|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 [5] |
|
|
Mr. Taggart
 |
|
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
Ford close 10.68 Jan 2009 2.48 Up 330%
Honda close 31.68 Jan 2009 21.81 up 45%
|
What is your baseline for this calculation?
2009?
1990?
Your numbers are meaningless unless you put a timeframe on them.
You see, you're using a sliding bias and are not incorporating all the numbers and factors that make your statistics valid and comparable.
The timeframe is crucial to understand both (a) the baseline number and (b) understand what factors were involved in the numbers you are quoting.
Let me give you a real number...
In Y2K, when I sold my CSCO at an average of 65 bucks per share, my basis cost was just over 1.50 because I had bought it by the truckload in the early/mid 90s.
Now, that's a statistic you can take to the bank -and the IRS.
A REAL number.
|
They are in a timeframe
Koi.claimed Homda stock outperformed Ford since 2009 and it has not. I originally used Sept 2006 when Mulally started.
|
P54
|
|
When Honda started auto manufacturing in the 60's where was Ford? Ford had been in the business half a century, Honda just started at rock bottom with chain drive cars. Now tell me who did the climbing and who did the maintaining? When Hyundai started who climbed and who maintained? It is always easier to be a copycat and follower that the leader and innovator. You can only lead and innovate up to a certain point before things get cost prohibitive and time will allow the followers to catch up. What about GM, if it so easy to maintain why have they lost so much while all others have eaten into its share of the market?
My reference to "easier to climb from rock bottom" was in regard to Ford stocks. Just like apple stocks that went down to $1 a share made a giant boost when Steve Jobs came back to the company so also Ford. Their stocks were down to just a few dollars a piece and from then on it will only go upward.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
P54 wrote:
When Honda started auto manufacturing in the 60's where was Ford? Ford had been in the business half a century, Honda just started at rock bottom with chain drive cars. Now tell me who did the climbing and who did the maintaining? When Hyundai started who climbed and who maintained? It is always easier to be a copycat and follower that the leader and innovator. You can only lead and innovate up to a certain point before things get cost prohibitive and time will allow the followers to catch up. What about GM, if it so easy to maintain why have they lost so much while all others have eaten into its share of the market?
My reference to "easier to climb from rock bottom" was in regard to Ford stocks. Just like apple stocks that went down to $1 a share made a giant boost when Steve Jobs came back to the company so also Ford. Their stocks were down to just a few dollars a piece and from then on it will only go upward.
|
1. Innovation does not become cost prohibitive. Not being innovative becomes cost prohibited.
2. It is not easier for stocks to climb back up. There is a reason that a stock drops to a very low level (specifically on the NYSE where there a market cap and other limits) and if they stay too low they can get delisted. You get delisted and you are dead. Also if a stock is driven low the price only increases when investor demand for a stock increases. So it is not easy. Also price changes in a stock percentage wise are equivalent regardless of their actual price. If Ford was 10.00 and Apple was 500.00 and both had a beta of one (perfectly correlated to the DJIA) a 10% change up in the Dow would mean a 10% change in both Ford and Apple.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
CarmB wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
.....
Fuel economy is not the end all be all, but if you neuter an engine to get more fuel economy (See VCM) then maybe they should have turned to a 6 speed sooner.
Yeah, the original NSX was gutless, so was the ITR, a bunch or porsches and every racing car out there... Its more usable to the mind numbed masses because they don't have to shift as often and continue to text and cannot be bothered with understanding what it means to not get behind the curve. That kind of knowledge has no other practical purpose. Wait, you get a Cessan Cardinal fully loaded after of center and you really wan't to understand why you don't want to get behind the power curve.
You might want to read a little more thouroughly about the block as to my point, but SC then and dropped a couple ways they have been decreasing the quality of engine blocks.
|
Honda Johnny Come Lately.... ever heard of CVCC? How about the design of the R engine (maximum pumping efficiency)? What do you think VTEC is all about? Hint.. maximizing efficiency across the RPM range.
Honda is about maximum efficiency. If power is a byproduct, then so be it. In fact, in racing, volume and boost are restricted, so if you can come up with a better mouse trap to extract power from the engine and the ruling powers (and GM) don't object to it... you WIN.... Vide Honda turbo F1 in the 90s.
Decreasing tolerances in the piston is perhaps a detriment for someone like Shawn who lives to push those engines into stratospheric power numbers.
