07-07-2015, 11:24 PM
(07-05-2015, 09:49 AM)numberguy Wrote:Boeing learned this the hard way about 10-15 years ago. They had a difficult time getting contracts in the early 2000s as was posted here about the possible future of Bombardier.(07-05-2015, 02:55 AM)BrianT Wrote: If Bombardier wants to continue to have Mexico in their supply chain, they are going to have to teach the Mexicans how to get the job done properly. They can't afford to have layoffs in Thunder Bay because the Mexican plant has screwed up.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-ba...-1.3127363
Exactly why I am concerned.
Bombardier is competing against giants in the aerospace industry. They need cash to buy time to get their new planes out for successful sales (hopefully). The way they are doing this is by selling part/all of its rail unit and by cutting costs.
This has a direct impact on ION. What assurances/penalty clauses are in place? Byford and the TTC found out the hard way that on a $1.2 billion contract, a $50 million penalty clause gets them a morning meet and greet and a GTFO from Bombardier.
Really short version: Boeing's plan was to have the 787 built in various pieces in various cheapest producer regions in the world (mainly China and the other east Asia countries) would ship all the components to Seattle or Long Beach: wings, tail, landing gear and so on.
When they tried to fit all the pieces together, just like Bombardier, the pieces didn't fit. They had to basically start over and choose the best manufacturers and bring most back in house. They also lost lots of manufacturing intelligence to the world's largest country and then began to worry they were putting the company out of business.
Late planes and a refocus back on the Seattle manufacturing plant saved them ... for now.
I think you overstate your case on Bombardier's get out of Thunder Bay comment as most accountant/figure ferrets do ... but you could be right and we will see in two years.