as it becomes a winner and is sold later in ever increasing numbers...like the 777, 737, 747, 707, KC-135, and B-52. This present display of juvenile poker by " Boeing" is stinking.
If Boeing wanted to eliminate the pension, they should have done what Lockheed Martin did, which the union eventually accepted: eliminate it for new hires only. Existing employees still will get their pension. Eventually the pension will disappear, when all those people have concluded their stay on the planet. The fact is, this isn't just an aerospace phenomenon: the trend nationwide is to do away with pensions and replace them with 401(k) plans, usually with some sort of company match, generally in the company stock fund. If managed properly, this can be as good as a pension. The other bone of contention, which the union here in Marietta is grousing about, is the substantial increase in health care costs. But that is certainly not the fault of the company, it is being forced on them by a certain law promoted by the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.....
Sir I will totally bow to your knowledge of whats happening.....I have no doubt that an bean counter somewhere is destroying a great company....ive seen it many times in the auto industry.. I cannot be trusted to give advise I such situations as I have an Ice Hockey attitude....looks like its time for a bench clearance.....everyone drop tools and walk off the job.....Boeing wont last long with out the folks that made/make the company what it is.....of course then we just end up with airbus
The Unions are going to destroy themselves as Boeing walks to a State without the issue. It's not Boeing. The Unions are the downfall. No different than all of Detroit. If Boeing walks away from them good for them. Move on to a State that employees actually want to work. If the machinists were smart they would figure out away to get along and keep the workers in Washington. Unfortunately very few speak for the masses and many people could lose jobs because of their inability to see the big picture.
WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THE IDEA UNION WORKERS DON'T WANT TO WORK AND RAISE THEIR FAMILIES? * Lets see, these lazy machinists here in Washington are producing 42 (soon to be 47) top quality 737's a month and rolling one top quality 777 (about as big as a 747) out the door every 2.5 days. They are doing it with constantly improving cost cutting programs which is making Boeing record profits. These guys are anything but lazy - For the record, I am not a big Union guy and don't agree with 90% of their rhetoric but think it only fair you learn the facts about what is going on here. The union isn't take take take. They are trying to preserve what little is left of a decent workers wage and benefits. Boeing is on the take take take. and you know it. - I have read both proposals in depth and it is nothing more than Boeing's attempt to gut the union and bust it. - Boeing thinks they can grab a bunch of hicks and teach them how to build an airplane in 6 weeks. - That's what they did in Charleston S.C.. in the "Right to work" (for less) state Charleston S.C. (Billions spent building) they can't seem to manage more than 1.5 (one and one half) 787's out the door per MONTH (out of 3 scheduled). It's a frigging disaster!. I wouldn't fly on one of those pieces of crap if you paid me. * Their FAA Designee certificate has been pulled and they can no longer sign off their own airplanes for delivery. They have to be flown to Everett to be "fixed" first due to rampant undocumented defects on each airplane, THEN they are certified by Everett. - There are those that feel that the Union are fools for not accepting the work package no matter how bad it is just to insure there will be work for the next 10 years but the package has to include the rising cost of LIVING over the course of the contract, and Boeing isn't even trying to come half way on those cost projections. * With that said, Boeing would be the biggest fool (in the business world) for not taking advantage of the best manufacturing facility in the world (that they OWN) and use the best aerospace workers in the US to build the newest airplane right here in the Everett. - The company could save 10 fold over beating down the Union by laying off 10% of their grossly bloated middle management. Nobody would miss them and the company would run fine without them. - Moving someplace else would be the dumbest move of the century. - The big lesson here is YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. You don't have to agree with me but don't tear people down until you get more FACTS. OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE YOUR FAMILY FLYING ON A WALMART AIRPLANE? . I'm sure the experts on here will tell me how wrong I am and that's fine. I'm seeing it from the inside, from nearly all angles. You aren't. .
Spasso I'd like you to print the average wAge for these machinists. See how people feel around the country about their whining. The 787 flaws aren't all manufacturing are they? Did SC design the plane or are they just trying to build them? Management and the 1000's of engineers aren't to blame? Pensions will continue to bankrupt cities around the country. Stockton and Detroit just the tip. If you think pensions aren't wise to move away from why don't you view the worst example of all. Social Security. Boeing should push pensions out no matter the means. It's for the health of the company in 15 years. Not today. Oh and you just need to watch local news to see the general attitude of the machinists. They've already cost our region one group gone. If they keep it up our region could lose all of the planes. Sorry if you feel differently. Pensions cripple companies as aging workforces retire. They are a horrible idea.
Interesting discussion and I think there is point in the middle where the truth lies. Pensions in general including SS were designed at a time when most people were dead before they received it. Life span has increased quite a bit and pensions should start later, 70 or more. SS should start raising the retirement age 1 month, every 3 months, that would take 15 years to reach 70 I believe. It would help the federal deficit immenesely plus these companies. On the healthcare side, the public have gotten way out of shape since the 70's raising the healthcare costs enormously. Another problem that could be corrected. Neither business'es nor Governtment can afford to sustain programs designed for different people in a different time. Unions are their members own worst enemies at times, look at Hostess, and recently American axle in NY state.
SS full retirement age is actually 70 and not the 66 now currently advertised. From 66 to 70 the pension increases annually at an 8% rate, a pretty good return, then levels off. Easy to fix. Raise the earliest point benefits can be taken to 65 from 62 and change all the full benefits laws to reflect 70, since we are realistically already there, except we do not tax earnings past 66 if a retiree still works. You are correct about the Boeing vs the workers dilemma. Too high expectations on both sides, and compromise is necessary. The SC workers will catch up. Same problems with BMW and Mercedes workers in SC were fixed and everybody is happy now.
