Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
The deeper, longer term implications of IAM’s Boeing contract vote January 3
There are deeper, longer term implications for the January 3 vote by IAM 751 members on the revised contract proposal from Boeing than have been discussed in the public domain.
- Contract extension to 2024 brings “labor peace,” but also significantly weakens the union in the future.
- The replacement for the Boeing 757 lurks in the background.
- So does the replacement for the 737 MAX.
The near-term implications have been discussed ad nausea: for employees, vote for a contract that includes concessions, notably on pensions, or risk losing the assembly site for the 777X. For the states, Washington could be a winner, or a big loser. The state that’s awarded the assembly site would be a big winner. Suppliers will supply Boeing regardless of where the 777X is assembled.
Another near-term implication we’ve talked about: the fall-out on the IAM, both at the International level and the District 751 level. No matter how the vote turns out, there is a civil war within 751 members who are royally upset with their leadership and others who believe in it. The civil war between 751 and IAM International HQ will continue well beyond the vote, with the prospect that International could simply depose all the 751 leaders and place 751 under a trustee “for the good of the union.”
But there are much longer term implications of the vote.
Vote in poll on IAM Boeing 777X contract
The IAM 751 members vote Friday whether to Accept or Reject a contract proposal from Boeing that will extend the term to 2024 and contain several contract concessions in return for assembling the 777X in Everett (WA) and producing the wing here. The issues are, to say the least, controversial.
Here’s a chance to express an opinion whether the contract should be Accepted. We can’t control who votes–in other words, members and non-members can vote in our poll. But absent any polling of the members, this is the only mechanism to gauge opinion in advance of the vote. We’ll release results next Friday morning.
The contract terms and conditions, how the contract was negotiated and sent to members and the split between 751 leaders, IAM International and within the 751 membership are controversial.
Some IAM 751 members are unhappy with 751 leadership and the International.
IAM International president Buffenbarger rallied against pension cuts at Boeing’s IAM 837 District
IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger advocates that IAM 751 approve a contract from Boeing that freezes current pensions and adopts a 401(k) style pension for future hires. Yet Buffenbarger advocated to IAM 837 (the union District at Boeing’s St. Louis plant) reject a contract that did just this.
Here is Buffenbarger in an IAM-produced video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUMyxeLv2M
IAM International to force vote over 751 objections on Boeing contract offer (via Seattle Times)
Update, 3:30pm PST:
IAM 751 leaders have come out opposed to ratifying the contract. This, and a response to Ray Conner’s earlier email, is below the jump, reprinted here. (There is no unique link.)
Original Post:
The Seattle Times broke the news this morning that the IAM International will force a vote on the second Boeing contract offer over the objections (and probably by now, the figurative dead bodies) of IAM District 751 union leaders.
The contract proposal is here.
Some members of the 751 union have been seeking a vote since the 751 leadership, headed by Tom Wroblewski, rejected a counter-offer from Boeing that Wroblewski said he could not support.
Wroblewski said the offer was contingent upon his endorsement of the offer and, unable to do so, he claimed Boeing withdrew the offer. Boeing said it did not, and would not comment about whether the offer was actually “contingent” on Wroblewski’s endorsement. But in a letter issued to employees by Ray Conner, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, it contained a phrase that under any fair interpretation certainly leads one to conclude Wroblewski was correct.
Conner wrote:
We were sincere in asking for the union leadership’s commitment to support our improved final proposal as a tentative agreement that would be taken to a vote by IAM members with a recommendation for approval.
We’ve been of two minds on the vote issue.
- If indeed the offer was contingent upon Wroblewski’s endorsement, and in good conscience he could not, then he was correct in not sending the issue to members for a vote. If Boeing were to release this contingency, then it should go to a vote. This should easily have solved the problem.
- We certainly respect Wroblewski for sticking to his principals. At the same time, we also believe in democracy (with a small “d”) and believe the members should have their say.
What we are crystal clear about, however, is the continued meddling by International in this entire affair. It was International that [m]ucked this up from the beginning, starting with leading the negotiations, forcing the first agreement on 751 leadership, figuratively placing them under house arrest to silence them, [m]ucking up the communication with the membership and mishandling the media through the voting process.
