US House passes bill restricting action against Boeing's 787 Charleston line

[ASH]

Don't EVER forget that YOU ARE PART OF A UNION!

Correction: FORCED into a Union. Could I please opt out? Hey, if the Union is just there to protect us,the worker, no one would leave it right...........

 

[UALRATT]

SWA already have bases in numerous right to work states, it's not an issue.

The issue here is Boeing tried to spread the wealth of the 787 just like it always does when it attempts to win the most sales by diversifying not only it's supply chain, but its manufacturing base.

Unions have NO SAY in where a company can or can't open up a shop. No jobs were lost by Boeing deciding to open in SC, the only casualty is bruising the fragile ego's of those who didn't get them in Everett.

Standard "strong arm attempt to sway politics" by old school union gangsters, egged on by Mr O himself.

So BO wants to rebalance the wealth and that's socialist but Boeing wants "to spread [it]" and that's...? Republican hypocrisy at your finest? Never mind because next up is a House bill to make the Scope section of your contract illegal, because it impedes your company's ability to effectively compete in the ever tightening competitive market. Ask Yip! He knows...

 

[spitfire1500]

Its already happening. The fuselage of the 787 is manufactured in China and the wings are made in Italy (I may have the components/sites mixed up). Evergreen had some modified 747-400s that would transport the components to Charleston for final assembly. Atlas is now doing the flying. Outsourcing has been a nightmare for Boeing on the 787.

.....the fuselage is made in Italy along with the tail feathers by Alenia. The tails are about to me moved to Salt Lake City. The wings are made in Nagoya Japan by Mitsubishi. The passenger doors are made in France, Cargo doors, accessdoors and crew escape hatch in Sweden by Saab, floor beams are being brought to you by TaTa motors over in India, the landing gear is French and Korean Air of all companies is making a bunch of fairings and longerons.
China makes nothing. The outsourcing issues have been the Japanese Wing boxes, where the issues are due to Boeing design and would have happened if they were made by anyone following Boeings instructions( Boeing engineers in SEA and Moscow) and there have been issues with the tail empannage in Italy which is being moved now to Utah. Assembly will be both in Seattle and Charleston.
One of the reasons for the SC expansion may be less union leverage in SC...but in the big picture SC is cheaper for Boeing as a place to do business...things cost less in SC than Washington. Also Boeing looked for some tax breaks in Washington and the governor there told them to stick it, so the gov of SC picked up the ball and ran with it (when he wasn't hanging out in Argentina).. giving Boeing incentives to come and employ South Carolinians. In a nutshell there was more than just union politics involved.
Cost to operate and do business is also why European car makers are now making VW's Porsche, BMW and Mercedes brands in SC, Tenn and Bama.
Hell it's why I moved to South Carolina....my pay goes a lot farther here than it would in Seattle, Washington.
Having said all that..I do hope the Senate shoots the bill down...which they will.

 

[pilotgolfer]

.....the fuselage is made in Italy along with the tail feathers by Alenia. The tails are about to me moved to Salt Lake City. The wings are made in Nagoya Japan by Mitsubishi. The passenger doors are made in France, Cargo doors, accessdoors and crew escape hatch in Sweden by Saab, floor beams are being brought to you by TaTa motors over in India, the landing gear is French and Korean Air of all companies is making a bunch of fairings and longerons.
China makes nothing. The outsourcing issues have been the Japanese Wing boxes, where the issues are due to Boeing design and would have happened if they were made by anyone following Boeings instructions( Boeing engineers in SEA and Moscow) and there have been issues with the tail empannage in Italy which is being moved now to Utah. Assembly will be both in Seattle and Charleston.
One of the reasons for the SC expansion may be less union leverage in SC...but in the big picture SC is cheaper for Boeing as a place to do business...things cost less in SC than Washington. Also Boeing looked for some tax breaks in Washington and the governor there told them to stick it, so the gov of SC picked up the ball and ran with it (when he wasn't hanging out in Argentina).. giving Boeing incentives to come and employ South Carolinians. In a nutshell there was more than just union politics involved.
Cost to operate and do business is also why European car makers are now making VW's Porsche, BMW and Mercedes brands in SC, Tenn and Bama.
Hell it's why I moved to South Carolina....my pay goes a lot farther here than it would in Seattle, Washington.
Having said all that..I do hope the Senate shoots the bill down...which they will.

Thanks for setting me straight...I forgot it was Nagoya and not China. I've erased that year of my life out of my long term memory!

