Technology StocksBoeing keeps setting new highs! When will it split?

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Eric who wrote (3183)4/3/2011 5:56:30 AM
From: Proud Deplorable
   of 3331
If Boeing isn't charged with domestic terrorism first that is

Knowingly selling substandar­d products as safe that will likely kill or maim the user is terrorism by any definition­.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Eric4/4/2011 10:58:53 AM
   of 3331
In Person: Boeing's Nicole Piasecki — born into aerospace engineering

Nicole Piasecki, head of strategic analysis at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, grew up with a blue-blood aviation background and is now grappling with key decisions as the company studies its future airplane programs.

By Dominic Gates

Seattle Times aerospace reporter

Nicole Piasecki, head of strategic analysis at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, grew up with a blue-blood aviation background and is now grappling with key decisions as the company studies its future airplane programs.

Vice president of business development and strategic integration at Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
Education: B.S. in mechanical engineering from Yale. MBA from Wharton. Played lacrosse and hockey at Yale, where she was female athlete of the year.

At Boeing: Joined Boeing in 1992 as a 777 engineer. Named to current position in January 2010 after stints heading aircraft-leasing sales, marketing and Boeing Japan.

Family: Piasecki is 48 and has three children. Her husband, Peter Heymann, also an engineer by training, now does pastoral work with prison inmates and the homeless.

Nicole Piasecki was practically groomed from birth for the role she now plays at Boeing Commercial Airplanes: heading the strategic-analysis team that's grappling with key decisions as the company considers what its next new jet it should be.

"I really entered the industry when I was about 4 years old," said Piasecki (pronounced PIE-a-SECK-EE). "We grew up completely around helicopters, vertical flight, every air show."

At one birthday party at her Philadelphia home when she was about 10, she recalled, "I couldn't understand why the parents of my friends were sticking around." Now the reason seems obvious: "We were giving helicopter rides in the backyard."

Piasecki's mother, Vivian O'Gara Weyerhaeuser, came from the wealthy timber family. Her father, Frank Piasecki, invented the twin-rotor helicopter that later evolved into the U.S. Army's heavy-lift Chinook.

His first company, Piasecki Helicopter, later became Boeing's rotorcraft plant in Philadelphia, where Boeing's defense division today builds Chinooks and V-22 tilt-rotor Ospreys. Frank regularly took the kids to his engineering office and on trips to see customers or to visit military officials at the Pentagon.

"I lived in another world ... I was growing up not the way other people grew up," his daughter said.

Today, four of her six siblings also work in aviation.

After stints at Piasecki Aircraft and Weyerhaeuser, Nicole, 48, started at Boeing as an engineer on the 777 program in 1992. She is now vice president of business development and strategic integration.

Despite Boeing's many current challenges, Piascecki said the company is in much better shape than a decade ago, when then-Commercial Airplanes chief Alan Mulally tapped her to run marketing.

In an interview at her Renton office, she recalled that back then many people in the industry were questioning Boeing's commitment to the airliner business.

Then the Sept. 11 attacks staggered the aviation business, and management cut production in half. Boeing subsequently abandoned its plan to develop the superfast Sonic Cruiser jet.

"Those were pretty tough years," Piasecki said. "We really rallied to bring Boeing back."

Piasecki recalled helping plot the company's next step. Along with chief engineer Walt Gillette, she led a key meeting at the Bell Harbor conference center on Seattle's waterfront in October 2002.

A couple dozen airline representatives each got up and put a mark on a whiteboard to indicate whether they'd prefer Boeing's next plane to be faster or more fuel-efficient.

All opted for fuel efficiency — and the die was cast for what became the 787 Dreamliner.

Now Piasecki is playing a pivotal role in Boeing's decision on the next new airplane.

While rival Airbus has already moved to put new, more efficient engines on its narrow-body A320 aircraft, Boeing is considering a successor jet to the Renton-built 737 narrow-body.

The momentous choice will require investing gigantic sums, picking among key technology alternatives, deploying vast engineering and manufacturing resources, and establishing partnerships that will work better than the 787's troublesome supply chain.

Because the Chinese and Russians, as well as the Canadians and Brazilians, also plan to enter the narrow-body market, Piasecki sees this as "a real turning point for us."

Her job is to shape, guide and integrate the overall strategy, including where to fit in development of other jets such as a new Dreamliner derivative, the 787-10.

"We've got to make moves at certain times," Piasecki said. "Our resources are not endless. We have to make choices."

