Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Despite some turbulence, SPEEA exec sees progress under Boeing’s Ortberg
By Scott Hamilton
Ray Goforth, executive director of SPEEA, Boeing’s engineer and technicians union. Credit: SPEEA.
Feb. 10, 2026, © Leeham News—Seattle: When Kelly Ortberg became CEO of The Boeing Co. in August 2024, he said that one of his first tasks was to reset the testy labor relations with the unions.
The results so far have been mixed. Ortberg’s immediate labor contract challenge was with the powerful IAM 751 union. The contract for its 32,000 workers expired 34 days after Ortberg assumed office, and negotiations were underway. Union members went on a 53-day strike before the financially ailing Boeing agreed to most of the demands.
Contract negotiations with a branch of the Teamsters union were concluded successfully without a strike. However, a different district of the IAM, 837 at the St. Louis defense plant, walked out for more than 100 days before a contract was accepted.
A new contract with the newly acquired Spirit AeroSystems plant in Wichita (KS), represented by the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), was agreed without a strike. SPEEA praised the contract as achieving its goals.
Next up is the contract with Boeing’s engineers and technicians, also represented by SPEEA. This contract expires this fall. The union’s negotiating teams will be appointed this month. Procedural meetings with Boeing will begin afterward before proposals are exchanged and negotiations begin.
SPEEA has been at odds with Boeing before and after Ortberg’s appointment as CEO. Ray Goforth, executive director of the union, said in an interview with LNA last week that he’s seen improvements in its relationship with Boeing under Ortberg. But on the day of the interview, SPEEA accused Boeing of violating the current contract by reassigning up to 300 engineering jobs from the Seattle area to the 787 production facility in Charleston (SC).
Related articles
- Boeing touts safety progress but opposes SPEEA initiative
- Boeing reports mixed employee survey results; intimidation, retaliation still reported
- Strike slowed progress toward SMS, ASAP initiatives
- Boeing, SPEEA at impasse over ASAP safety program
Shifting jobs to Charleston
Kelly Ortberg, CEO of The Boeing Co. Credit: Boeing.
Boeing’s decision to shift the 787-related engineering jobs to Charleston came as a surprise to the SPEEA representatives.
“As part of our collective bargaining agreements, we have a thing called the Joint Workforce Committee,” Goforth told LNA. “The entire purpose is for Boeing to give us projections for the next six months, here’s where we think we’re going to be staffing-wise on these programs. The whole purpose is for them to give us these guidelines so that we can be prepared and can prepare our members.
“We had our monthly workforce meeting on last Thursday [Jan. 29]. And they told us, everything looks steady state. You shouldn’t expect any changes. Then the very next morning, they called our members who work on 787 and worked together and informed them that all their jobs were going to Charleston. That’s clearly a miss. We have this committee that’s set up for the sole purpose of having these discussions,” Goforth said.
“That committee also agrees to keep some information confidential to the extent that there might be some competitive advantage or something if the information gets out. So, did Boeing deliberately just waste our time by giving us false information? Or, did they just screw up?” Goforth recounts. “You don’t do something as consequential as this without lots of deep analysis about the impacts on the company, good and bad. So, it was quite disappointing. We have this workforce meeting on one day. They tell us not to expect anything. The next morning, our members are calling us saying, we just had this meeting. What the hell is going on?”
Apology and awaiting answers
Goforth said Boeing’s representatives were apologetic. They gave SPEEA a “hand-waving” explanation that this came as a surprise to them and they’re still trying to figure out the answers to all our questions about who’s affected, and on what timescale they are affected.
Goforth said that there are other examples in which Boeing is taking a path that causes concerns to the union. Perhaps the most concerning is the charge that management continues to pressure Boeing employees who serve as Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) representatives. Paid by Boeing, these ODAs report to the FAA and theoretically are supposed to be independent of the company and pressure from managers. The day before our interview, Ortberg said a complaint was filed by some ODAs with the union of retaliation and pressure from management.