 

[labbats]

.....the fuselage is made in Italy along with the tail feathers by Alenia. The tails are about to me moved to Salt Lake City. The wings are made in Nagoya Japan by Mitsubishi. The passenger doors are made in France, Cargo doors, accessdoors and crew escape hatch in Sweden by Saab, floor beams are being brought to you by TaTa motors over in India, the landing gear is French and Korean Air of all companies is making a bunch of fairings and longerons.
China makes nothing. The outsourcing issues have been the Japanese Wing boxes, where the issues are due to Boeing design and would have happened if they were made by anyone following Boeings instructions( Boeing engineers in SEA and Moscow) and there have been issues with the tail empannage in Italy which is being moved now to Utah. Assembly will be both in Seattle and Charleston.
One of the reasons for the SC expansion may be less union leverage in SC...but in the big picture SC is cheaper for Boeing as a place to do business...things cost less in SC than Washington. Also Boeing looked for some tax breaks in Washington and the governor there told them to stick it, so the gov of SC picked up the ball and ran with it (when he wasn't hanging out in Argentina).. giving Boeing incentives to come and employ South Carolinians. In a nutshell there was more than just union politics involved.
Cost to operate and do business is also why European car makers are now making VW's Porsche, BMW and Mercedes brands in SC, Tenn and Bama.
Hell it's why I moved to South Carolina....my pay goes a lot farther here than it would in Seattle, Washington.
Having said all that..I do hope the Senate shoots the bill down...which they will.

I hereby deny this quote flightinfo status due to it's overreaching common sense and factual data. Now back to your regular scheduled program....

 

[PCL_128]

Boeing trying to open a plant in SC?

Next stop, just open it in China, problem solved for the NLRB.

No, problem not solved (not that I think it is a problem in the first place). The law still applies. The NLRB has a responsibility under the law to ensure that companies and union don't engage in illegal self-help. For a union under the NLRA, that means no strikes, slow-downs, or other economic self-help before the reaching of impasse on mandatory subjects of bargaining. For the company, that means no unilateral changing of working conditions, and no retaliation for legal job actions. Boeing has made public statements that clearly indicate that their decision to move their plant to SC was simply because they were angry about the last strike in Washington. That is blatantly illegal, as it should be, and the NLRB is correct to act. It wouldn't matter whether Boeing was attempting to move the plant to SC, to China, or to Mars for that matter. The law still applies to Boeing as an American company. What the Republicans are attempting to do is direct interference with a law that has been on the books for nearly a century.

 

[pilotyip]

Boeing as an American company.

well for right now anyway

 

[scoreboardII]

Don't EVER forget that YOU ARE PART OF A UNION!

Like someone else said, forced into a union for the job. Sure, I knew, and no I won't try to get rid of the union. But when a union tells it's employer where and when to make a product, welcome to Russia, or China.

This is nothing like scope. The unions had no clause limiting construction of other facilities or sourcing construction in other states.

 

[flyguy75000]

Like someone else said, forced into a union for the job. Sure, I knew, and no I won't try to get rid of the union. But when a union tells it's employer where and when to make a product, welcome to Russia, or China.

This is nothing like scope. The unions had no clause limiting construction of other facilities or sourcing construction in other states.

Exactly.....and no one failed to mention the fact that this airplane is 3 yrs behind. God forbid they do something that will help them reduce the delayed deliveries and try to get customers their ordered aircraft sooner.

One thing the NLRB cannot do is keep a company from leaving the country for good. This took nothing away from workers in Everett as their union reps will lead you to believe. Don't forget about the Tanker deal and the re-engined 737. There's gonna be a schittt ton of work to do for everyone.

The underlying thing causing this is the lack of pocket lining for union reps from 2500 people in CHS.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Boeing should really raise the stakes and open a 747-800 line in Mexico or China and tell the NLRB and the IAM to go pound sand.

 

[redflyer65]

No, problem not solved (not that I think it is a problem in the first place). The law still applies. The NLRB has a responsibility under the law to ensure that companies and union don't engage in illegal self-help. For a union under the NLRA, that means no strikes, slow-downs, or other economic self-help before the reaching of impasse on mandatory subjects of bargaining. For the company, that means no unilateral changing of working conditions, and no retaliation for legal job actions. Boeing has made public statements that clearly indicate that their decision to move their plant to SC was simply because they were angry about the last strike in Washington. That is blatantly illegal, as it should be, and the NLRB is correct to act. It wouldn't matter whether Boeing was attempting to move the plant to SC, to China, or to Mars for that matter. The law still applies to Boeing as an American company. What the Republicans are attempting to do is direct interference with a law that has been on the books for nearly a century.

PCL,

This whole thing is a political stunt by the Obama administration. The NLRB righ now is completely slanted toward the unions. This hasn't always been the case, but it is now.

