This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Back to Squawk list

The 'pregnant plane' that can give birth to a new 787

In Seattle, the world's biggest building - 100 acres under one roof - is used to piece together sections of plane from different parts of the world, such as Japan, the UK and Italy. But to transport aircraft wings, nose cones and tailfins to the US, specially adapted 747s have been designed. They are just big enough to hold the aircraft parts - a hi-tech version of a ship in a bottle. UK viewers can see Dallas Campbell's full report in the second episode of Supersized Earth. The series begins on… ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

and I work in Grottaglie, Italy...where they make the central part of the fuselage...its always so amazing to see this plane and to be on it alamost every week........yes..its like a mopther who delivers a child 787 every week....... so proud to be part of this......
Wow that's awesome!
totally awesome set-up
chalet 2
Everytime that the "geniuses" at Boing look at this ugly 747 on steorids must kick themselves good for their decision to outsource the manufacturing of wings, fuselage, tail, etc. for the 787 in various countries like Japan, Korea, Italy, UK and maybe others was one huge (but not the only one) reason for the 3 year delay in deliverying them to clients causing a severe drain to Boeing finances (reportedly betwen 5 and 10 billion).
It's called competing with Airbus..."genius".
amazing....I saw one of these dreamlifters sitting outside of the plant in Charleston last year....Seeing that they use these planes to ship so basically one section at a time I just don't understand why they just didn't put it all under one roof since the price of fuel fluctuates so much...However I am sure they know what they are doing and there is a method to their madness.
One major reason for outsourcing? Political pressure, basically. The government is under pressure form foreign interests to "share the wealth", so the State Department caves to them and puts pressure on companies like Boeing to have the work doen in other countries. Yeah, the labor is cheaper "over there", but there are other issues. Economically it really doesn't make very good sense, what with all the difficulties of language differences, insuring commonality of components, transportation costs and foreign taxes and import/export duties, etc.
Building a major aircraft isn't like building cars, as most of the work is done by hand, with little automation involved. Politians don't realize this, though: they think it's not really different from GM or Ford having engines, transmissions, or even complete cars built in other countries.
a) Money,i.e., less labor cost, and
b) higher skill levels in certain area foe certain part.
It's not just Boeing who is 'mad' with outsourcing parts, Airbus for example was founded as a multi-national agreement, with parts to come from different parts of Europe.
chalet 3
Outsourcing when be fully and comprehensibly analyzed and done properly it works. Once upon the time, say 50 years ago or so, GM, Ford and Chrysler manufactured 80-90% of the cars in-houses vs. nowadays less than 40% and thus is OK. Airbus makes components for their aircraft mainly in France, Germany and the U.K. but also in Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Have you seen the logistic -not to mention extremely expensive- nightmare to send fuselage, wings, landing gear, tail section, etc. from 10-20 major subcontractors by Beluga aircraft, rail, ocean going vessel, river barge, train and truck to Toulousse for the big ones and Hamburg for the 320 family.
Well, it's evident the quality control going to hell had probably the biggest hand in the delays. As far as them doing it, I think it was more of a thing" everybody else is doing it. Let's do it to and we'll make money hand over fist" rather than just total arrogance. Total ignorance might be a better statement. That said, it is what it is, and the 4 PG 747's are needful.
It's a game of "who" will provide equipment which can carry product at max weight and least cost.With the current global leverage it's a gable as today's mega-deal might result in failure depending on the economy. That said...whomever (Exec Mgt) can pull off a deal to "collection", is rewarded handsomely.
chalet 1
Don't understand a word you are spouting
biggest plane with the lowest bid wins the freight contract.
"Outsourcing when be fully and comprehensibly analyzed and done properly it works." If you cannot/will not articulate and use proper/grammatically correct language, your words become gibberish.
Elizabeth: Chalet's gibberish seems to fit his thought process, so, in the interest of consistency, it need not be corrected.
chalet -1
You too Fritzy boy, Shut your intake opening up, you assumed English prefesser.... (LOL!!!)
chalet -1
Shut your intake opening up, you assumed English prefesser.... (LOL!!!)
chalet 0
In their infinite wisdom (read INFINITE ARROGANCE) and contempt towards the unions Boeing management would only listen to themselves and plunged headlong in this absurd outsourcing plan in order to save money (some say that it was done to force Boeing workers in Seattle and surrounding areas to reduce their salary aspirations). Components made in Italy would not match to what was made in Japan, and what the Korean supplier made did not quite fit with what the English manufacturer sent, and so on and on an on, so they had to modify, retrofit and sometimes even redesign key elements. It was hell was compounded to inadequate quality assurance and oversight; they learned the hard way. Numerous articles and books have been written and this is a case under study and leading MBA schools.
Chalet: I don't know the answer to the question I'm about to ask, but with your expertise in all matters pertaining to the 787 manufacturing process, you should be able to answer this with no difficulty

Are Boeing's 737s and 747s all "home cookin' "?

Bonus question: Since Boeing's "infinitely arrogant" management doesn't know what its doing, how would the infinitely modest unions do it better?
chalet 1
No, neither 737s and 747s are home cooking but by all accounts (you have plenty of reports) Boeing went "wild" in the outsourcing the 787 i.e. too many suppliers in three different continents, way way farther and wider than the outsourcing of the others you mentioned. As for the unions issue, again based in reports issued, they were a bit too demanding in job security, salaries, etc. but Boeing would not sit down and discuss that with them (never an easy matter)and instead went to all four corners in the world and the rest is history. I am sure you are aware that several very high level Boeng execs i.e. VP level and one rung below were given marching orders for their failures in the 787 program. Draw yourself your own conclusions.
Much as I hate to agree with him, giving the devil his due, he is correct The unions went overboard in their asking and Boeing overeacted AND by not monitoring QC on what they did, as evidenced by heads rolling.