But, if you would, read into how HMC/AHM are DECREASING the FRICTION of the block/piston by treating the cylinders and using updated piston rings.
HMC is going for fuel efficiency.
Now then.. today is Memorial Day so we did our typical 170 mile trip around SoCal to go to cementeries.. In the Crosstour we burnt about 7 gallons of gas, which at 4.40 a gallon is 30 bucks. This was with ECO ON half the time on the freeways and around town.
Wooops!
Trust me, I want efficiency. I don't care if my engine can not be tuned to 400bhp.
Or, if we can get rid of ObamaGasFiasco and gas comes down to 2.5 a gallon, then HELL, Shawn, I'm in your boat... gimme 400 bhp....
See?
|
Regarding fuel costs, it's simple math. As cars get more efficient, the oil companies will increase the price per gallon accordingly. This is all the math you need to know and be assured that any so-called explanations of why gas prices are spiking dramatically in the years ahead will be nothing more than PR spin.
|
Our education system has just spoken. Is it any surprise that we need education reform? The price of gas responds to the law of supply and demand. Don't forget that there is a worldwide supply and demand, not just the in US. Speculators can driver the price of oil up, but for every speculator that bet the price is going up there is someone betting the price is going down.
|
And (some) of these people vote.
Can you imagine how screwed up a democracy is when the voters are so brainwashed.
This is fascism by indoctrination.. make the sheeple want to be controlled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
You are digging a bigger hole.
2008 FY US 6.3B yen operating income
Japan 4.9B yen op income
US higher in '09 '10 & '11
Keep reaching.....
|
Preacher it was such an easy task, did you deliberately get it wrong again?
Before the earthquake Hondas Profits under Ito increased by 65% - FY10 to FY11. Thereof the portion of North Am. profits went from 67% to 51%.
So yes I think Ito/Honda is doing a better job as an international company than Ford - where the portion of profits outside of NA are now leaning towards 0-5%.
Then you insist on comparing the absolute change in percentage of Stocks of companies with very different capital structures & credit ratings - yet appear to know about beta factors and so the volatility of different types of stocks??
Deliberate again?
You even talk about Innovation yet get mixed up on the maturity and so the profitability of hyrbid and EV technology?
Deliberate again because Ford is behind on this area and much less technologically diverse than Honda?
Back to the start; Except that Mulally did a turnaround in a company on the edge - backed up by a very wealthy owner family - you have not brought up a single relevant point why Mulally should replace Ito.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
I remember not that long ago an exe. from Detroit dismissed hybrids when the Prius was introduced, yet only a few shorrt years later, embraced Volt with a vengeance, still today.
I wonder which company is laughing all the way to the bank.
Mr. Taggart wrote:
- I finally admire him to telling the truth about Hybrid's losing huge amounts on a per vehicle basis with batteries running between 13,000 and 15,000 a pop based on power. It is nice to see that he acknowledges the game being played to satisfy governments that have never run a business is costing Ford's investors (other companies as well) a loss of over 10,000 a vehicle.
|
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
I remember not that long ago an exe. from Detroit dismissed hybrids when the Prius was introduced, yet only a few shorrt years later, embraced Volt with a vengeance, still today.
I wonder which company is laughing all the way to the bank.
Mr. Taggart wrote:
- I finally admire him to telling the truth about Hybrid's losing huge amounts on a per vehicle basis with batteries running between 13,000 and 15,000 a pop based on power. It is nice to see that he acknowledges the game being played to satisfy governments that have never run a business is costing Ford's investors (other companies as well) a loss of over 10,000 a vehicle.
|
|
"Detroit" is not a manufacturer, but GM and Ford still are. I would not consider Chrysler a "Detroit" manufacturer as they are foreign owned now.
How does this exec have anything to do with Mulally? He actually said about the GM Dolt, "Our strategy is not to do a lot of show and tell about one or two little vehicles like an all-electric that has no volume and don't make any sense cost-wise or market-wise,"
I would say he has been pretty consistent.
Btw, the "Detriot" manufacturers laughed all they way to the bank during the 80-90's and even into the late 2000's by churning out SUV's that were cheap to make and had huge profit margins so that soccer moms who could not drive a Ford Taurus could now drive a significantly heavier and higher center of gravity vehicle.
