to produce Boeings 777x, which they call the 'jumbo jet' killer. It will be a 777er with composite wings that fold up, and is about 30% more efficient than a regular triple 7 with the most powerful engines ever put on a jet. Boeing itself said this jet would kill their own 747 production. It will carry 400 people 8000 miles. As a pilot and aviation enthusiast I can tell you the triple 7 is probably the greatest airliner ever built. If you've never flown on one, they are huge twinjets and impressive airplanes. Next time you fly a long haul, try to get on one.
They're rumored to have it down to two places, Long Beach, and San Antonio. This would change this city.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorentho...ners-new-home/
Last edited by ErnestLynch; 11-16-2013 at 02:30 AM.
SA has no experience building airplanes, and there's a huge difference btw maintaining planes and building them. Long Beach has got to be the prohibitive favorite. The article doesn't even mention SA is in the mix, other than the indirect reference to "work sites" in TX.
You don't want to be training a couple thousand people whose first experience building planes would be on something as crucial to the company's success as the 777x.
I would NOT be surprised if San Antonio lands a portion of the Boeing contract. San Antonio has an educated workforce not tied to the machinist labor unions. The machinist in Everett Washington will not negotiate their labor contract to keep Boeing's cost down…
Boeing is also contemplating having the wings manufactured overseas & then flown back into the U.S. for the final assembly. It seems to me that it would be more reasonable to set up a new production facility with a willing & educated labor force somewhere in the U.S.
SA might be a serious candidate for the gas and electricity prices (is why MS located a datacenter here), and for the low wages and anti-union rednecks Repugs/right-to-work(-for-less), which induced Boeing to startup in SC (which ain't exactly an aerospace hotbet) There is also a supply of ex-military technical people around, and ex-military officers.
Don't know if our ty little airport would be a factor.
TX Repug and SA govt would probably blow $100Ms in tax expenditures, tax breaks (almost never pays back).
The low housing prices, low CoL, could also induce skilled people from WA,CA,KS to relocate here.
But Long Beach/SoCal aerospace history is a big plus.
Yeah, I didn't see any mention of SA at all.
Looked to me like LA or Long Beach.
lol boeing
lol military industrial complex
lol being such a ty city the only way to get jobs is by promising corporations they can pay low wages and give ty benefits
That's funny, what religion are your forefathers again?
Sounds interesting, I'm wondering how a plane built in SA would look like, with how many seats (probably much less than those built elsewhere imho)
Lack of a port for shipping coupled with the need to import everything including a skilled workforce could halt that dream. How do you get a large part or subsection out? Do you truck it to Houston? Why not build near a sea port or even on one?
I don't see it.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business...7X-4985539.php
Perhaps a better analogy for the sportsheads here:But aerospace industry analysts were dubious that Texas' business climate would be enough to overcome the city's lack of both seaport access and production-line workforce.
“If you do simple logic, San Antonio makes no sense,” said Adam Pilarski of Avitas, an aviation-industry consulting firm.
Pilarski, former chief economist and director of strategic planning at Douglas Aircraft, equated San Antonio's chances of scoring the 777X production line to its having a Super Bowl-winning professional football team in the next few years.
Not only would Boeing have to start fresh in San Antonio with a production line and workforce, industry analyst Richard Aboulafia said, but “third of all, you'd have to make arrangements that geography doesn't seem to favor.”
One of the quiet reasons the Air Force pulled their big jet maintenace work from Kelly AFB to Tinker AFB in the late 1990's was the absolute horrible work being done by the workforce at Kelly AFB. From chronic absenteeism to very shoody work. One pilot told me back then he and other pilots hated to fly any jets serviced at Kelly. The USAF kept this quiet, but everybody knew. But many phenonmenol BBQ pits were built at Kelly by the workers on AF time and AF materials. Kelly was also known as "The Home of the 8-Hour Loaf" which was pilfered from the slogan at Richters Bakery.
So, I wonder how this past stigma and reputation still haunts the SA aerospace workforce?
San Antonio is a holePERIOD
Other than, people can move.
LOL, what? Flying on a 777 is a miserable experience. I flew on one from San Francisco to Auckland, New Zealand, and it was an extremely uncomfortable flight. No leg room whatsoever, though it was probably nice if you dropped $8,000-$10,000 on a first class ticket. By contrast the 747 from Auckland back to San Francisco was great. Even the Southwest 737s felt comfortable in comparison to the Air New Zealand 777. I miss the days of the 727s; those were so relaxing to fly on.
It's not the plane that's uncomfortable, it's the configuration the airlines order them in nowadays. It's all about cramming as many seats as possible into the planes no matter the discomfort level, something they didn't do on older planes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
