Even Jim McNerney confirmed they are going for 40-55 by decades end. Not arguing, just stating what people in the know are trying to get done. After the last post I asked my dad what they expected when they got the moving line up here from LGB and he was saying that at absolute peak (not looking at ramp space) they could do 100 frames a month. He said ramp limitations though would hold it down to around 60 if they could work as efficiently as planned. This all doesn't matter though if the 787 Carolina experiment works out for Boeing. It will be interesting to see what is in store for the negotiations coming up.

Rate increases are planned-- that's no secret. They're being done in steps, so that infrastructure and vendor logistics can be worked out. Fuselages are shipped in by train from St. Louis, and all manner of vendors supply other parts. These things have to be taken into consideration. The factory right now is unable to sustain an increased load until the changes that are being implemented are completed. If you said that there is a potential to produce 55+ aircraft per month after significant infrastructural and flow-efficiency modifications are implemented, I wouldn't disagree (though even then, 55 aircraft a month seems a bit out there). However, you said the factory "in its current state" was able to do do that, and that is simply incorrect.

Rate increases are planned-- that's no secret. They're being done in steps, so that infrastructure and vendor logistics can be worked out. Fuselages are shipped in by train from St. Louis, and all manner of vendors supply other parts. These things have to be taken into consideration. The factory right now is unable to sustain an increased load until the changes that are being implemented are completed. If you said that there is a potential to produce 55+ aircraft per month after significant infrastructural and flow-efficiency modifications are implemented, I wouldn't disagree (though even then, 55 aircraft a month seems a bit out there). However, you said the factory "in its current state" was able to do do that, and that is simply incorrect.

Fuselages come from Wichita. I never said in it's current state it could do 55+. I just said 55 at the high side. Let's go back to my post #12

Boeing easily has the capacity to do the whole order but American decided not to go that way for whatever reasoning. In Renton they still have another line available for aircraft and in it's current state the factory could pump out 45-55 aircraft per month. If they add the other line they could conceivably send out 75 aircraft a month.

Fuselages come from Wichita.

Correct. I misspoke there. Apologies.

I never said in it's current state it could do 55+. I just said 55 at the high side. Let's go back to my post #12

Semantics. You said 45-55, which is still impossible in its current state. The third line is used for derivatives, which have a slower flow time for assembly. It'd be impractical to put commercial 737s on that line, because they'd be waiting for the Poseidon ahead of them to be finished. Really, there's nothing more to argue. All due respect to your father for his previous role on the program, but the facts he knows from when he worked there are a bit outdated.

Even Jim McNerney confirmed they are going for 40-55 by decades end. Not arguing, just stating what people in the know are trying to get done. After the last post I asked my dad what they expected when they got the moving line up here from LGB and he was saying that at absolute peak (not looking at ramp space) they could do 100 frames a month. He said ramp limitations though would hold it down to around 60 if they could work as efficiently as planned. This all doesn't matter though if the 787 Carolina experiment works out for Boeing. It will be interesting to see what is in store for the negotiations coming up.

Every manufacturer I've ever worked for makes claims like that. As I mentioned I used to work in a Cummins plant and their claim was in 5 years we would be doing 100 engines a day....Well those 5 years have long since past and there was no where near a demand for 100 engines a day, and now they manufacture in Mexico anyways. Claims like that are to keep morale up and shareholders positive...etc. No one has a crystal ball and in 20 years from now most likely China will have a 30% share in the global jet market anyways. 25 years ago nobody predicted Airbus' success, and that Brazil would have a market share, now look at all those Airbus, Embraers and DeHavilands out there.,,,Others want a piece of that pie as well. When Russia and China get up to speed Boeing will lose those market shares for the most part, and China is a large purchaser of Boeing jets at present, in the future Boeing will lose that market foresure. China, Russia and India are the new emerging economies so lets see what their airlines buy in the future.

Well, what do you expect, Boeing is so late getting into plastic (CFRP) aircraft! Aluminum jets are a good product, but every product has a life-cycle, so if you stick for a long enough time with that product you are sure to see your profits on that product line dwindle due to competition and obsolescence. Plastic jets are "where its at", and if Boeing had timed it right and released a plastic version of the 737 some 10 years ago they would be scooping-it up. But no, due to brainless pension-fund managers that focus on quarterly profits to the exclusion of long-term investment (a.k.a. "milking the cash cows") Boeing was slow to move towards plastic and is now "thinking" of revamping the 737. In the glider market since the 1980's it's been no secret that CFRP is a game changer, and since the 1990's it's known that raked wingtips outperform fancy winglets. Plastic is lighter, sleeker and faster! Just take a look at the 787: She is so graceful, so beautiful. Oh, and it's also cheaper because it lasts longer (corrosion? Ha!), in case anyone still cares about the long term. Cheers, - jahman.

brainless pension-fund managers that focus on quarterly profits to the exclusion of long-term investment (a.k.a. "milking the cash cows") .

Pretty much says it all right there...And you can throw GMC, Ford, and Chrysler into that mentality as well. The number one selling cars in America are Japanese and German for good reason. Boeing lost its top position in the jet market a very long time ago. I would like to know what Boeings deliveries where back in the 1970's. I couldn't find that earlier. I bet today Boeings deliveries are somewhere near what it was in the mid to late 1970's. That would mean Boeing is producing around the same number of aircraft decades later to a much smaller market share.... If anyone has those historic numbers I am curious to see what they are... Cheers

Pretty much says it all right there...And you can throw GMC, Ford, and Chrysler into that mentality as well. The number one selling cars in America are Japanese and German for good reason. Boeing lost its top position in the jet market a very long time ago. I would like do know what Boeings deliveries where back in the 1970's. I couldn't find that earlier. I bet today Boeings deliveries are somewhere near what it was in the mid to late 1970's. That would mean Boeing is producing around the same number of aircraft decades later with a smaller market share.... If anyone has those historic numbers I am curious to see what they are... Cheers

Thanks to Airbus, we're about to have (partly) german bestselling aircraft in the U.S. as well! Historic Boeing aircraft sales per year: 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777. 787. A plot superimposing year number vs. orders and sales for each model would speak volumes about the product life curve for jet aircraft. Cheers, - jahman.

Oh yea...Good ole Wikipedia. Forgot about that... Cheers