The only difference today is that instead of brain dead soccer moms, Toyota is giving the shaft to brain dead green weenies who feel smug about paying for a car that won't ever have a payback in a decent time frame. As PT Barnum famously said, there is a sucker born every minute. Especially those who buy plug in cars when most of the electricity in this company comes from coal fired plants. But don't worry the EPA has made it its mission to kill those off. So when the price to charge those cars begin to double I can't wait to hear the whining. Let's not forget all of the taxes being spent so those who can afford a 40,000 plug in vehicle can have charging stations everywhere while those less fortunate don't have the luxury of buying one. (I could talk about how ironic the global warming crowd JETS around the world while complaining about emissions but that has been done already)
Btw, how does your post relate to what you quoted me saying?
|
DrWhiner
|
|
The revival of FMC is built on the come-back of trucks:
Ford Sales ('000) 2011 2008
Cars 722.5 672 +7.5%
SUV/Crossover 616.1 525.3 +17.3%
Trucks 718 810.2 +12.8%
Furthermore, truck or SUV/crossover gives three times the profit of a car, according to some estimates.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The auto industry changes slowly, like you have to turn around a CV, it can take years for result to appear. You can't compare directly the performance of a CEO of 5+ years with one with less than three years.
Mullally became Ford's CEO in early Sept. 2006.
Profits / (losses)
Q4 2006 (5.6) billion
2007 (2.7) billion
2008 (14.6) billion
2009 2.7 billion (cumulative result from 2006 Q4: 20.2 billion losses)
2010 6.6 billion
2011 20.2 billion (cumulative result from 2006 Q4: 6.6 billion profits)
So, the company earned a net profits of 6.6 billions over 5+ yeras under his leadership: or an ave. of 1.25 billion every year. Doesn't seem anything to rejoice to me.
The share price was ~$8.39 on the day before the announcement of his appointment.
First anniversary (Sept. 2007) ~$7.77 (-7.4%)
2nd anniversary (Sept. 2008) ~$4.41 (-47%)
3rd anniversary (Sept. 2009) ~$7.43 (-10%)
Dividend: nil. (2006 Q4 – 2009 Q3)
Go back and see what Mullally has done to Ford by 2009.
Ito became CEO of Honda in late June 2009. The third anniversary is coming in June.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
P54
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
Some people do not care about that as long as their own pockets gets filled up. China basically owns USA now anyway.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
Tony,
Here is the complete supplier list for the 787. Feel free to puruse while you enjoy some crow. Will you drink a nice Cali wine or maybe some after dinner port? How about a nice Cask of Amontillado?
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=B787
Anyways here is what is made in China per Boeing:
The manufacturer:
Hafei Aviation Industry Co., Ltd. (China)
The parts:
Fairings - Wing-to-body fairing upper & lower panels ; Aircraft Control Surfaces - Vertical fin parts
The majority of the wing parts including the center wing box is made by Japanese companies. The wingbox (largest part of the wing) is made by Fuji Heavy Industries. Japan is the largest source of wing parts and produces about 35% of the plane.
Now are you saying that switching airliner building to a more efficient process similiar to how Honda or Toyota (leaner, less inventory, quicker production) does was bad or are you saying that Boeing underestimated the engineering skills of the subsidiaries and the need to help guide them through the process?
Or are you saying that Boeing should continue to build all the components utilizing a unionized workforce in Seattle and not be profitable? Shouldn't the long term profitability be increased?
Also not everything was outsourced. How much of a commerical airplane these days do not come from an outside suppllier? Engines- outside Instruments - outside Control systems - outside Landing gear and related assemblies - outside
Boeing bought out Vought as it could not secure anymore funding due to the commercial credit crisis. The program was going to costs about four times as much as they thought. I would say that the engineers and finance guys should of caught this in the initial plan to find suppliers.
There is no doubt that Boeing underestimated how hard it would be to change the way they build planes, but in the long run it was the Smart thing to do. It makes Boeing more flexible and more cost competitive. You wouldn't be a former MD engineer who is bitter that they closed down Long Beach are you?
As an aside what do you think about Space-X. The have a lot of subs and is staffed by a bunch of young engineers and people said there was no way they could put anything in space.