That's daunting enough even without the awkward fact that some of Boeing's strategic moves in the past decade — which Piasecki had a hand in — now look questionable.

Boeing's leadership has conceded that the wholesale outsourcing of work on the Dreamliner program was handled badly. The debacle has trashed the company's stellar reputation for delivering on time and has cost the company billions of dollars.

Piasecki, on the inner leadership team since 2001, says Boeing has learned a lot from those mistakes.

"We've had our troubles for sure on the 787," Piasecki said. "But we feel that because of that experience we are ahead in certain technologies."

On the next airplane, and even on the next derivative of the 787, she said, Boeing will keep key expertise in-house.

"We need to be very strategic ... and recognize the capabilities where we believe we are better than anyone else in the world.," Piasecki said. "We need to preserve those capabilities and invest in them."

Still, that revisionism doesn't mean the end of outsourcing.

"It doesn't mean the walls of Boeing are in Puget Sound only. It doesn't mean the walls of Boeing are in the United States only," Piasecki said. "We have to be able to work with the best partners around the world."

Piasecki said Boeing will strive for a more exclusive relationship with future partners, suggesting that those who also do work for rivals like Airbus may lose favor.

"Some of our very close suppliers are spending a lot of time developing stuff for other competitors. They are spending resources on others, not on us," she said. "We'd prefer that they work with us, and ... share and invest in technology for our advantage."

Yet Piasecki was on Mulally's leadership team when it decided in 2004 to sell off Boeing's major parts plant in Wichita, Kan.

That facility, later renamed Spirit AeroSystems, remains the main supplier for Boeing's narrow-body jets. But Spirit is now also a key supplier to Airbus and is building a plant in North Carolina that will make carbon-fiber plastic-composite fuselage panels for the A350, a rival to both the 787 and the 777.

In hindsight, was selling off Wichita a mistake?

Piasecki considered her answer for a long moment, pausing a conversation that was otherwise a fluid mix of lively, confident answers and occasional playful banter.

Finally she acknowledged, as her boss Jim Albaugh did recently, that Boeing's leadership at the time was very focused on shrinking in-house assets to boost Wall Street's assessment of company profitability.

Then she briskly moved on, saying she won't "second-guess decisions that have already been made."

How Spirit and the other partners fit into the next new airplane's supply chain will be critical to the Puget Sound region, the center of Boeing's airplane business since 1916.

Piasecki said Boeing is studying the possibility of a high-volume aircraft production "supersite," where supplier fabrication plants making airplane sections would cluster near a Boeing final-assembly facility.

She said if Boeing chooses that route, it may set up more than one such supersite to mitigate the risk of having such a key complex subject to disruption by a natural disaster or a labor strike.

"We're taking a look at all different scenarios," Piasecki said. "We are coming up on our 100th birthday. We want to reposition for the next 100 years."

The Piasecki family dynasty might even have a role in that next century. Would she be pleased if any of her three kids, ages 11, 9 and 4, go into aviation?

"I would love it," Piasecki said. "Both my husband and I are engineers. I can tell we are shaping them to think engineering."

Dominic Gates: 206-464-2963 or

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: FUBHO4/26/2011 6:12:58 AM
   of 3331
The White House vs. Boeing: A Tennessee Tale

APRIL 25, 2011, 8:07 P.M. ET
Our auto industry took off because workers could choose whether or not to join a union.

The National Labor Relations Board has moved to stop Boeing from building airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina. The Board suggests that a unionized American company cannot, without violating federal labor law, expand its operations into one of the 22 states with right-to-work laws, which protect a worker's right to join or not join a union. (New Hampshire's legislature has just approved its becoming the 23rd.)

This reminds me of a White House state dinner in February 1979, when I was governor of Tennessee. President Jimmy Carter said, "Governors, go to Japan. Persuade them to make here what they sell here."

"Make here what they sell here" was then the union battle cry, part of an effort to slow the tide of Japanese cars and trucks entering the U.S. market.

Off I flew to Tokyo to meet with Nissan executives who were deciding where to put their first U.S. manufacturing plant. I carried with me a photograph taken at night from a satellite showing the country at night with all its lights on.

View Full Image

Bloomberg News
Boeing employees assemble a 787 Dreamliner jet at the company's manufacturing facility in Everett, Wash., in February.

"Where is Tennessee?" the executives asked. "Right in the middle of the lights," I answered, pointing out that locating a plant in the population center reduces the cost of transporting cars to customers. That center had migrated south from the Midwest, where most U.S. auto plants were, to Kentucky and Tennessee.