Now International is inserting itself again, and no prophylactic is going to contain this mess.
This should be something sorted out between 751 and Boeing.
International’s motivations seem more intent on preserving its dues-paying jobs at any cost than on doing what’s best for 751 members and for Boeing.
In February 2010 we suggested 751 ought to divorce from International because even then we didn’t believe International had the best interests of the local at heart. We’re more convinced than ever this is the case.
It is so clear that Boeing has International running scared. Regardless of the outcome of a new vote, International will rue these day some day.
Odds and Ends: Recovering WWII flying boat; Constellation restorations; Eastern Air DC-7B; Where will 787-10 be assembled?
As the holidays approach, we’re going to lighten up a bit and provide some links to feature stories. There continues to be news, of course, and a couple of items are in this post. But enjoy the break.
Recovering WWII Flying Boat: A World War II Sunderland Flying Boat has been recovered from the waters and is set for restoration. Here is the story.
Lockheed Constellation: The Airline History Museum in Kansas City is raising money to return to flying status a previously restored Lockheed Constellation. Officials want to recreate the history-making trans-continental flight of Howard Hughes and Jack Frye in April. Lufthansa Airlines continues work on restoring a 1649 model, which would be the only such Connie to be returned to airworthy condition. Here is a website detailing this effort as far as we could determine. Here is a website that talks about surviving Connies with some data about the LH program. It’s out of date, having predicted a first flight this year.
Eastern Airlines DC-7B: N836D still sits at the Charlotte (NC) airport, having returned here shortly after takeoff when an engine shut down. US Airways 1549 pilots Sully Sullenberger and Jeff Skiles were on board. The airplane is owned by the Historical Flight Foundation in Miami. In May 2011 we flew on the plane from Miami to St. Maarten and back. The Foundation needs $50,000 to return the plane to Miami and $10,000/mo to keep it insured and operational for flight-seeing trips.
Back to some news:
787-10 assembly site: Overshadowed in all the hubbub surrounding the Boeing 777X is where the 787-10 will be built. Boeing launched the program at the Paris Air Show and plans a 2018 EIS. Boeing plans to increase production rates of the 787 from 10 to 12 and ultimately to 14 by the end of the decade (our information is, not without coincidence, 2018). Plans are to have Boeing’s Everett plant and the Charleston plant each producing seven per month.
The Everett plant can accommodate the 787-10, but only on a slant basis, not nose-to-tail, we’re told. Charleston will be able to do nose-to-tail.
The Charleston Post and Courier reports that a decision on the 787-10 assembly site will be made in the first quarter.
The Post and Courier Tweeted that Greensboro (NC) is off Boeing’s list now. Update: North Carolina is off the list entirely, the newspaper reports.
Boeing 777X RFP considerations
We obtained a copy of Boeing’s Request for Proposal documents. Much of the information contained therein has already been reported. You may link to these news articles here.
As with previous inquiries, Boeing spokesman Doug Alder declined to authenticate the RFP documents or to comment on the contents.
Boeing plans to announce its site selection decision soon into the new year.
We look at some key production and entry-into-service (EIS) issues today.
Site Selection
Boeing outlined three scenarios for site selection:
Scenario 1:
Wing Fabrication & Assembly, Body Assembly, Final Assembly & Delivery
Start of facility construction no later than November 2014
Production start July 2016
Scenario 2A:
Wing Fabrication & Assembly
Start of facility construction no later than November 2014
Production start July 2016
Scenario 2B:
Body Assembly, Final Assembly & Delivery
Start of facility construction no later than June 2015
Production start January 2018
EIS
EIS is promised for 2020. Boeing hasn’t been specific about when within 2020 this is planned, but Market Intelligence initially had EIS pegged for December 2019, based on previous Boeing representations to potential customers. For our purposes, we’ll assume EIS in mid-2020.
Design Timeline
Wind tunnel testing began December 5 in Farnborough, England.