And.... Mulally was behind the triple seven (777) Blair was behind the 787. I think they brought in a guy from the defense side to replace him.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
The revival of FMC is built on the come-back of trucks:
Ford Sales ('000) 2011 2008
Cars 722.5 672 +7.5%
SUV/Crossover 616.1 525.3 +17.3%
Trucks 718 810.2 +12.8%
Furthermore, truck or SUV/crossover gives three times the profit of a car, according to some estimates.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The auto industry changes slowly, like you have to turn around a CV, it can take years for result to appear. You can't compare directly the performance of a CEO of 5+ years with one with less than three years.
Mullally became Ford's CEO in early Sept. 2006.
Profits / (losses)
Q4 2006 (5.6) billion
2007 (2.7) billion
2008 (14.6) billion
2009 2.7 billion (cumulative result from 2006 Q4: 20.2 billion losses)
2010 6.6 billion
2011 20.2 billion (cumulative result from 2006 Q4: 6.6 billion profits)
So, the company earned a net profits of 6.6 billions over 5+ yeras under his leadership: or an ave. of 1.25 billion every year. Doesn't seem anything to rejoice to me.
The share price was ~$8.39 on the day before the announcement of his appointment.
First anniversary (Sept. 2007) ~$7.77 (-7.4%)
2nd anniversary (Sept. 2008) ~$4.41 (-47%)
3rd anniversary (Sept. 2009) ~$7.43 (-10%)
Dividend: nil. (2006 Q4 – 2009 Q3)
Go back and see what Mullally has done to Ford by 2009.
Ito became CEO of Honda in late June 2009. The third anniversary is coming in June.
|
So Ford is stupid for selling profitable vehicles, is that what you are saying?
What were Ford sales in 2006? How much have they gone up?
I look that Mulally took a company from near the brink of bankruptcy without any help from the government to one that is now profitable. Are you implying that Honda was in bad of shape as Ford when Ito took over?
What has Ito done to profitability?
Oh, that is right there was a Tsunami and then a flood and Honda has too much production of key components in limited areas placing them at a Geographic risk of supply upsets, but none of this is Honda's fault. It is not Honda's fault that so many key components are not sourced locally.
Here is some small words, follow them:
1. What is Ford's Vision
2. Does Ford have a strategy that supports that vision?
2a. Strategy includes marketing, manufacturing, finance, sales, and engineering.
3. How is Ford executing on this Vision?
1.What is Honda's Vision
2.Does Honda have a strategy that supports that vision?
2a. See 2a above
3. HOW IS HONDA EXECUTING ON THIS VISION
How may misses has Ford had in the last three years vs. Honda?
If you wan to talk shares, let's talk earnings multiples. Ford is trading at 2 times and Honda 35 times. If you were an investor, which stock would have more room for potential upside?
What you all do still not get is Mulally has a vision of where he wants his company to go and has been dilivering on it while Ito is still spitting out a bunch of misses.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
Tony,
Here is the complete supplier list for the 787. Feel free to puruse while you enjoy some crow. Will you drink a nice Cali wine or maybe some after dinner port? How about a nice Cask of Amontillado?
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=B787
Anyways here is what is made in China per Boeing:
The manufacturer:
Hafei Aviation Industry Co., Ltd. (China)
The parts:
Fairings - Wing-to-body fairing upper & lower panels ; Aircraft Control Surfaces - Vertical fin parts
The majority of the wing parts including the center wing box is made by Japanese companies. The wingbox (largest part of the wing) is made by Fuji Heavy Industries. Japan is the largest source of wing parts and produces about 35% of the plane.
Now are you saying that switching airliner building to a more efficient process similiar to how Honda or Toyota (leaner, less inventory, quicker production) does was bad or are you saying that Boeing underestimated the engineering skills of the subsidiaries and the need to help guide them through the process?
Or are you saying that Boeing should continue to build all the components utilizing a unionized workforce in Seattle and not be profitable? Shouldn't the long term profitability be increased?
Also not everything was outsourced. How much of a commerical airplane these days do not come from an outside suppllier? Engines- outside Instruments - outside Control systems - outside Landing gear and related assemblies - outside
Boeing bought out Vought as it could not secure anymore funding due to the commercial credit crisis. The program was going to costs about four times as much as they thought. I would say that the engineers and finance guys should of caught this in the initial plan to find suppliers.
There is no doubt that Boeing underestimated how hard it would be to change the way they build planes, but in the long run it was the Smart thing to do. It makes Boeing more flexible and more cost competitive. You wouldn't be a former MD engineer who is bitter that they closed down Long Beach are you?