“Right now, as we sit here, we have ODA unit members who are telling us that they are being retaliated against. I read a summary of one yesterday,” Goforth said. “I don’t know the veracity of that, but that’s why you have some kind of a process to investigate.”
That’s where a safety initiative called ASAP, for Aviation Safety Action Program. ASPA originated with the airlines and Boeing’s test pilots adopted it years ago. The IAM 751 adopted it with Boeing’s agreement two years ago. SPEEA proposed it in 2024. Boeing’s labor relations department, representing the company in negotiations (instead of Boeing’s safety unit)—opposes a SPEEA request that the three member committee review all reports for determining whether the complaints are valid. Under the SPEEA proposal, the committee consists of Boeing, SPEEA and the FAA. Boeing insists on vetting complaints before presenting them to the committee. SPEEA believes this defeats the committee’s purpose. Boeing and SPEEA have been at an impasse for nearly two years.
On the other hand
Despite these and other hiccups, Goforth expressed optimism about attitude and procedural changes under Ortberg. The CEO didn’t meet with SPEEA officials until February, six months after he joined the company and three months after the IAM strike ended with adoption of a new contract.
Ortberg invited the SPEEA executive board to the meeting. “We’re waiting at the elevator bank to go up. In Walks Ortberg. He recognized all the executive board members and greeted them by name while we were all waiting for the elevator to come. After making that very good introduction to people, he personally escorted us and brought people water and was very, very gracious. Then we had a long discussion about our concerns,” Goforth recalled.
“I think he took us seriously and made some commitments that he would task his people on solving some of our concerns. It wasn’t as smooth as maybe I would have hoped. But they started marching down the list of outstanding concerns,” or “irritants” as Goforth called them, that he hopes will be resolved before contract negotiations begin in a few months.
Some irritants have been successfully resolved. Some haven’t been and some evaluation remains in progress. But Goforth noted key changes in attitudes from Boeing.
“Boeing traditionally takes hard lines, whether they’re right or wrong. They take the same line, and they force you to go through the process. Now, on a number of issues, when we’ve been able to kind of make our case, they’ve said, you know what, you’re right. We’re just going to fix it,” Goforth said. On some issues that Boeing rejected, an explanation was forthcoming. Goforth said SPEEA’s representatives may have been disappointed, but at least Boeing offered a description of why the complaint was rejected.
“That’s the kind of relationship that we should have.”
Room for optimism
“I feel pretty positive,” Goforth said. “What I’ve told different people from labor relations is that we never know which Boeing company we’re dealing with. That’s not a surprise to their suppliers. We never know whether it’s the Boeing company that just wants to destroy us.
“A Boeing company that is indifferent to us is far preferable to one that actively wants to destroy us. And one that’s willing to work with us is far preferable to one that’s indifferent to us. Ortberg seems to have tasked his people with resolving concerns when they make sense,” Goforth said.
How this evolves into the full-blown contract negotiations remains to be seen.
Still pressuring and retaliating against ODAs — that sounds ominous. Not only because the company is still behaving in this way, but because — apparently — there is still much that ODAs consider to be sub-spec.
Sounds like “Just ship it” is still alive and kicking under the surface.
No wonder we heard last week that:
“Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford said Boeing is making progress but still “needs to do more” before it can fully regain the delegated airworthiness/certification responsibilities curtailed after repeated quality lapses.”
https://airwaysmag.com/new-post/faa-boeing-no-full-authority-despite-progress
I’ve seen/read a lot of voices accusing the FAA of dragging their feet. spite, being wichtig, whatever.
This seems to be not the case!?
The issue with moving SPEEA jobs to non union US locations is just the tip of the iceberg. Boeing has subsidiaries in India and Brazil. The company has taken the position that it no longer fills SPEEA engineering jobs with engineers located in the US. Anytime requests for additional resources are made the answer is get them from India. US based engineers who coordinate and train these India based resources have cited numerous complaints with quality, resulting in extensive delays. This has affected numerous high profile projects like the completion of certification on MAX 10 and 777-9. Military projects are also impacted. The numbers of jobs outsourced to India alone is over 5000 which make this movement of several hundred SPEEA jobs look like a drop in the bucket.