Makes sense, but it doesn't - the unions don't want that, because no one wants to join a union when they don't get the same benefits as the union members who were grandfathered in. But I agree with you and that method - you have to have a cut off point, and I think if that existed, and the unions accepted that, the work force would be more competitive with the rest of the states Boeing could move to. However, the union will never accept that, and as a result, it's this nasty contentious situation that doesn't resolve itself, pitting 'greedy company' vs. 'the working man'.
I am aware of the whining when Boeing wage is compared to other parts of the country. The big difference is, this isn't a toaster factory and we are living in an expensive part of this country so there is some relevance to be considered. Wage is based on type of job and position but many of the younger workers on the floor are making 18.00 to low to mid 20's with senior people of 20 years plus making low to mid 30's an hour. I will reiterate that exceptional work on an exceptional product done by quality people comes at a price. Paying a Walmart wage will get you a Walmart product. If you have any experience in business and bidding to subcontractors then you know the pitfalls of taking the lowest bid. This is what happened. The business model was ill-conceived and the program poorly executed by under qualified sub-contractors, including Engineers. Add to that managers that had absolutely NO CLUE as to what they were doing. Meanwhile in Everett they are rolling out 10 787's per month so I am inclined to point at the caliber of workforce and experience borrowed from the other production lines. TRADITIONAL PENSIONS, yes, I agree with what you are saying . BUT, the company taking over the entire pension fund with carte blanche to what ever they want with the funds does NOT wash with me. (It's in the fine print) Yes and no. A pension of some sort is incentive to pursue a career with that company. It also installs a level of loyalty. That is worth more to productivity than you think. Again, that would be a colossal mistake on Boeing's part to abandon the premier facility in Everett. There is NOTHING else in the world that is more cost effective for production. It's like Boeing saying, "We're mad at you greedy workers for wanting a relative wage for the area so we are taking our "ball" and going away". Childish and stupid. Aviation analysts ALL see it the same way. I agree that the day of the traditional pension is gone. That doesn't mean the Company has to treat their work force like dirt farmers. In closing I would like to say. Boeing is making record profits, Record stock prices, Record aircraft backlog, RECORD EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND RAISES. **** THE LABOR COST OF BUILDING ONE AIRPLANE IS JUST A MINISCULE PART IN THE OVERALL COST OF PRODUCTION **** So why the focus on such a small part of the equation. I guess that's to protect the 265,000 per MONTH Jim McNearny will receive in retirement. *** EDIT. I forgot to add that one aspect of the proposal was a general wage increase increase of 1/2% (ONE HALF PERCENT) for each year of the contract extension. You're kidding right? GASOLINE WENT UP MORE THAN 200% IN THE LAST 6 YEARS. ..
Boeing Everett produces good stuff. They should produce A ton of planes as it's the largest building in the world. My point is simple. If they don't handle it now they will be crippled in 15-20 years by too many pension payouts. Fix it now and move forward with both sides compromising. I'm pissed at both sides arrogance. Mostly the union side for not seeing the big picture just now. We need Boeing in our region as much as all the large corps. I don't want them to pull a Hostess and just pickup and walk. That's not good for anyone. You know if they dumped the Unions and those fees they'd all make a lot more
Jim, I have been away from the business for too long and I do have the insight that you and your associates now have. So, my comments are based what I have seen and experienced in the past. That is: Focus on good people doing good work from the CEO down to the janitors... IN HOUSE. I worked on too many programs that were created by the best there was in the industry and built by the best manufacturing people in the business..Boeing. I saw this when I supervised the training of supplier engineers and manufacturing types for the initial 747 program. Many of the outfits that sent people for training are no longer with us now and they were famous old names. It became evident early on that their standards and skills were not up to Boeing's. All I see now is a bunch of money chasers doing a fancy-fast two step shuffle business plan to " leverage" everything and everybody to get big returns quick at the expense of the product. I shudder when I see comments that anybody can be taught how to build airplanes in a few weeks. I have seen too much of this backward thinking in the past and it keeps popping up. IT AIN'T GOING TO WORK !
Those days seem to be over... it looks like... Country X says "We build the wings (or whatever) in our country, or we don't buy Boeing planes (or at least not as many)." ...for example. And country X buys a LOT of Boeing planes.
- The payouts from the legacy pension plan is pretty much a given at this point and will hardly effect the company as much as they say it will (based on the big picture). - They won't be crippled in 15 /20 years because this traditional pension issue will be going away soon. I believe you are correct that IT will be handled now. - The perceived amount the company would save by dumping the union and "fees" (what fees are you talking about?) are chicken feed compared to the billions and billions lost on Charleston and the 787 program in general. - The money wasted in screw-ups by under-qualified and unqualified subcontractors far exceeds any monetary strain the existence of this union has placed on the company in the last 20 years. (But they got a really good deal on those contractors so all the execs got a big bonus on that). The 787 program will NEVER make a penny, SO LETS BEAT UP ON THE UNION AS A DISTRACTION. (Instead of the program directors and lousy managers). As a side note I have more of an issue with the 200% increase in medical expenses they are proposing. There is so much more behind the scenes going on and the media doesn't have a vague clue what is going on though I would recommend Dominic Gates on the Seattle Times first.
Why did they move to SC to begin with? Wasn't it truly to send a message to the Unions? I get the feeling the company doesn't care about the Billions you've stated they are losing more about the health of the company in the many years to come. No unions and no pensions would help this. I'm not disagreeing that this little bit now isn't much. I think it's all about very long term. Health care up 200%. Is this Boeing finally just shifting how much they pay to the employees? Isn't Boeing self insuring medical? Why wouldn't they be except catastrophic? What does that 200% represent? Full medical or just doubling what employees now contribute which could only be $50-100 a month per employee. Just wondering. Again I just want the two sides to figure it out. Keep the jobs here and get along.