Based on the proposed EIS of 2020 and the historical design-to-EIS timelines, we estimate roll-out of the first test airplane and flight tests will be in 2018.
|
Boeing 777X Timeline |
||
|
2013 |
Offer, first orders |
Wind Tunnel Testing begins |
|
2014 |
Site selection; facility construction begins Nov or…(see 2015) |
‘Top Level’ Design |
|
2015 |
Facility construction begins June |
Firm configuration |
|
2016 |
Production begins in July; or…(see 2018) |
|
|
2017 |
|
|
|
2018 |
Production begins in January |
Roll out, flight tests begin |
|
2019 |
|
|
|
2020 |
|
777-9X EIS |
|
2021 |
|
|
|
2022 |
|
777-8X EIS |
|
Sources: Boeing 777X RFP; Leeham Co. Estimates |
||
Production
According to the RFP, production is to begin in July 2016 or January 2018, depending on the site selection scenario chosen. The RFP raises an interesting question:
- If production begins in July 2016, this represents a four year timeline to the 2020 EIS.
- If production begins in January 2018, this represents a 2 ½ year timeline to EIS.
“Production” is undefined in the RFP but typically this means components, not just final assembly. Given a 2020 EIS, it seems that Scenarios 1 and 2A are more likely than Scenario 2B. But it all depends on how “production” is ultimately defined by Boeing.
According to the RFP, the facilities need to have a production capacity of 10.4 aircraft a month. The 777 Classic is currently being produced at a rate of 8.3/mo, although Boeing is known to have studied a rate of at least 9/mo.
Market Launch
Boeing officially launched the program at the Dubai Air Show with 225 orders from Emirates Airlines, Etihad Airlines and Qatar Airways. Lufthansa Airlines placed the first order prior to the show. Program orders now stand at 295. Forty-three of these were for the ultra-long range 777-8X, which can fly 9,400nm. We previously discussed the market potential for the ULR, which historically has been highly limited.
The 777-9 is, of course, in a class by itself at 406 seats. It’s larger than the current 777-300ER (365 seats), the Airbus A350-1000 (350-369 seats) and smaller than the Boeing 747-8 (advertised 467 seats) and Airbus A380 (525 seats). The question is whether Airbus will respond to the 777-9 or leave Boeing to this market segment.
We believe Airbus should proceed with a stretch of the -1000, commonly dubbed the -1100, that would be a straight-forward stretch using the same engines and wing. This would reduce the range of the -1000 by an estimate 1,200-1,500nm but the resulting 6,500-7,000nm range would cover 90% of the routes operated by airlines. This is the approach Boeing took with the 787-10. Furthermore, the Middle Eastern airlines have spoken with their orders for the 777X.
Is there enough market left for two airplanes in the 400 seat sector? Airbus, according to our Market Intelligence, doesn’t appear to think so. Current thinking appears to be that Boeing can have this narrow niche and Airbus will continue to pursue the narrow niche of the Very Large Aircraft (into which the 777-9 technically and barely falls) with the A380. Airbus believes the future of the 747-8I is dim and we agree. Thus, the large twin and VLA market appears to be shaping up like this:
|
Seats |
Airbus |
Boeing |
|
300-350 |
A350-900 |
787-10 |
|
350-370 |
A350-1000 |
777-8 |
|
370-410 |
None |
777-9 |
|
410-Up |
A380 |
747-8I* |
|
* Likely discontinued ~2020 |
|
|
|
Leeham Co. Chart |
|
|
Airbus has had trouble throughout its existence with its wide-body strategy. The A300, its first airplane and the first twin-engine, twin-aisle airplane, was a mediocre design and performer. The A330/340 line was originally a medium range pair that didn’t truly find favor until the A330 range was increased in recent years to more than 5,000-6,000nm. The A340 sold fewer than 400 and was easily eclipsed by the 777, particularly the 777-300ER.
Boeing and the “cash cow”
As The World Waits (or those of us in the USA, anyway) for Boeing to decide where it will assemble the 777X, it might be worth returning to a 2010 study by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future about how Boeing looks to states as cash cows for subsidizing its airplanes.
(Wisconsin is a bidder for the 777X).
This is a 24 page report by IWF. It reads remarkably similar to Boeing’s current Request for Proposals. Boeing Cash Cow Report
Make of it what you will.