What better way to lose American jobs than by clamping down on Boeing? I don't mean this to sound anti-union, but this is a witch hunt against Boeing.

Just as Raoul states above..Boeing could easily start a plant in Mexico or wherever. But the larger elephant in the room is this...do you seriously think other large American companies are looking at this and saying WTF?

This goes waaaay beyond Boeing. Be prepared for large American companies to just go overseas. I mean why deal with this?

Question....At what point is this NOT the union trying to tell Boeing how to operate their business? Shouldn't Boeing be able to run there business as they see fit? Optimally working together with the union.

RF

 

[pilotyip]

Any one remember Lee Iacoca at Chrysler in 1979, He said "If I can not make money building cars in this country, I will build them someplace else, and just sell them here"

 

[Flyprdu]

Any one remember Lee Iacoca at Chrysler in 1979, He said "If I can not make money building cars in this country, I will build them someplace else, and just sell them here"

Another idiotic statement. Can't sell them here if no one is employed. Short-term thinking, free-market circle jerkers at their finest.

 

[UALRATT]

PCL,

This whole thing is a political stunt by the Obama administration. The NLRB righ now is completely slanted toward the unions. This hasn't always been the case, but it is now.

What better way to lose American jobs than by clamping down on Boeing? I don't mean this to sound anti-union, but this is a witch hunt against Boeing.

Just as Raoul states above..Boeing could easily start a plant in Mexico or wherever. But the larger elephant in the room is this...do you seriously think other large American companies are looking at this and saying WTF?

This goes waaaay beyond Boeing. Be prepared for large American companies to just go overseas. I mean why deal with this?

Question....At what point is this NOT the union trying to tell Boeing how to operate their business? Shouldn't Boeing be able to run there business as they see fit? Optimally working together with the union.

RF

That's just your opinion boss but an over aggressive CEO put his company in that situation after implicating (key word) himself making remarks about an issue which amounted to breaking the law. They jail Mexicans then deport them for breaking the law of the land and you think that's good don't you? Immigration law, labor law? Makes no difference. It's a law!!!

Oh!! By the way big companies have been parting company with this country long before the Boeing and Obama. It's called rebalancing your wages downward to match the global marketplace. If they can pay a Chinaman $2.00 per hour to do the same job you're doing for $20.00, you better be prepared to accept $2.00 to keep it here in the USA. GLOBALIZATION!!!

 

[pilotyip]

Another idiotic statement. Can't sell them here if no one is employed. Short-term thinking, free-market circle jerkers at their finest.

how about all the imports that the union pilots buy because they like them

 

[redflyer65]

UALRatt,

Thanks for the counterpoint, and to be honest with you I was hoping for some other viewpoints. I agree that the CEO sure did dig the hole with some of his comments, but it's hard to find any other example of the US Government telling a company how they can run their business, and that is what is going down. Be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Cheers,

RF

 

[densoo]

Can't sell them here if no one is employed. Short-term thinking, free-market circle jerkers at their finest.

The lost employment is a delayed affect. By the time it kicks in, Lee is long gone with his millions. Seems like it's all short term now.

 

[Sacha]

Another idiotic statement. Can't sell them here if no one is employed. Short-term thinking, free-market circle jerkers at their finest.

Say, didn't I see you with anti-free market anarchists on Wall St. today? Camping out in tents and doing Yoga in the park....Priceless

 

[densoo]

. . . but it's hard to find any other example of the US Government telling a company how they can run their business . . .

I would offer another view. The government has done nothing but tell companies how to run their businesses. When they approved NAFTA they were telling companies to move their labor south. When they don't tariff Chinese products while China won't import ours they were telling companies to move their labor to the far east. When they permit a P.O. Box HQ somewhere in Wyoming they're telling them not to pay taxes. When the allowed them to break communications unions they were telling them to use Bombay customer service reps to answer our phone calls.

 

[UALRATT]

UALRatt,

Thanks for the counterpoint, and to be honest with you I was hoping for some other viewpoints. I agree that the CEO sure did dig the hole with some of his comments, but it's hard to find any other example of the US Government telling a company how they can run their business, and that is what is going down. Be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Cheers,

RF

As a matter of fact Red it is quite easy to find examples of the US government telling companies how to run their business. Doesn't it tell companies who it can hire as in the case of employing illegals? Shouldn't it then not have influence on how workers are treated especially understanding the nature of corporations? At least the founding father of the Republican party believed that. Think of another example that might be close to home. Would it be best to have the government COMPLETELY deregulate the airline industry? How safe would it be then? You're bright enough to know.

The problem is your point is laced with political undertones and that $hit is eating away at our country's fundermental existance. If you begin to think for yourself I am sure you will reregister as an independent...