Boeing Is Calling Back Its Retirees To Try To Fix Delays At Its 737 Jetliner Plant (cnbc.com)

Boeing is trying to fix delays at its 737 jetliner plant near Seattle, so it's turning to its retired workers. "Boeing started hiring retired mechanics and inspectors on a temporary basis after reaching an agreement with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers on August 15," reports CNBC. From the report: The snarl at its plant in Renton, Washington, triggered by shortages of engines and fuselages as Boeing sped production to record levels in June, is likely to hurt third-quarter results and threatens its goal to boost build rates again in 2019, some analysts said after meetings in the Seattle area last week. Investors will get a peek on Tuesday at how far behind Boeing is when it releases its order and delivery tallies for August, a month after deliveries fell to the lowest level in years. Deliveries are crucial to planemakers because that is when airlines pay most of what they owe for the aircraft. Boeing has already deployed about 600 employees and new hires to Renton in recent weeks to help fix delays, analysts said. It was not clear how many retired workers Boeing intends to hire.

Comments

Boeing Boeing Gone

[AlanObject]

I thought Boeing was moving out of Seattle. So I guess there won't be another generation of aviation workers there after they use these oldsters up.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[Freischutz]

I thought Boeing was moving out of Seattle. So I guess there won't be another generation of aviation workers there after they use these oldsters up.

That's just it, the company has been rather foolish in the way it's been handling production for quite some time now. And shockingly, providing bonuses for the half-assed work being done in North Carolina is having consequences.

It's beyond me why any of these people aren't looking for work elsewhere as it's clear that Boeing only cares about money and can't be bothered to think about the long term.

Heard that bit about the shoddy work too. The local airline bought a bunch of Boeings including some 787s and specified in the contract that they should be made in Seattle because they do better work and our airline is not alone in this. I have heard of other airlines refusing to accept aircraft made in other factories than the ones in Washington state, except I think the factory causing the problems was Charleston IIRC which is in South Carolina. If this is true Boeing would not be shooting themselves in the foot if they close down the facilities in Washington state, they'd be shooting their foot clean off.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[jellomizer]

The problem with the boomer generation is that they never wanted to confront aging and death. The generation who said never trust anyone over 35, is now in their 50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
Previous generation had put in effort in supporting their kids and new employees and mentoring to be able to replace them when they were gone and working up the company ladder to success.
Not so much now. The boomers will see a “kid” and if they are good at there job they will not fire him that day, or keep him in that position because he does a good job there. Vs seeing potential and giving them more responsibility and perhaps a raise to show for the new greater responsibilities.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[bobbied]

And you know that there isn't an issue with non-union built aircraft.

Unions have had their day but they lost their way long ago and quit being about the worker and became all concerned about themselves and their political power. As they stopped being about jobs and working conditions, they've stopped being useful. They have killed more businesses and lost more jobs than they have maintained though unreasonable and unsustainable demands. Every major airline, every major car manufacturer have been ravaged by such nonsense and union members past and present have lost.

Now unions are falling out of favor. The reasons are obvious, they have left their first job and stopped being about protecting workers jobs and negotiating for the good of workers. They now are power hungry, drunk on political power, making long term demands of management that strangle the goose laying the golden eggs. As such, they have become useless and a shell of their past selves, surviving on empty promises while enriching themselves on the backs of their members almost as much as the evil management was 50 years ago.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[aaarrrgggh]

North Charleston, South Carolina... not much credibility when you even get the wrong state!

Quality issues were nearly a decade ago as the brand-new assembly line ramped up. Largely consistent quality and speed now with Everett now from what I understand.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[cheesybagel]

It's not in North Carolina. It's in North Charleston, South Carolina. They manufacture 787's though. Not 737's which are all manufactured in Washington state.

Re: Boeing Boeing Gone

[wyHunter]

Get a grip. What you're advocating is NO protection for the US economy in any way. What's next, adopting the same type of environment that China has? Typical left wing insanity.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[aaarrrgggh]

That is what happens when the workers fuck over the company though-- quid pro quo for the strikes.

While cost was likely a major driver, there were plenty of other business reasons that having a second major production facility outside of Washington State for the commercial aviation division made (and makes) solid business sense. There aren't enough qualified people in Puget Sound, and diversification makes sense from a natural disaster standpoint. The fact that the 787-10 wouldn't work with the Dreamlifter was another pretty big issue, although I don't know how much of that was a factor in the initial decision.

Not to say Boeing management has a clue-- but the biggest problems have been addressed for a minimum of 2 years with the CHS facility from everything I understand, hence their ability to price the frame where they are and still make a profit.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[myth24601]

"the Carolinas are a bit odd in that they behave sort of like a single state rather than 2 states as you get residency in both states. "
.
Citation please. I have never heard of this.