Very interesting. Thanks for this comment.
I worked at an OEM that is a top tier supplier to Boeing. Not GE, but now it comes under the umbrella of probably RTX. As a contractor, I asked a direct employee: What do those guys do in the next section over? He said: They fixed products that were engineered in India.
Another higher-up said he’s got to give the VP a list of people whose jobs he can ship to Mexico.
They used to say all defense related products must be made in this country. I am getting the impression that that does not apply anymore…
Thank you. Very interesting.
+1
my observation over the years:
Boeing and Union Leadership are a match made in hell.
They appear fully dysfunctional in their activities.
mixing is volatile.
i.e.
corporate management needs a massive cleanout.
Unions seem to need a similar lecture in what makes things go.
there are even samples around abroad for a sane setup.
Airbus has had an engineering center in India (Bengaluru) since 2007 — currently with 1500 employees.
It doesn’t seem to be having any notable problems with that construct — au contraire, it’s actually expanding its Indian operations.
Interesting contrast, isn’t it?
===
“The Airbus India engineering team supports Commercial, Helicopters, and Defence & Space divisions while collaborating globally with entities in France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Canada, China, and the USA, making it an integral part of the Airbus global network”
“A major focus is on commercial aircraft, delivering engineering solutions to Airbus’ global Centers of Competence, covering areas such as Flight Physics, Airframe, Systems, Flight Test, and Propulsion. The team also collaborates with Customer Services, Manufacturing Engineering, and other Airbus subsidiaries to resolve in-service issues, ensure airworthiness, and more.
“The engineering centre contributes to the design cycles of several Airbus aircraft, including the A220, A320, A330, A350, and Beluga. Additionally, Airbus India supports new programmes like the A321XLR and A350F, alongside Research & Technology and Innovation initiatives, paving the way for future projects such as the ZEROe aircraft.”
https://www.airbus.com/en/about-us/our-worldwide-presence/airbus-in-asia-pacific/airbus-in-india/engineering-and-innovation
The difference may be that this company is run by Airbus and other companies just bought engineering capacity from some Indian companies because it’s cheaper.
I can add I know of two cases of the same issue with India sourced work.
Major US companies in two totally unrelated fields.
I can see that its not necesairly incompetent or sloppy, its entirely possible that they don’t see or know what they are engineering to. Experience in a segment of a field does count hugely.
On a direct basis, I was involved with a brilliant programmer to fix building control systems that had been mucked up (by one of their employees who looked good on paper and was totally incompetent – they fired him and he went to work for another controls company of which I had to tell them – he is persona non grata in this bui9lding by order of the management )
Upshot was the program while experienced, had never seen the one type of system. He had no clue how it worked and he was not picking it up (not complicated but a different approach)
The good part was I explained it to him, he programed it and then we debugged things until it was working.
So even up close and personal with someone who should have been able to grasp the equipment based on his other experience could and did not. I had direct experience with it as it was common use for the company (which was why it was specked for the new building).
There is a cascade aspect that causes more confusions in that the equipment company always has their own controls and those are by far the best as they know their equpment and what sub controls work.
Control contractor hate that. They get the order as a bare bones unit and add their own controls. So rather than tell it to turn on and what temperature you want, they do the whole thing and not as well.
It would be easy for a non site engineer to draw up a simple start and input vs an entire control system trying to sort out a sequence of operation based on not just the verbiage for it but how the equpment actually works. Argh.
However the engineer gets to be bad, the local contractor then has to fix it. The local contractor looses money while the company as a whole makes money. The costs are hidden at least on a first blush pass. The Corporate part then beats on the local franchises for messing up all the time (hmmm, why are all our franchises loosing money?)
I worked for a controls company for a while. We paid a monthly fee to the Corporation regardless of what costs were and how bad their support was for those fees.
Unless a company is both organized and managed for results from all its aspects being good, that is what you wind up with.
Programing is a huge part of systems now, but systems working is engineering. Programmers are not good engineers, they are not trained for it. So they have to become engineers.
