Boeing 787 - A case study in how union labor could've saved a company some money.

redivider

Well-Known Member
Boeing. The largest aircraft manufacturer in the world. One of the world's most storied and well-respected companies.

They finally delivered the first Boeing 787, after two years of delays which included fines for late delivery, problems with imported components, and a public relations nightmare, as they moved the production line from WA, a right to unionize state, to SC, a right to work state.

The corporate heads at Boeing could learn a lesson here. While they decided that it was a good idea to use their brand spanking new aircraft as a political tool, to give their corporate loving politicians ammo to fire at the oppressive Obama administation.

Truth is that the Boeing 787 suffered more from corporate mis-management, than from any problem any union could've caused. In a bid to cut costs, and potentially inflate their bonuses, they decided to outsource and import several of the components, which were later found to not stand up to the strict quality standards of Boeing. That caused the first big delay. These were referred to as 'design flaws' at one point. They wouldn't dare say that part of the problem was imported body materials which weren't up to par, materials that if they would've made right here in the USA, would've probably passed muster.

The second management fiasco was this whole 'right to work' move by boeing. By moving their production line from where the unionized aircraft manufacturers were, they left the most talented group of manufacturers behind. When they arrived in SC, they found that re-training would be much harder than 'anticipated', causing yet another big delay. At this point there was only damage control, because the deadline for the first aircraft had passed, and they were absorbing 1-2 million dollars in fines per day late per aircraft. They tried to blame the unions and the Obama administration, for costing them time and money.

The truth is the unionized labor in WA would've been rolling out 10 aircraft per month a while ago. The line was ready to start building planes, but Boeing decided to go the political route, it decided that a sense of cost cutting and political tug of war with what should be it's ally, not it's enemy, was more important than getting these planes built and delivered as promised (which should be the company's #1 focus).

Now the Boeing 787, once touted as THE next generation commercial aircraft of the future, is now a case study in how an unfocused corporate board, a management system which thinks that short term cost cutting is better than long term performance, and an environment in which the bosses and the workers work against each other, not with each other, has led to a state of the art aircraft being another toxic asset on a corporate balance sheet.

That's right. Analysts expect that the Boeing 787 program, which has over 2.5 BILLION dollars in fines levied against it already, will NEVER turn a profit.....

Leave it up to the talking heads to blame the Administration and the unions.

Nothing but corporate greed can be blamed for this fiasco.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
They have to make up for profits for when they almost got the US Goverment to Lease Fuel tankers at 10x the cost of buying them


Originally, Congress had approved a deal in which the Air Force would lease Boeing tankers. That arrangement fell apart, however, amid a Pentagon procurement scandal in which a top Air Force official and Boeing's chief financial officer received jail time. Boeing's chief executive resigned weeks later.
 

Greather420

Active Member
That was a good read there Redivider. Thank you for sharing this information. Just hate hearing about more American jobs going over seas to save a wealthy corporation a few dollars.
 

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
redivider ....

Since you didn't give any credit to the author of the article you posted, I will assume that you wrote it yourself. With that in mind, did you forget that the Obama administration, through the National Labor Relations Board, is violating a private businesses right to locate where ever they deem appropriate?

If you live in California and your prospects for providing a better life for your family lies in Texas, should the California legislature be able to prevent your move to Texas?
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
where in the constitution, or in law by that matter, does it say that a business has the right to locate where ever they deem appropriate??

as I understand it, a business must apply for a business permit, and the local government must grant it.

it is not a right, it is a PRIVILEGE.

if your move causes enough irreparable harm, then there should be a government entity standing there to ensure than undue hardship to a people is avoided.

yes, i wrote it myself.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
it really grinds my gears that some people in this country have swallowed the whole 'corporations are people' notion, and that corporations should be afforded every right to freely operate as they wish.....
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Only way the Goverment could of gotten involved with Stopping Boeing move is if Boeing Violated some part of a law or Contract

Did they?
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
the government tried to avoid undue hardship to the workers in washington.

aircraft manufacturing isn't a blue collar profession, it takes a lot of training, a sense of pride in your work, and a lot of communication with all sorts of engineers, scientists and managers.

these weren't 7 dollar per hour jobs. these guys made a good living supporting their families, and all of a sudden it was taken away in the name of cost savings.

it had nothing to do with it. it was an ideological/political debate... it was fought in the public forum and all the arguments made by the corporate leadership were proved wrong.

the program is on pace to lose money, not save it, as boeing first argued when justifying the move and its unwillingness to negotiate with the unions. If the new production line can push out 10 planes per month, a formidable feat for any aircraft production line, much more for a newly established one with a fresh workforce, and somehow catch up to a set of deliveries set for next year (very unlikely), then the loss won't be as great. what's more likely is that setbacks and delays will end up having a result of boeing taking a 1 billion dollar hit with it's first, next generation carbon aircraft.

and this loss can be attributed to corporate mismanagement which put political ideology before what the company was supposed to be doing: building and delivering planes.
 

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
the government tried to avoid undue hardship to the workers in washington.

aircraft manufacturing isn't a blue collar profession, it takes a lot of training, a sense of pride in your work, and a lot of communication with all sorts of engineers, scientists and managers.

these weren't 7 dollar per hour jobs. these guys made a good living supporting their families, and all of a sudden it was taken away in the name of cost savings.

it had nothing to do with it. it was an ideological/political debate... it was fought in the public forum and all the arguments made by the corporate leadership were proved wrong.

the program is on pace to lose money, not save it, as boeing first argued when justifying the move and its unwillingness to negotiate with the unions. If the new production line can push out 10 planes per month, a formidable feat for any aircraft production line, much more for a newly established one with a fresh workforce, and somehow catch up to a set of deliveries set for next year (very unlikely), then the loss won't be as great. what's more likely is that setbacks and delays will end up having a result of boeing taking a 1 billion dollar hit with it's first, next generation carbon aircraft.

and this loss can be attributed to corporate mismanagement which put political ideology before what the company was supposed to be doing: building and delivering planes.
OK, and from where exactly does the federal government derive its constitutional authority to "avoid undue hardship to the workers in Washington?"

And contrary to your above post, there were NO jobs lost at Boeing in Washington. None!
 

feff f

Active Member
dumb question, dont you think the reason the company wont make a profit is becasue the big stick of govt douches fined the company over 2 billion? do you think that could have anything to do with it? besides, the company, to my knowledge only moved a couple months ago.
 

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
Well, the company didn't move. It opened a new plant in another state and KEPT the old one in Seattle. No jobs were lost in Seattle.

Here's the beauty of states rights in action. If the citizens in Washington start losing enough businesses to right to work states, maybe, just maybe, they will start lobbying their state legislators for votes to turn Washington into a right to work state as well. And conversely, if the citizens of North Carolina find that employers start paying substandard wages because its a right to work state, then they can lobby their legislators to change the state into a closed shop state.

Once control is given over to the federal government, its way too hard to get it back
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
umm

the fines weren't levied by the government.

the fines were contractual obligations due to air carriers for late delivery of aircraft. it wasn't government fines, jeff... lol
 
Top