As an aside what do you think about Space-X. The have a lot of subs and is staffed by a bunch of young engineers and people said there was no way they could put anything in space.
And.... Mulally was behind the triple seven (777) Blair was behind the 787. I think they brought in a guy from the defense side to replace him.
|
DUDE:
Are you going to teach ME a lesson about Boeing and the 787?
I USED TO WORK AT BOEING, I was not in the Union, I was NOT in the SPEAA .. Indeed I -and all of my friends- are anti union... even the engineers I know in Washington State.
You see, I have a lot of friends in Commercial Airplanes and many of us, all over the Corporation regardless of Division, were drafted to help out.. many, MANY of my co-workers were drafted. Hell, I knew white one guy who pretty much lived in China for three years. He hated it... he was a wing man, you see....
Do you know what DO-178B is? DO-254? You should. you should NOT fly a plane what was not so certified.
Boeing should build the crucial parts in the US. Perhaps some in Canada and the UK (you ever heard of ITAR? It's a ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS)... Hopefully away from the rapacious union mechanics in the Puget Sound.
Eat crow? Dude... you have no idea what Mullally pulled at Boeing. I was there.
Oh, BTW... you do understand the concept behind INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY? For an airplane, YOU NEVER SHIP THE WINGS OUT... if you do, you've pretty much given 90% of the design away to a vendor.. in this case.. a vendor in China. Oooopss...
Mullally was the Big Guy when they decided to outsource the Intellectual Property all over the world. Mind you, today, in a way, with Obama and his union thugs, I sort of understand it... but it was a very misguided idea. But, under late Clinton and Bush they should have opened plants in Right To Work States.. hired non UAW mechanics, non SPEAA engineers and the whole lot and have built the entire aircraft within the USA and Canada. It would have been MUCH cheaper, a lot faster and would have protected the IP.
|
Mr. Taggart
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mr. Taggart wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
Tony,
Here is the complete supplier list for the 787. Feel free to puruse while you enjoy some crow. Will you drink a nice Cali wine or maybe some after dinner port? How about a nice Cask of Amontillado?
http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=B787
Anyways here is what is made in China per Boeing:
The manufacturer:
Hafei Aviation Industry Co., Ltd. (China)
The parts:
Fairings - Wing-to-body fairing upper & lower panels ; Aircraft Control Surfaces - Vertical fin parts
The majority of the wing parts including the center wing box is made by Japanese companies. The wingbox (largest part of the wing) is made by Fuji Heavy Industries. Japan is the largest source of wing parts and produces about 35% of the plane.
Now are you saying that switching airliner building to a more efficient process similiar to how Honda or Toyota (leaner, less inventory, quicker production) does was bad or are you saying that Boeing underestimated the engineering skills of the subsidiaries and the need to help guide them through the process?
Or are you saying that Boeing should continue to build all the components utilizing a unionized workforce in Seattle and not be profitable? Shouldn't the long term profitability be increased?
Also not everything was outsourced. How much of a commerical airplane these days do not come from an outside suppllier? Engines- outside Instruments - outside Control systems - outside Landing gear and related assemblies - outside
Boeing bought out Vought as it could not secure anymore funding due to the commercial credit crisis. The program was going to costs about four times as much as they thought. I would say that the engineers and finance guys should of caught this in the initial plan to find suppliers.
There is no doubt that Boeing underestimated how hard it would be to change the way they build planes, but in the long run it was the Smart thing to do. It makes Boeing more flexible and more cost competitive. You wouldn't be a former MD engineer who is bitter that they closed down Long Beach are you?
As an aside what do you think about Space-X. The have a lot of subs and is staffed by a bunch of young engineers and people said there was no way they could put anything in space.
And.... Mulally was behind the triple seven (777) Blair was behind the 787. I think they brought in a guy from the defense side to replace him.
|
DUDE:
Are you going to teach ME a lesson about Boeing and the 787?
I USED TO WORK AT BOEING, I was not in the Union, I was NOT in the SPEAA .. Indeed I -and all of my friends- are anti union... even the engineers I know in Washington State.
You see, I have a lot of friends in Commercial Airplanes and many of us, all over the Corporation regardless of Division, were drafted to help out.. many, MANY of my co-workers were drafted. Hell, I knew white one guy who pretty much lived in China for three years. He hated it... he was a wing man, you see....