Re:Boeing Boeing Gone

[bobbied]

My dad, a union member and a life long employee of a major airline, lost a lot of his his pension partly because the various unions forced the airline into an unsustainable financial condition. The demise of the airline was plain to see for a decade or more but the unions didn't care about if the airline survived, only that they negotiated more and more benefits, higher and higher pay, regardless of the company's ability to survive such costs. For decades the airline was underfunding the pension funds, acquiring massive debt and the unions didn't even bat an eyelash at the obvious disaster that approached. The unions just let it happen, let the bankruptcy happen, full knowing that the pension was under funded, that their past members would pay the price, facing a loss of income and health care coverage though the company.

In my view, the various unions failed my dad and their membership, past and present, by allowing the airline to go into receivership, cancelling all the union contracts for current members, destroying the financial lives or past members. They where more worried about staying in power so they could keep playing their political games as long as possible. They campaigned with their membership over "more money now" and simply didn't care about the future. They where stupid and in the end, EVERYBODY paid for their short sighted tactics. They blamed management for being poor, but in reality, they should have KNOWN what was about to happen and used their power to make management change, to keep the company from going down the drain, despite the failings of management. they could have, should have but simply didn't because it would have not served their primary purpose, stay in power and play political games. So they allowed the company to not fully fund the pension, allowed them to acquire unsustainable debts and literally strangled the goose laying the golden eggs by levying more and more labor costs on companies that could ill afford it.

In the end, it was Union members who paid the greatest price for this, guys like my dad who worked 25 years for the same airline and now faced a retirement with a fraction of the money he was promised, lost his travel benefits, lost his health care supplement and all the benefits the Union had negotiated for him in the past. But the Unions didn't get blamed much less accept responsibility for this, even though full knowing, the unions let it happen.

Retired?

[reanjr]

Were they retired workers or were they "retired" workers. Is retiring something the workers did or was it something that happened to them?

Re:Retired?

[mikeiver1]

I suspect that they were "Retired" to make the bottom line look good for the quarterly or year end stock reports. The execs have got to get their bonus's regardless of merit! Also keep in mind that the people they "retired" were likely those with allot of vacation time accrued and at the highest pay grades not to mention older. Hence they cost more to keep. Forget the extensive experience they take with them when they leave, the company saves 10K or 20K per year by getting rid of them. Likely the cost to production losses is 10 times that by hay, the execs and investors gotta get payed!

Re:Retired?

[gymbrown]

I worked for Boeing for almost 30 years but had to retire because my wife was extremely ill. She required constant care for 6 months. After around 6 months she was recovered enough I could have gone back to work and got a call from Boeing asking me to come back for an interesting software job. If it wasn't for the fact that we were having fun and investments were going well, I would have gone back. We all have different reasons for retirement and may want to go back to work for the company we left. Most retired Boeing employees have a good relation-ship with Boeing and would return if there is a need. If my health would per-mit it, I would go back.

Re: Retired?

[zaphirplane]

And itâ(TM)s for a short term. Unfortunately for the workers in the medium term they are worst off and financially stuffed

Re: Retired?

[kenh]

Bravo! With complete ignorance of the ACTUAL situation at boeing you literally invented everything in your post.

Perhaps it's more cost-effective to bring back trained employees with decades of experience to address a short term production issue than to wait months while you train new hires? Remember, the union had to agree to this decision to bring back retired workers.

Boeing is crazy

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood them. They have these massive waves of layoffs, as if the market has collapsed or something, but actually their product is back ordered for years and all they need to do to make money is make more airplanes. You might think they're trying to get rid of low-performing or overpaid employees but those are the ones that seem to stick around the longest.

They're not attractive to young engineers any more, the old folks are all near retirement with houses and boats and nice cars and money in the bank while anyone that's hired now is barely above living paycheck to paycheck in a shared apartment.

They sometimes try to hire line workers at minimum wage. Management is baffled when people from a temp agency show up, see the difficult and specialized skilled labor they're supposed to perform, and walk away.

Airbus has their problems too but at least the full-time employees tend to stick around. Although they have this growing cancer of hiring engineers as "contractors" that are paid less than non-contractors and have zero job security. The aerospace equivalent of dash-trash except they're making decisions that have real world consequences. It's sorta sketchy when your engineers have no more incentive to take their job seriously than someone who flips burgers. Think about that next time you're in an airplane.