Probably better would be to take real controls guys and teach them how to program. The best one I worked with had come in via that route. The others got to be good but it was a many years process.
Corporate would train them, but they trained them in programing the controls not the engineering. Controls don’t exist for controls sake, they exist to make equipment work.
Continuing with Mr Ross’s on point comments……
Engineering is not the only skillset being offloaded. Manufacturing Engineering and Manufacturing Planning are also being moved to India En Mass. This is not new. Boeing has been offloading work for over a decade, if you need proof, start watcbing Contract Engineering Weekly. There are almost always jobs available for contractors with Boeing Catia experience. Boeing has almost completely offloaded legacy aircraft support engineering, and how that factors into the MD11 crash investigation is very unclear. Tbe migration started to be really noticable early in the KC46 program wben ITAR resources were in short supply in the Puget Sound. The first step was to use tbe Boeing guys in Huntsville. Tbey were available at a lower cost than Wa State people, so the work packages headed tbat way. Puget Sound guys still approved tbe work and applied tbe M note, but the package was done offsite without having pbysical access to the hardware. Tbe joke at tbe time was that Huntsville stuff only flew once. Tbe bean counters loved this so much that larger aircraft sales campaigns started offering larger technical offload packages of technical work. India leveraged this into permanent positions and the work isnt coming back. The key for Boeing making this work is the fact that the institutional knowlege in Wa State is declining and losing value vis a vis India and Prewar Ukraine and Boeing Moscow. The offshore engineering products are improving and while slower and less elegant in tbeir solutions to problems, the cost benefit ratio strongly favors them. The offsbore engineering products today are safe and make schedule. Tbe bean counters are tbrilled.
What this all means is that Boeing will continue to offshore work to places that can make rate and scbedule at a lower cost safely, and that doesn’t bode well for higb cost engineering talent irrespective of location
As always, great background information.
I never saw the offshore improvements but I have been out of my end for 6 years now.
As an end victim (I was the one that had to ID the issues and then work with local to correct them) I would have been happy with working vs elegant solutions.
My stuff was simple, elegant was wasted.
We had a Pakistanee firm desinged building. Overall the job was as good as we got localy desinged (yes they missed some artci aspects but all firsm rooted in the lower 48 did as well)
What they did not get was efficieny in heating was not only not a goal, it was a determinet. We had to add overhead heaters and what was supposed to be the main heating was unworkable. Getting heaters added solved our issue but the so called main heat was a total waste.
Its not that we did not want efficient. But when you have 6 huge roll up doors opening regulatory to the outside, efficiency was not only not impossible, it was slow — heat recovery so people could do their work was what counted (well that and having lots of backup heaters meant we were good when the main efficient plant malfunctioned and never did work right.
A comment about the Aviation Safety Action Program or ASAP as typically used in the industry. It was started by American Airlines in collaboration with their CMU FAA to allow pilots to freely report known and sometimes unknown violations to FAR’s (e. g. busting assigned altitudes)while performing their duties and, more importantly, to preclude the FAA from taking enforcement action against the pilots – which, people, can harm their careers.
This program was so successful both from the airline and FAA standpoint that it was soon widely accepted within all US operators.
It was also adopted for use with airline mechanics, maintenance controllers and dispatchers as the FAA could take enforcement action against their certifications.
It’s a huge safety attribute, reducing risk by allowing certified airman to freely report without retribution.
But, ASAP isn’t just as simple as reporting a FAR violation. In the airline world there are a committee of managers, union and FAA representatives. The airline is responsible for reporting, reviewing root cause analysis and actions to prevent the violations from happening again. These actions are then reviewed by the FAA for approval.
Now we fast forward to Boeing. Yes the Boeing flight test pilots adopted this program years ago – works great!
Now SPEEA wants to utilize this – which makes perfect sense for the ODA and certification engineers.
Frankly I don’t understand why every union engineer has to utilize ASAP? But I do understand why the company is adamant about reviewing engineer ASAP report for clearance, before it moves to committee, most likely the complaint won’t fit the requirements for regulatory violations – because that’s what ASAP is about – regulatory violations and then finding root cause and corrective action.