Do you know what DO-178B is? DO-254? You should. you should NOT fly a plane what was not so certified.
Boeing should build the crucial parts in the US. Perhaps some in Canada and the UK (you ever heard of ITAR? It's a ROYAL PAIN IN THE ASS)... Hopefully away from the rapacious union mechanics in the Puget Sound.
Eat crow? Dude... you have no idea what Mullally pulled at Boeing. I was there.
Oh, BTW... you do understand the concept behind INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY? For an airplane, YOU NEVER SHIP THE WINGS OUT... if you do, you've pretty much given 90% of the design away to a vendor.. in this case.. a vendor in China. Oooopss...
Mullally was the Big Guy when they decided to outsource the Intellectual Property all over the world. Mind you, today, in a way, with Obama and his union thugs, I sort of understand it... but it was a very misguided idea. But, under late Clinton and Bush they should have opened plants in Right To Work States.. hired non UAW mechanics, non SPEAA engineers and the whole lot and have built the entire aircraft within the USA and Canada. It would have been MUCH cheaper, a lot faster and would have protected the IP.
|
So what you are saying is that the official supplier list that Boeing publishes is incorrect and Fuji is not building the majority of wing parts?? You claim the wings are built in China, so please tell me what parts?? I know of fairings and verticle stab parts.
And I see you are worried about IP being transferred to other countries. You don't think the Chicoms have people here to steal what we already have? And the way China works they buy everything and then reverse engineer. Ever been over to Chinese surface mine? I have, saw brand new Cat tractors as far as the eye could see. Some were never even used even though they were over a year old. Reason is some were just used for disassebly and then replacement with Chinese sourced parts.
ITAR has to do with the transfer of arms related techonogies, the other two items have to do with FAA certifications. Btw the FAA continues to sign off on wonky Airbusses that become lawn jarts when the software decides to not play nice with each other, especially at over 35,000 feet and in the middle of a thunderstorm. If it ain't a Boeing I ain't going.
So you are mad that he tried to keep the country afloat and profitable given the economic climate that existed at the time? Would it be better to have only US sourced stuff? Sure, but you know that isn't possible. So on one hand you say he gave the company away but on the other said that political conditions prevented him from doing so?
So you only want to limit it to Canada and the UK? You know that won't work these days, not when Boeing is trying to battle Airbus for protectionism. So would you pull the work from Japan as well? And seeing how Bubba was pals with Chicoms who funded his campaigns was Boeing nudged to give some work to China?
So, if you can come up with a better way given the political conditions at the time (put a new plant and close Renton, would not of happened; they shit when fusalages went to Whichita ((Did Renton for the closure of Whichita)) so would they allowed a plant in the Southeast? Btw I agree it would have been a great Idea, but it is another reason why we need term limits.
But I will eat half of plate of crow because I missed the vertical stab, which is not listing for some reason....
|
Hondu
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
This is a great example of spreading mis-information on the Internet. The wings are made in Japan, not China. Boeing uses the The "Big Three" in Japan because the Japanese airlines are very loyal to Boeing and buying their planes. IHI, MHI and Fuji have been long time Boeing suppliers. They also do work for GE Aircraft as well.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
This is a great example of spreading mis-information on the Internet. The wings are made in Japan, not China. Boeing uses the The "Big Three" in Japan because the Japanese airlines are very loyal to Boeing and buying their planes. IHI, MHI and Fuji have been long time Boeing suppliers. They also do work for GE Aircraft as well.
|
(1) In order to build their parts.. the Chinese vendors had access to the design. My friend/coworkers travelled to China to ensure that the product was built correctly.
(2) The 787 is the first Boeing airplane for which the wings were outsourced. The Wing Is The Airplane.. it is the single most important part of Intellectual Property.. hence you DO NOT give out your IP to anyone... even your closest vendors.
(3) Work for GE.. who cares... that's an entirely unrelated business. Boeing does not design jet engines, does not design most avionics.. so it's OK for all of that work to be done by vendors. But Boeing DESIGNS WINGS and FUSELAGES. The fuselage is really not that important but the wing is.