Re:Boeing is crazy

[k6mfw]

It is baffling at times but then results from decisions made now will not show until 10 or 20 years later. It also seems Boeing is on the ragged edge where profits are a smidget to expenses. Boeing risked their whole existence with development of the Dash 80, started on SST but bailed (a ***lot*** of people laid off), gambled on 747 which paid off. Same with 777 and 787 which are a good fit for point-to-point airline model now favored over hub-and-spoke which only jumbo jets are good for i.e. A380 (their customer that keeps the production open is United Arab Emirates). However profit margins are just a sliver, I think it is military orders that keeps Boeing in existence. Like govt subsidies keeps Airbus in existence.

Reminds me a quote by (I think) Donald Douglas who said to become a millionaire in the airplane business is to spend 10 million.

Your comment about hiring engineers as "contractors" that are paid less with zero job security, and new people living paycheck to paycheck in a shared apartment. This could be one piece of their downfall but then it is the military orders that keep them in business. Boeing is the ***only*** US big airplane company left.

Deliveries are crucial to planemakers

[sodul]

Deliveries are crucial to planemakers because that is when airlines pay most of what they owe for the aircraft

Aren't deliveries crucial to *any* manufacturer? There are not many cases I can think of where a manufacturer stays viable by never delivering their product. I know first hand that it is an actual business strategy at some companies but that's never sustainable. Theranos has tried to pull it off, it did not work so well.

Re:Deliveries are crucial to planemakers

[Anonymous Coward]

"There are not many cases I can think of where a manufacturer stays viable by never delivering their product."

Nuclear missiles?

Re:Deliveries are crucial to planemakers

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the disappointing part of being a nuclear missile designer, you never get to see your product work.

Re: Deliveries are crucial to planemakers

[kenh]

You obviously weren't around for the dot com boom

You obviously think for dot com companies were "manufacturers" - most were not.

Re: Deliveries are crucial to planemakers

[kenh]

Missiles that are not delivered are not paid for.

Re: Deliveries are crucial to planemakers

[UnknowingFool]

The missiles are delivered and installed. Now they are never used which is a different matter.

Re:

[The Grim Reefer]

Just think about the money they could save if they could resurrect the dead

I saw that movie. It doesn't turn out well.

Boeing emploees

[Harry_Bawls]

I know people who work for Boeing and hear them talk all the time. The problem is that the inmates are running the prison. They know that they will paid a lot more to do the job on overtime so they drag ass during their regular shift.

Re:Shortage of engines?

[PPH]

This.

But Boeing's problems are being aggravated by that silly-assed moving assembly line they implemented*. The out of sequence work is just that much more difficult to do once an incomplete plane moves off the end of the line**.

*In manufacturing, you move the parts when they are small in comparison to the tooling. This is not the case with aircraft. The problem at Boeing was that managers were not capable of looking at the shop floor and judging progress with the old fixed position system. Because they were too stupid to read a bar chart on a PC.

**Boeing implemented this at about the same time as that TV ad showing an airplane being built while in flight. Everyone in engineering was laughing their asses off.

Re: I Guess They Missed a Part

[kenh]

Back in 2008 unemployment benefits ran for years, rather than the typical 26 weeks - Dems needed the votes so we kept declaring emergency extensions. Nancy Pelosi actually said unemployment checks were the best thing the gov't could possibly spend money on, since every dollar in unemployment benefits generated $2-3 in financial activity!

Keep in mind ...

[PPH]

... as you all discuss this that McDonnell-Douglas management effectively pushed aside Boeing management when the two companies merged. Take a look at how McDonnell treated Douglas aircraft for a clue as to how the commercial unit will be treated.

Same as it ever was, nothing to see here

[mccrew]

Nothing to see here, folks, it's been happening for a long time. I've witnessed many cycles where Boeing is in a crunch for some reason, and gets experienced retirees to come back to get them over the hump. Win-win.

They're going through a well-documented crunch getting 737s and 787s out the door with ramped up production schedules. Main issue is that the airframe and engine suppliers are not keeping pace. So they are calling in the grey beards to help get back on track.

Re:Same as it ever was, nothing to see here

[Thelasko]

Main issue is that the airframe and engine suppliers are not keeping pace.

That's not just for Boeing. This is happening in every area of manufacturing in the US right now. The economy is hyper stimulated. Order boards are full, suppliers can't keep up, nobody can find good labor. Companies are very hesitant to commit big capital to increase production. It's seen as a temporary issue and nobody want's to spend a lot of money only to see the market "correct".

Hiring back retirees seems like a good solution.

Re:Shortage of engines?

[TheCastro1689]

Sounds like they thought building bombers during WW2 was super cool and they wanted that feeling again. Guess they needed to hire some more retired gals.