Then the Japanese examined a second consideration: Tennessee has a right-to-work law and Kentucky does not. This meant that in Kentucky workers would have to join the United Auto Workers union. Workers in Tennessee had a choice.

In 1980 Nissan chose Tennessee, a state with almost no auto jobs. Today auto assembly plants and suppliers provide one-third of our state's manufacturing jobs. Tennessee is the home for production of the Leaf, Nissan's all-electric vehicle, and the batteries that power it. Recently Nissan announced that 85% of the cars and trucks it sells in the U.S. will be made in the U.S.— making it one of the largest "American" auto companies and nearly fulfilling Mr. Carter's request of 30 years ago.

But now unions want to make it illegal for a company that has experienced repeated strikes to move production to a state with a right-to-work law. What would this mean for the future of American auto jobs? Jobs would flee overseas as manufacturers look for a competitive environment in which to make and sell cars around the world.

It's happened before. David Halberstam's 1986 book, "The Reckoning"—about the decline of the domestic American auto industry—tells the story. Halberstam quotes American Motors President George Romney, who criticized the "shared monopoly" consisting of the Big Three Detroit auto manufacturers and the UAW. "There is nothing more vulnerable than entrenched success," Romney warned. Detroit ignored upstarts like Nissan who in the 1960s began selling funny little cars to American consumers. We all know what happened to employment in the Big Three companies.

Even when Detroit sought greener pastures in a right-to-work state, its "partnership" with the United Auto Workers could not compete. In 1985, General Motors located its $5 billion Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tenn., 40 miles from Nissan, hoping side-by-side competition would help the Americans beat the Japanese. After 25 years, nonunion Nissan operated the most efficient auto plant in North America. The Saturn/UAW partnership never made a profit. GM closed Saturn last year.

Nissan's success is one reason why Volkswagen recently located in Chattanooga, and why Honda, Toyota, BMW, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and thousands of suppliers have chosen southeastern right-to-work states for their plants. Under right-to-work laws, employees may join unions, but mostly they have declined. Three times workers at the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tenn., rejected organizing themselves like Saturn employees a few miles away.

Our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs in this country. Giving workers the right to join or not to join a union helps to create a competitive environment in which more manufacturers like Nissan can make here 85% of what they sell here.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: FUBHO4/29/2011 8:05:43 AM
   of 3331
The president's appointees have moved to block the company from building planes in my state. He owes us an explanation.

APRIL 29, 2011

In October 2009, Boeing, long one of the best corporations in America, made an announcement that changed the economic outlook of South Carolina forever: The company's second line of 787 Dreamliners would be produced in North Charleston.

In choosing to manufacture in my state, Boeing was exercising its right as a free enterprise in a free nation to conduct business wherever it believed would best serve both the bottom line and the employees of its company. This is not a novel or complicated idea. It's called capitalism.

Boeing has since poured billions of dollars into a new, state-of-the art facility in South Carolina's picturesque Low Country along the Atlantic coast. It has created thousands of good jobs and joined the long tradition of distinguished and employee-friendly corporations that have found a home, and a partner, in the Palmetto State.

This a win-win for South Carolina, for Boeing, and for the global clients who will see Dreamliners rolling off the North Charleston line at the rate of 10 a month, starting with the first one next year. But, as is often the case, a win for people and businesses is a loss for the labor unions, which rely on coercion, bullying and undue political influence to stay afloat.

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.

That is apparently too much for President Obama and his union-beholden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, who have asked the courts to intervene and force Boeing to stop production in South Carolina. The NLRB wants Boeing to produce the planes only in Washington state, where its workers must belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Let's be clear: Boeing is a great corporate citizen in Washington and in South Carolina. The company chose to come to our state because the cost of doing business is low, our job training and work force are strong, and our ports are tremendous. The fact that we are a right-to-work state is an added bonus.

The actions by the NLRB are nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America. They are also an unprecedented attack on an iconic American company that is being told by the federal government—which seems to regard its authority as endless—where and how to build airplanes.

The president has been silent since his hand-selected NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who has not yet been confirmed by the United States Senate as required by law, chose to engage in economic warfare on behalf of the unions last week.

While silence in this case can be assumed to mean consent, President Obama's silence is not acceptable—not to me, and certainly not to the millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets.