Simple equation...Cost less 20% = Airbus

Cost Boeing 100% = jobs

Boeing giving jobs to countries buying your planes = BUSINESS

Your comments sound remarkably familiar to Hostess...which resulted in job loss of 18,000.
Actually 18,500 on Hostess but your equation is remarkably correct
The question is whether Boeing's outsourcing is a long-term strategic mistake. Whether Japan etal can develop the technologies that put Boeing at a strategic disadvantage remains to be seen. If it turns out to be so, Boeing will be far from the first company to make that mistake.

V.I. Lenin said "The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
I think we will continue to see outsourcing in some fashion from now on. As others have said, it is not just for a company to save money but provides jobs in those countries it goes too. That said, Boeing just jumped on the outsouce bandwagon and did not monitor the processes and it bit them in the butt. It is as any process, it must be monitored just as if it were done inhouse.
The biggest problem that Boeing had with the developement of the 787 program, was that the 787 design called for new technologies that Boeing themselves were NOT experts on. The huge majority of outside vendors involved were already supplying parts for other programs. Boeing went to them and said, "here's what we need, can you do it?" Of course they all said "yes" and the rest is history. As for the quality issues, the biggest offenders (including some US companies) are now owned by Boeing.
My concern is that everybody plays by different rule sets, and X% of the rules are hidden. It's good to say there is a level playing field; but when one side lacks mallets, rule books, and horses, the odds favor one side.
They play by BOEING's rules, who has to play by FAA's rules. Boeing dropped the ball themselves by not watching close enough.
"Put your eggs in one basket, and WATCH THAT BASKET"
Mark Twain
Bingo Elizabeth! It's no coincidence that Nippon air is receiving the first dream-liners. I don't know MHI or Fuji labor rates, but I'd be willing to bet that those composite fuselage and wing assemblies, made in Japan, ain't cheap.
iflyifr 1
Chalet. Your thinking, and publishing, is typical union goon talk; reminiscent of companies put out of business for decades by unions. Individually, I'm sure union members are good people, however collectively they destroy business in America. Hence outsourcing. Accept it! Starting with International Harvester through Hostess. Over 60 years of pricing America out of the market. This outsourcing was nessaryfor marketing reasons. It grates on my nerves when I see and hear union members say "I would rather be without a job than work for _________________. Insert your own, whether company, salary, benefits, ect. Why, you know that you can live off the taxpayers. The union does not own the company,
They only work there. Just remember every union member asked for their job!
chalet 1
I am in not related to unions in any way, I just repeated what has been widely reported in this particular case. Nor I am gainst outsourcing, again if properly done with all checks/balances/QUALITY ASSURANCE controls in place it is an excellent tool as the risk and capital investment costs are shared by main builder and the outsourced firms. For instance GE has done that for many years, and quite successfully by sharing the design of new jet engines for aircraft applications and power plants and the subsequent manufacturing of components.
I see this is a UK Site so they probably are not aware that Some of the afty section pieces come fromn Charleston, SC. Plus Charleston has the other 787 fabrication and assembly site. I don't have the specs but if it doesn't cover 100 acres it is pretty close plus it is being expanded. Really is a strange looking plane.
that is crazy... Wonder what engineer thought that one up....
The "swing-tail" (hinged) tail section concept was successfully utilized by the Flying Tiger Line some years back, when they used the Canadair CL-44 turboprop, based upon the Bristol Brittania aircraft, to carry cargo. Unlike the "Ultimate Guppy", the tail section opened hydraulically and was not dependent upon ground-based equipment to move the tail section. (see Google/Wikipedia for additional details.)
Very impressive! Thanks for the report and video. Many of us don't have the opportunity of see in person these airplanes and facilities.
Fantastic ! !
Nice video. Wonderfull Aircrafts (the one arround and the one inside). But the English accent sounds odd. It would look more genuine with a nice American English accent speaker.

Was it the max achievable size of the DreamLifter that limited the final size of the DreamLiner ? Or did boeing lengthen the 747 until it could swallow a 787 ??
The final size of the Dreamlifter was based on what they needed to move the 787 parts.
You have to remember that it's not just Boeing that outsources manufacturing, Airbus was founded as a multi-national agreement, with parts to come from different parts of Europe.
The reply didn't work - ignore this.
joel wiley -1
mini guppy, super guppy, so what.
As they say, the first one is genius, all the rest is engineering.
Sometimes a tool is just a humongous aircraft
Geoff Cook -7
He probably knew, but wanted to state how much of the airliner comes from around the world! Charlestown SC probably didnt fit the bill in this case!! Kid reporter looked to young to remember the Super Guppies which Airbus started using almost 40 years ago to transport Airbus products around Europe! Once again, Airbus leads the world, Boeing plays catch up!! ;-)
jbermo 8
What the heck are you writing about? Boeing initiated the first "Guppy" program 50 years ago when they converted piston B-337 Strato-Cruisers in the early 60's.
I can't rember what they came from but I was in USAF in AZ in the late 60's and saw them there. While the was a loose group of industries Airbus did not formally come into existence as a combined entity until 18 December 1970
pregnant guppy, super guppy, antonov 225, beluga, and then the dreamlifter
Super Guppy...wasn't that derived from a...uhm...BOEING? Something like a B-377?


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!