What does SPEEA have to hide with safety at the forefront and allowing management to be the clearing house?
One thing this article doesn’t mention, is ASAP utilized within the non union engineering outside of non represented Seattle and if so, how is it functioning?
I worked both for a US airline as a maintenance controller and for Boeing in aviation safety and was advocating for ASAP in a limited capacity years ago.
It’s a valuable asset if used for the right reasons. It’s all about safety.
ABALONE wrote.
Airbus has had an engineering center in India (Bengaluru) since 2007 — currently with 1500 employees.
It doesn’t seem to be having any notable problems with that construct — au contraire, it’s actually expanding its Indian operations.
Interesting contrast, isn’t it?
ACTUALLY no contrast at all. Airbus is under the same pressures as Boeing to streamline and decrease coat. The move to lower costs inside your production system takes many shapes and expecting Airbus and Boeing to be divergent here is nuts. Both suffer from the same root issues although the the timelines of that affect isnt the same depending on which side of the pond you inhabit. We have CAD to thank for this. Back in the good old days of IGES, the International Graphics Exchange Standard, we started being able to transmit CAD data between dissimilar CAD programs and that opened the pathway to work for anyone at the end of a modem to become competitive. STANDARD OF LIVING ARBRITAGE became a growth industry as forward thinking lower tier economies found a way to dramatically change their lot in life. The dark side was the environmental and personal safety laws lagging this …….
Anyhow trying to highlight Airbus as being in a better place than Boeing, offloading high value work to lower cost locations misses the fact that its a race to the bottom for both of them and perhaps there will not really be a winner per se………
One aspect that puzzles me is that having a duopoly that is currently unchallenged, why the race to the bottom?
I get avoiding price shocks, but when you can pass the costs onto the buyer?
And the question is, are the costs reduced or do the corporation just make ridiculous amounts of money? Nike makes its stuff low cost and passes the Corporate desires for profits onto its customers (not me)
No worries. I remember a commenter said before, engineers from Puget Sound can always move to where the jobs are.
Also:
Note the outdated view that India is predominantly attractive because it is a low-wage country…apparent failure to appreciate the fact that the country has a huge pool of well-educated/skilled engineers.
Same as China.
ABALONE wrote
Note the outdated view that India is predominantly attractive because it is a low-wage country…apparent failure to appreciate the fact that the country has a huge pool of well-educated/skilled engineers.
WHAT?????
The entire concept of STANDARD OF LIVING ARBRITAGE is built around finding the equivalent OR BETTER employees in a lower cost location. The whole reason its happening IS the recognition of the talent located offshore. Both Airbus and Boeing saw this a long time ago and have positioned themselves accordingly. Boeing in fact was exposed to the availability of Solid offshore engineering candidates over a century ago. You might want to read on Boeings First Aerodynamicist. Wong Su
https://www.voicemedia.global/article/the-chinese-born-engineer-who-helped-launch-us-commercial-aviation
Sure, they could move to Mexico or India or wherever. Cost of living would be lower and salaries even lower. Some, but not many, may move, but it’s not realistic. Instead, fewer Americans will choose to be aerospace engineers. They’ll either not get trained or simply stop their careers and do something else. The same “America in decline” scenario is playing out in other disciplines across all business sectors. And for some reason our federal leadership is actively working to accelerate that decline.
Following this LNA article from last month:
https://leehamnews.com/2026/01/20/boeing-planning-to-activate-north-line-with-737-8s-9s-in-advance-of-max-10-certification/
…the Seattle Times had an article yesterday on the new North Line (for MAX-10) in Everett.
Interesting bit of PR fluff about new hires:
“Ringgold also addressed the aerospace industry’s perennial problem of attracting enough skilled labor to staff Boeing’s production line and the industry’s supply chain. The COVID-19 pandemic and resulting wave of retirements left Boeing and other companies without tenured workers to train the new hires.