Do you understand now?
|
TonyEX
|
|
Mr. Taggart wrote:
So what you are saying is that the official supplier list that Boeing publishes is incorrect and Fuji is not building the majority of wing parts?? You claim the wings are built in China, so please tell me what parts?? I know of fairings and verticle stab parts.
And I see you are worried about IP being transferred to other countries. You don't think the Chicoms have people here to steal what we already have? And the way China works they buy everything and then reverse engineer. Ever been over to Chinese surface mine? I have, saw brand new Cat tractors as far as the eye could see. Some were never even used even though they were over a year old. Reason is some were just used for disassebly and then replacement with Chinese sourced parts.
ITAR has to do with the transfer of arms related techonogies, the other two items have to do with FAA certifications. Btw the FAA continues to sign off on wonky Airbusses that become lawn jarts when the software decides to not play nice with each other, especially at over 35,000 feet and in the middle of a thunderstorm. If it ain't a Boeing I ain't going.
So you are mad that he tried to keep the country afloat and profitable given the economic climate that existed at the time? Would it be better to have only US sourced stuff? Sure, but you know that isn't possible. So on one hand you say he gave the company away but on the other said that political conditions prevented him from doing so?
So you only want to limit it to Canada and the UK? You know that won't work these days, not when Boeing is trying to battle Airbus for protectionism. So would you pull the work from Japan as well? And seeing how Bubba was pals with Chicoms who funded his campaigns was Boeing nudged to give some work to China?
So, if you can come up with a better way given the political conditions at the time (put a new plant and close Renton, would not of happened; they shit when fusalages went to Whichita ((Did Renton for the closure of Whichita)) so would they allowed a plant in the Southeast? Btw I agree it would have been a great Idea, but it is another reason why we need term limits.
But I will eat half of plate of crow because I missed the vertical stab, which is not listing for some reason....
|
here's my answer to you about the wings
http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=1068687&page_number=5
ITAR is routinely applied to most of our technology, even stuff that would not be thought of a military because a lot of our technology _could_ be used (or is deemed suitable by the Dept. of State) for dual military use.
Believe it or not, even stuff like software for enterprise routers can fall under ITAR regulations. By default, many such things are considered dual use, so the deal is that you MUST PROVE that is isn't. And ITAR regulations are tough.. I once sent a very simple document that somehow ended up answered by a Canadian vendor.. my boss and I earned 'extra' ITAR training even after a two week investigation deemed it was not an "export".
I bring up Canada and the UK because a lot of our vendors do work in all three nations (for example, BAE, CWC, GE. Intel, Wind River) and so they have the necessary 'export' letters with the US Dept of State and the corresponding ministries in the UK and Canada. Hence, dealing with vendors in those two nations is far less cumbersome. I once had to deal with a vendor in Israel... Oy Vey... and they are our ally..
So, ITAR wise, when you're working in an high tech environment with vendors, the less vendors the better because the less chances of making an 'export'.
And, of course, from a legal perspective also, the less vendors the better because dealing with vendors requires consideration of 'need to know' and access to proprietary information... When you deal with your own company in the same project, you all share the same clearances and access to the design information.
Easier access to the people in your project means faster and cheaper access.... so problems get solved fast without having to go through complex, arcane and lengthy processes.
Now, FAA docs... the issue that bit Boeing was that many vendors did not have the requisite experience to implement a life cycle that could be certified. 178B and 254 can not be applied at the end but are lifecycle 'considerations' that much be planned at the very beginning and must be bid into the contract. Consequently, when vendors failed to deliver certifiable products there was a lot of legal and technical wrangling... and lots of engineers Shanghai'd around the world to ensure that this was done so.
Looking back, it would have been much cheaper for Boeing to not have outsourced so much of the aircraft and should have kept the complete ariframe and big chunks of the sub systems within the company. Even if they had to pay union dues it would have still been cheaper -delivered on time...
We do agree with Bubbah and the Chinese Commies... but that's a political consideration that has nothing to do with what was shipped to them. We could have shipped them the strobe lights, landing gear doors, ailerons for example, but nothing that would required scope into the plans for the wings.
But think, even if Boeing had built it with Union Labor (and as I told you I think the UAW is a bunch of thugs and the SPEAA are bunch of socialist goons) it would still have been cheaper in the long run.
|
Hondu
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
This is a great example of spreading mis-information on the Internet. The wings are made in Japan, not China. Boeing uses the The "Big Three" in Japan because the Japanese airlines are very loyal to Boeing and buying their planes. IHI, MHI and Fuji have been long time Boeing suppliers. They also do work for GE Aircraft as well.
|
(1) In order to build their parts.. the Chinese vendors had access to the design. My friend/coworkers travelled to China to ensure that the product was built correctly.
