4 ms·

Since the paper's from 2001, did you mean previously to say that it decried the level of outsourcing on the DC-10 rather than the 787, the 787 being at "pre-fig

Since the paper's from 2001, did you mean previously to say that it decried the level of outsourcing on the DC-10 rather than the 787, the 787 being at "pre-figment" stage at that point? A fun little detail, the author approvingly cites a 737 redesign that accounts for additional work being done at the Wichita site in a section about internal outsourcing... of course that site would be spun out into the now-much-maligned Spirit AeroSystems a few years later.

buildsjets 2y ago
I did not mean to say that. At that time, Boeing was active in the development of the Sonic Cruiser, which was intended to be a high-subsonic M0.96 cruise aircraft. When this project was (thankfully!) cancelled at the end of 2002, all of the material technologies and business models were recycled to create the 787, intended to achieve higher fuel efficiency at standard cruise speeds. One of the recycled business models was an extraordinary degree of outsourcing. A fun detail for you, one of the reasons that Spirit was spun off was that when they were still a part of Boeing, they were forced to bid against external suppliers for contracts on the 787, including the design and fabrication of the engine installation. (Bare engines are procured from engine manufacturer, but the airframe manufacturer is typically responsible for the inlet cowl, fan cowls, thrust reverser, exhaust system, mounting strut, and a whole bunch of other claptrap such as fire detection and extinguishing.) They had done this quite successfully for all four different engine installations on the 777. An external supplier significantly underbid them, and Wichita did not receive the contract. What of course happened is that Boeing had full visibility of the Wichita bid and could evaluate their numbers to ensure that their estimate was valid, while the external supplier lied through their teeth about their capability and capacity, and successfully underbid and won the contract, then went late and over budget. This and several other contract losses spelled the end for Boeing Wichita. If Spirit is to be maligned, the blame needs to be placed at Boeing's feet.
- zerocrates 2y ago
  Thanks for clarifying.

buildsjets 2y ago

I did not mean to say that. At that time, Boeing was active in the development of the Sonic Cruiser, which was intended to be a high-subsonic M0.96 cruise aircraft. When this project was (thankfully!) cancelled at the end of 2002, all of the material technologies and business models were recycled to create the 787, intended to achieve higher fuel efficiency at standard cruise speeds. One of the recycled business models was an extraordinary degree of outsourcing. A fun detail for you, one of the reasons that Spirit was spun off was that when they were still a part of Boeing, they were forced to bid against external suppliers for contracts on the 787, including the design and fabrication of the engine installation. (Bare engines are procured from engine manufacturer, but the airframe manufacturer is typically responsible for the inlet cowl, fan cowls, thrust reverser, exhaust system, mounting strut, and a whole bunch of other claptrap such as fire detection and extinguishing.) They had done this quite successfully for all four different engine installations on the 777. An external supplier significantly underbid them, and Wichita did not receive the contract. What of course happened is that Boeing had full visibility of the Wichita bid and could evaluate their numbers to ensure that their estimate was valid, while the external supplier lied through their teeth about their capability and capacity, and successfully underbid and won the contract, then went late and over budget. This and several other contract losses spelled the end for Boeing Wichita. If Spirit is to be maligned, the blame needs to be placed at Boeing's feet.

zerocrates 2y ago
Thanks for clarifying.