“Boeing is shifting its mindset around new hires, Ringgold told the group. Instead of lamenting the work required to get them up to speed, the company sees new hires as an exciting opportunity.
““You have the opportunity to mold and grow and coach and train a new workforce that is coming in with energy,” she said. “They may not know what to do, or how to do it, but that’s our job.”
“Boeing is still waging a “war” for talent — it competes with Washington’s tech companies and other aerospace firms for skilled workers — but Ringgold said labor shortages are less of a risk for Boeing’s production system than they had been in the past.
““As Boeing continues to stand taller and win,” she said, “we are back to attracting talent.””
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-will-open-737-max-line-in-everett-by-midsummer/
===
Summarizing:
It’s an “exciting opportunity” when you have to resort to hiring people who “don’t know what to do, or how to do it” and don’t have (enough) tenured workers to train the new hires.
The ODAs are going to be having a busy time up at the North Line 👀
Also:
“As Boeing continues to stand taller and win…”
BA continues to make a loss and burn through cash every quarter…
> Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) has reported significant challenges with the productivity and retention of new hires…
I’d like to see some data regarding Boeing’s success recruiting new staff at machinist and engineer levels. The recent UW engineering grads that I know have zero interest in Boeing. They don’t even apply.
My experience says Boeing is going to need years to correct what has been in the works for years.
You have all those layers of management to work through and shift the mindset or remove them.
Trying to clean house at Boeing would be impossible and still get product out the door.
Just trying to clean out the upper Corporate management is a job. Keeping it all moving at the same time when all of it is in crisis.
Who do you trust to even be honest let alone competent? You have to work with people for a time to sort that out, then what to do about them.
The first step is getting a management group that are proven you can trust. Not ones who make the decisions you want but tell you the truth and have integrity.
Working down each layer is not going to be fast.
ABALONE WROTE
Note the outdated view that India is predominantly attractive because it is a low-wage country…apparent failure to appreciate the fact that the country has a huge pool of well-educated/skilled engineers.
Engineers look at numbers, so here are the Current numbers describing the Standard of Living Arbritage effect between Puget Sound and Boeing of India personnel. Also noting non Boeing Indian Engineering resources. This view may be outdated to you but reflects the current realities of work relocation pricing
US Boeing Engineers Average annual salaries for Boeing engineers (e.g., aerospace roles) typically range from $120,000 to $160,000 USD, depending on experience and location like Seattle. Senior roles often exceed $180,000 USD total compensation including bonuses.
Indian Counterparts, Equivalently skilled/educated aerospace engineers in India average around ₹7.4 lakhs ($8,900 USD) annually, per recent data. At Boeing India specifically, engineers average ₹20.7 lakhs ($24,800 USD).
Have a great day
PNW- do you have a source for your claims of Indian engineers’ current salaries? Thanks-
In the meantime, from the link below:
“The numbers tell a powerful story.
The number of developers in India is just amazing. India is an amazing place for US firms to do business since it has 5.8 million active software developers and is about to become the world’s largest pool of programming talent, surpassing the United States. India graduates almost 1.5 million engineers every year, and the tech industry alone grows by 10% per year.
“It’s not just about how many people there are; it’s also about how many different kinds of specialized skills they have. Indian developers learn the latest technologies that US companies really need, such artificial intelligence, blockchain, cloud computing, and cybersecurity. India’s large pool of qualified software engineers would be a huge strategic asset as the need for them is predicted to expand by 22% in 2025 in fields like banking, financial services, telecom, and healthcare.”
“But here’s what makes this genuinely strategic, it’s not just about spending less; it’s about obtaining great value. Indian developers often have a lot of experience dealing with clients from other countries and have certifications in certain programming languages and methods. A lot of companies in India follow international quality standards, like CMMI and ISO certifications. This makes sure that they don’t have to sacrifice quality to save money.”
https://remoteengine.co/blog/the-truth-about-indian-developers-that-smart-silicon-valley-founders-dont-want-you-to-know#:~:text=The%20numbers%20tell%20a%20powerful,services%2C%20telecom%2C%20and%20healthcare.