This is not just a South Carolina issue, and President Obama owes the people of our country a response. If they get away with this government-dictated economic larceny, the unions won't stop in our state.

The nation deserves an explanation as to why the president's appointees are doing the machinist union's dirty work on the backs of the businesses and workers of South Carolina.

Ms. Haley, a Republican, is governor of South Carolina.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: FUBHO who wrote (3190)4/29/2011 11:38:40 AM
From: Jeff Hayden
   of 3331
Hey, SC has dug its hole, now they have to live with it. I, for one, could care less for SC's state of affairs.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Jeff Hayden who wrote (3191)4/29/2011 11:45:51 AM
From: Debt Free
1 Recommendation   of 3331
This issue should go nowhere. If it does, it would show just how bad off this country has become. The whole idea that Boeing could only build planes in Seattle is idiotic. Does that mean that they need to shut down production in other Boeing sites (Wichita for example) where they are going to do a lot of work on the Tankers

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Debt Free who wrote (3192)4/29/2011 12:17:06 PM
From: Jeff Hayden
   of 3331
Politics has really been nasty since the Internet enabled many more conspiracy nuts and inane political groups. The problem is, no body remembers the history of how we got to be so successful as a nation. While unions sometimes demand too much, they also stand to prevent sliding back into the robber baron era. That idiot's trick in Wisconsin to kill the state unions completely ignored the fact that the union was willing to take cuts to reduce state expenditures. But he just flat-assed hated unions. Well screw him!

Disclosure, I have never belonged to a union as I've always been in a salaried position, but it's clear that unions gave us good working conditions, wages, and an excellent economy - until neo-conservatives decided to reduce their taxes.

The pendulum is fast swinging the other way. I expect the tea baggers to lose big next election.

Each state sets its own rules for corporate operation - and then has to live with them.

It's not Boeing's fault, that's for certain.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Debt Free5/27/2011 9:20:21 AM
1 Recommendation   of 3331
Boeing offers Air India $500 million for dreamliner delay

wonder how much Boeing will have to pay out in total?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Debt Free who wrote (3194)5/27/2011 9:28:07 AM
From: Debt Free
   of 3331
Apart from the 27 B-787 s, the other aircraft include a mix of B-777 s and B-737s.

$500 million over 27 airplanes bets you $18.5M per plane!!!!

I wonder how many planes have been delayed?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: FUBHO6/10/2011 4:41:15 PM
   of 3331
Boeing opens $750 million plant in South Carolina

Aerospace giant defying National Labor Relations Board’s complaint

1:00 p.m., Friday, June 10, 2011

Boeing, the world’s largest aerospace manufacturer, made a bold move Friday, defying the National Labor Relations Board, when it opened a new $750 million assembly plant in South Carolina.

The NLRB is fighting Boeing’s decision to open the second plant for 787 Dreamliner construction in North Charleston, S.C., instead of in Washington state, where the other final assembly plant is located.

The agency argues Boeing is retaliating against workers in Washington state to punish them for past strikes by building the plant in a right-to-work state, where unions are not as prominent.

But Boeing says it will keep the original Washington state plant open and continue to send the majority of its 787 Dreamliner business there. In fact, the company has added more than 2,000 jobs there since the 2009 decision to open a second production plant elsewhere.

“While there’s been a lot in the news recently about government attempts to force Boeing to place the second final assembly line in Puget Sound (Wash.) and close the South Carolina final assembly and delivery facility, we are confident that Boeing will prevail against the National Labor Relations Board complaint,” Boeing spokesperson Sean McCormack said in a statement. “But today for us is not about that dispute, but instead we want to celebrate the opening of the South Carolina final assembly facility.”

NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland said the agency is taking the opening in stride.

“We expected it,” she said. “That’s what they have said all along they were going to do.”

The dispute will come to a head on Tuesday, when Boeing and the NLRB are scheduled to start a hearing about the matter in Seattle. The NLRB filed a complaint about Boeing in April.

Boeing broke ground in November 2009 for its final assembly and delivery plant in North Charleston. The 1.2-million-square-foot plant will bring thousands of jobs to North Charleston, Boeing announced. More than 9,000 jobs were created for the construction phase, and the site will employ more than 4,000 workers once it gets up and running at full capacity.

The next few weeks will be used for training, and then Boeing will begin final assembly on the 787 Dreamliner in July. The first Dreamliner is expected in the first quarter of 2012. By 2013, they plan to produce three planes per month, to compliment the seven planes per month that the Washington state plant already makes.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.