(2) The 787 is the first Boeing airplane for which the wings were outsourced. The Wing Is The Airplane.. it is the single most important part of Intellectual Property.. hence you DO NOT give out your IP to anyone... even your closest vendors.
(3) Work for GE.. who cares... that's an entirely unrelated business. Boeing does not design jet engines, does not design most avionics.. so it's OK for all of that work to be done by vendors. But Boeing DESIGNS WINGS and FUSELAGES. The fuselage is really not that important but the wing is.
Do you understand now?
|
Do you?
EVERETT, Wash., May 15, 2007 -- The gigantic composite wings for the all-new Boeing [NYSE: BA] 787 Dreamliner were delivered to Everett at 4:10 a.m. PDT today.
Manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries at its facility in Nagoya, Japan, each wing is 98 feet long. Standing on edge in custom-made tooling, the wings were delivered together to Boeing via the Dreamlifter, a specially modified 747-400 used to transport 787 major assemblies. The 787 is the first commercial aircraft to use composite materials as its primary structure. It is also the first Boeing aircraft featuring an all-composite wing.
"A composite wing of this size has never been built before," said Scott Strode, 787 vice president of Airplane Definition and Production. "This is a tribute to our fantastic team. We believe the Dreamliner sets a new standard for how commercial airplanes will be made in the future."
The wings were immediately delivered to the 787 final assembly factory. Additional work -- including attaching the wingtip and movable surfaces -- will be completed by Boeing. The total wingspan of a 787 is 197 feet.
|
Hondu
|
|
TonyE wrote:
Hondu wrote:
TonyE wrote:
Mullally was the genius behind the development of the 787.....
Ooops... huh?
Outsourced everything.
Shipped the wing manufacturing to China.
Dude... Mullaly gave the Chinese the wings... you do realize that the wings of an airplane ARE THE AIRPLANE?
And, of course, Boeing suffered tremendously because Mullaly outsourced the whole lot. Many of the parts were not built right and/or were not certified correctly. Which meant huge cost overruns and schedule delays. Boeing had to ship engineers all over the world to help out and indeed bought out a big vendor out over in North Carolina to ensure parts quality and production numbers.
On top of that, the Chinese now know how to build state of the art wings.
Think about that.
Think about the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that Mullally gave away to future competitors.
Then come back and tell us how great he is....
|
This is a great example of spreading mis-information on the Internet. The wings are made in Japan, not China. Boeing uses the The "Big Three" in Japan because the Japanese airlines are very loyal to Boeing and buying their planes. IHI, MHI and Fuji have been long time Boeing suppliers. They also do work for GE Aircraft as well.
|
(1) In order to build their parts.. the Chinese vendors had access to the design. My friend/coworkers travelled to China to ensure that the product was built correctly.
(2) The 787 is the first Boeing airplane for which the wings were outsourced. The Wing Is The Airplane.. it is the single most important part of Intellectual Property.. hence you DO NOT give out your IP to anyone... even your closest vendors.
(3) Work for GE.. who cares... that's an entirely unrelated business. Boeing does not design jet engines, does not design most avionics.. so it's OK for all of that work to be done by vendors. But Boeing DESIGNS WINGS and FUSELAGES. The fuselage is really not that important but the wing is.
Do you understand now?
|
Just because the Chinese may supply a few parts to go on the wings, does not mean they know how to build state of the art wings. I just mentioned GE, because the Japanese do work for both Aero companies for years. Building a Jet Engine is a hell of a lot harder than a plane anyway. The Chinese are assembling A320's for Airbus, which is even worse than what Boeing has done. Airbus is teaching the Chinese how to assemble them, so they gain even more IP, than making a few sub-contracted parts for Boeing.
The Indians tried building their own jet engine for like 25 years, copying GE specs and tearing apart their engines, yet did not succeed. They gave up and finally went to Snecma/CFM to obtain the engines. Boeing is not selling the farm to the Chinese at all.
|
mobis21
|
|
|
Is this thread about Iwamura now?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 3 4 [5] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