===
So, we return to the question: how come AB can succesfully partner with Indian engineers, whereas BA apparently can’t?
Might it have something to do with the quality of communication coming out of AB / BA head offices?
Definetly that is one source of issues however I’ve been dealing with India produced SW and we are seeing a huge number of quality issues. High turnover is one major source of problems. It’s fairly likely Boeing money is being used to develop and train Airbus engineering talent.
Abalone wrote…… So, we return to the question: how come AB can successfully partner with Indian engineers, whereas BA apparently can’t?
Great question and a simple answer. Boeing has EMPLOYEES NOT PARTNERS. This explains why you think Boeing can’t successfully partner with Indian Engineers. They don’t normally do it. They make the investment in the Indian workforce instead of renting them.
The basic difference between Airbus and Boeing when utilizing Indian Assets is that Boeing ACTUALLY employs them as a direct employee. Airbus uses Offshore Design Centers, or contract engineering rent a Body Shops. One could say Boeings policy of establishing pools of direct hiring shows a deeper level of commitment to the employee. If you go to the Boeing Employment page, Boeing India Jobs are there. Boeing employees in India still get referred to as offload resources because they started that way, but as the workforce grew, it became best to hire them directly. Boeing of India employees are actually direct paid employees with a benefits package attached. This is Boeing using the concept of Standard Of Living Arbitrage to find highly valued Indian Talent, which in many cases have more education that comparable US based talent. Boeing has invested in the local workforce making them direct employees. This is far different than the Airbus philosophy of renting temporary help.
Airbus uses Offshore Design Centers such as AXISCADES Technologies (formerly CADES): Bangalore-based firm selected for fuselage design ODC; provides product design, development, and plant engineering for Airbus programs like fuselage and wings. Expleo India: Chennai operations support engineering for A350 fuselage, A320 sharklets, A400M systems, helicopters, and digital transformation since 2005.
L&T Technology Services (LTTS): Strategic partner for commercial aircraft engineering, avionics, and digital services from Bengaluru and other sites.
Boeings workforce in India is north of 7000 people, over 5500 are actual engineers, at last count. Airbus has significantly fewer.
Vincent
https://in.indeed.com/cmp/Boeing/salaries
https://www.payscale.com/research/IN/Job=Aerospace_Engineer/Salary/72247b8a/The-Boeing-Company
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/boeing/salaries/software-engineer/locations/greater-bengaluru?dma=10062
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/boeing/salaries/software-engineer/levels/l1/locations/india
https://www.hireborderless.com/post/how-much-money-can-you-save-hiring-indian-vs-american-software-engineers
Will that do it for ya?
Have a great day
Looks like all “AI”-generated content, judging from the numerous obvious errors, and the laughable syntax.
I will pass, and wait for solid, verifiable sources.
Vincent.
I grabbed those for you because they all basically agree. You are free to exercise whatever level of belief in them you wish. They are however in line with what I was paying for offshore work when I was loading non-itar Production Planning Packages to them after you calc in some growth for time……..
Wow! What a surprise! Haha
> BREAKING: Air Canada buys 8 (with options for 8 more) A350-1000s for delivery starting in 2030.
https://x.com/jonostrower/status/2021722503148876029
I find those delivery slots quite early.
Gosh, I wonder why the airline didn’t opt for the 777X? 😉
Yeah. Negotiations had been ongoing for awhile.
When will the 777x be delivered if Air Canada places an order??
Spoiler alert..
Your “BREAKING” order news was colder than a bad Thanksgiving dinner..
FYI..
Your AC A350 order was booked 3 months ago laddie..
Sure it was booked in 2025 — but as an undisclosed order.
The revelation now that the order came from Air Canada is the newsworthy bit, in view of ongoing geopolitical drama.
Also, since we now know the airline and can look at its fleet, it effectively tells us that AC will be dumping the 777, and that the 787-10 didn’t meet the desired capacity/range requirements.
“Geo political drama”..
Now where have I heard that before.
Oh yes, when the two of you blew off the undisclosed Cambodia Air order as nothing more than Donnie’s order.
