Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
Posted by ITOdeed
9th Feb 2011
Just
In
In
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
Posted by formerbcag
16th Feb 2011
Show:
+1
Vote
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
duh
Posted by mihondo
8th Feb 2011
+1
Vote
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
Duh.
Posted by mihondo
8th Feb 2011
+1
Vote
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
Oh yes, lets save money by adding another layer of management and shipping costs.
Posted by zclayton3
9th Feb 2011
+2
Votes
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
The Boeing executive who approved this outsourcing will probably be given a huge bonus. The 787 will always be known as the plane that never was.
Posted by ITOdeed
9th Feb 2011
+1
Vote
787
The executive that approved this is long gone from Boeing and the 787 is completing testing for delivery in the 3rd quarter, hardly the plane that never was. The true story is published in many places.
Posted by kdjkdj@...
9th Feb 2011
+1
Vote
Even the idea that...
..."Outsourcing simple, small parts saves money because they can
be manufactured in countries with low labor costs" is suspect,
because even simple, small parts often must be made to exacting
specifications which cannot always be guaranteed when the
manufacturer is also trying to cut costs and is far out of the way, and
far out of direct control.
be manufactured in countries with low labor costs" is suspect,
because even simple, small parts often must be made to exacting
specifications which cannot always be guaranteed when the
manufacturer is also trying to cut costs and is far out of the way, and
far out of direct control.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
9th Feb 2011
+1
Vote
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
Actually, the primary issue is not about small versus large parts, or less developed countries versus more developed countries. The real discussion is about transferring risk.
If Boeing transfers risk to a subcontractor, along with that transfer goes a transfer of profits. Otherwise it would not worth the subcontractor taking on the committment. So why should Boeing give away its potential profits? When the required subassembly is not within its core competence so it cannot make a profit by manufacturing it itself. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, if Boeing subcontracted the whole manufacturing job it would just become a design and marketing company.
Ah! just like the incredibly successful Apple, perhaps!
If Boeing transfers risk to a subcontractor, along with that transfer goes a transfer of profits. Otherwise it would not worth the subcontractor taking on the committment. So why should Boeing give away its potential profits? When the required subassembly is not within its core competence so it cannot make a profit by manufacturing it itself. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, if Boeing subcontracted the whole manufacturing job it would just become a design and marketing company.
Ah! just like the incredibly successful Apple, perhaps!
Posted by cosserat@...
10th Feb 2011
+1
Vote
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
Boeing's biggest mistake was not giving Alan Mulally the CEO spot. He was the one that made the 777 become reality. While the 787 is more complex, Mulally would have never let the program get as out of control as it did.
Instead, Mulally wound up as CEO of Ford, where he has successfully turned the company around without a single federal bailout dollar.
Instead, Mulally wound up as CEO of Ford, where he has successfully turned the company around without a single federal bailout dollar.
Posted by zackers
11th Feb 2011
+1
Vote
RE: The hard lessons of Boeing's 787 outsourcing
YOU ARE TOTALLY RIGHT, "ZACKERS". Mulally was very pro-active and aggressively organized (LEAN) and would have weeded out all the unnecessary!
Posted by formerbcag
16th Feb 2011