I’ll remember that nice way of putting it next Boeing order..
But the Cambodian event *was* a Donnie order — here it is for you, straight from the White House (last bullit point):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/10/joint-statement-on-united-states-cambodia-agreement-on-reciprocal-trade/
Pretty impressive uncontained engine failure:
https://metro.co.uk/2026/02/12/planes-engine-explodes-just-take-off-forcing-emergency-landing-26854558/
And the Air Canada order had nothing to do with politics!!!
At least you admitted it was.
More political drama awaits.
Can’t have it both ways..
“EFW secures first A330 freighter conversion deal in China”
“Elbe Flugzeugwerke (EFW), a joint venture of ST Engineering and Airbus, has strengthened its presence in the Chinese aviation market by signing a freighter conversion contract with Hengqin Winglet Aircraft Technology. This marks Hengqin Winglet’s first Airbus A330 passenger-to-freighter (P2F) programme with EFW.
“Under the agreement, EFW will carry out the A330P2F conversion at its partner facility in China, with work scheduled to begin in mid-2026. The process will be supported by technical planning and certification from EFW’s headquarters in Dresden, Germany.”
https://www.stattimes.com/air-cargo/efw-secures-first-a330-freighter-conversion-deal-in-china-1358146
Doesn’t look like EFW’s first conversion deal in China:
> Last month, EFW delivered its eighth A330-200P2F conversion to Air China Cargo and completed its first major contract in China.
https://www.aircargonews.net/freighter-conversions-mro/2026/01/efw-delivers-8th-a330-200p2f-to-air-china-cargo/
> Elbe Flugzeugwerke (EFW) has delivered its eighth Airbus A330-200 passenger to freighter (P2F) conversion to Air China Cargo and completed its first major contract in China.
The German freighter conversion company, a joint venture of ST Engineering and Airbus, said the conversion of the A330-200 passenger aircraft was planned in Dresden and carried out by Ameco (Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Corporation Limited) at its Chengdu facility in China.
Considering that ST Engineering is a major shareholder of EFW🤦♂️
Indeed.
Then it appears that EFW has added another Chinese plant to its operations — Hengqin (new) in addition to Ameco (existing).
My understanding is Hengqin, as a lessor, contracted EFW for conversion, it’s not going to perform the work.
> Worth noting that many airlines are accelerating Airbus acquisitions as they seek supply-chain stability
https://x.com/AlexInAir/status/2021901740778704922
The A350 order of 777/787 operator Air Canada cannot come as a surprize.
IMO the 777x is relatively heavy & not mature.
> IMO the 777x is relatively heavy & not mature.
It’s also made of Unobtanium, until further notice.
Is Boing still claiming 2027 EIS for that ill-fated thing?
Even if EIS is in 2027 (I share your doubts), one wonders what usefulness any deliverd 777Xs will have in view of that recently-revealed durability issue in the GE9X engine.
TC won’t be impressed if his 777Xs are sitting on the ground. He’s already said that he’ll refuse delivery if the aircraft isn’t 100% to spec.
Whoops!
A potential engine shortage due to CFM LEAP-1B engine durability concerns may ground Southwest fleet in the coming months
Southwest has the biggest exposure
Can it really be .
United at last ready to pull the plug 🔌 on the long dormant A350 order..
Only took nearly 17 years to so..
Throw in the 15 A330 neos cancelled by the upcoming Air Asia order, looks like AB may be losing some substantial widebody orders in the next few weeks…
How often have we heard that that UA order was dead?
And, yet, it was renewed by the airline just 2 months ago.
Bickering with the engine supplier over money falls outside the ambit of the contract with the airframe OEM 😉
Doesn’t anyone think that UA might be doing what it’s doing to leverage Airbus to pressure RR?
Also:
UA alleges that RR breached contractual obligations stemming from a 2009 contract (which RR denies), but no details have been given as to the *nature* of this alleged breach.
Do you have any further details from your industry sources?
Based on currently published details, the matter sounds somewhat “contrived”…
Sounds very plausible, Scott H.