# End of the production line for the C17?



## syscom3 (Aug 18, 2006)

Boeing Tells C-17 Suppliers Line May End in 2009

Boeing: Boeing Tells C-17 Suppliers Line May End in 2009

ST. LOUIS, Aug. 18, 2006 -- Due to the lack of U.S. government orders for the C-17 military cargo aircraft, The Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) is directing program suppliers to stop work on uncommitted airplanes. This move will be the first step in an orderly shut down of the production supply chain should no further orders be received from the U.S. government. 

For over a year, Boeing spent its own money protecting the C-17 supplier base. This investment was intended to keep the production line viable while the U.S. Government and Boeing pursued international orders, and to allow time for the U.S. Government to update its post-9/11 mobility requirements, if they chose to do so. During that time Boeing received international orders and commitments for more than a dozen of the advanced air lifters. Congress has added funding for up to three more as part of its recent 2007 budget deliberations. However, when the orders are totaled, there are not enough to sustain continued production beyond mid-2009. 

Since late 2005, Boeing has stressed the need for a commitment from the U.S. Government for continued C-17 procurement or the company would be forced to make the difficult decision to begin winding down the production line. 

This action will ultimately affect the 5,500 Boeing jobs in California, Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona, directly tied to the C-17, and the program's nationwide supplier workforce that totals more than 25,000 people. Nearly 700 companies in 42 states provide parts and services that go into each C-17. 

"The C-17 is one of the Defense Department's most successful acquisition programs ever," said Ron Marcotte, vice president and general manager of Boeing Global Mobility Systems. "No one questions its operational value. But we can't continue carrying the program without additional orders from the U.S. Government." 

The stop-work orders affect long-lead items from suppliers that, in many cases, are built 34 months before a C-17 is delivered. Boeing is re-evaluating the financial impact should the U.S. government not order additional C-17s, and may incur costs aside from any recovered from the U.S. government


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2006)

If that happens, it will be the last of any large aircraft being built at Long Beach.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 18, 2006)

you wont be wanting your 4 back from us anytime soon then, 'cos we kinda need them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> you wont be wanting your 4 back from us anytime soon then, 'cos we kinda need them


naw, hold on to em....


----------



## Glider (Aug 18, 2006)

If someone had some nounce this would be a great time to buy some and hell we need some. Being cold blooded you would get the deal of a lifetime and as an aircraft its a lot better than the European aircraft they keep talking about


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 18, 2006)

I hope we get the 4 we ordered


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 18, 2006)

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 19, 2006)

what glider? there are no comparable western European aircraft out there is there?


----------



## plan_D (Aug 19, 2006)

That's what he said. There are no European heavy-lifters that match the C-17.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 19, 2006)

that's what i thought but he said there're some they keep talking about? i assume they do nothing more than just talk about them?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

That sucks. The 17 is a good aircraft. We almost loaded one of our Hawks on to one and flew it out. Would have been neat to have done it.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 3, 2007)

Just announced. Canada bought 4.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 3, 2007)

By god, you're right! They actually did it! 

But I'll bet no less than two of them are mothballed or sold within the decade.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 3, 2007)

and better yet we jumped ahead in the que have the first 2 by fall 2007


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

i _think_ we'll be buying the 4 we're hiring plus one more when the lease runs out...........


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 3, 2007)

Nonskimmer said:


> By god, you're right! They actually did it!
> 
> But I'll bet no less than two of them are mothballed or sold within the decade.



Naaaah. Not in this decade nor in 10 years. You will see these planes in the air when your children have children. The way capital asset planes are procured and fielded these days, not a chance. The days of making almost 300 C-141s are long gone.


----------



## abramsteve (Feb 4, 2007)

A shame. 

Great aircraft, a true airlift asset. I cant wait to one of our four at the up-coming Avalon airshow!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

I've seen one on the ground and was very impressed by size!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 4, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Naaaah. Not in this decade nor in 10 years. You will see these planes in the air when your children have children. The way capital asset planes are procured and fielded these days, not a chance. The days of making almost 300 C-141s are long gone.


You'd think so, and I'd like to believe it myself, but Canada is too politically fickle this way. When the next Liberal government comes along, you'll see two or maybe even three of these things laid up for parts or sold all together. It's an old familiar tune. Liberals are all about leasing or even borrowing equipment from other air forces. They tend to perceive it as a less expensive, non-commital approach. Thing is, you can't possibly maintain any sort of force capability that way.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 4, 2007)

Now that I can believe. Just what the world needs. More pacifists to fight the wolves.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 4, 2007)

Personally, I think Canada needs to invest more in its navy and infastructure in the NW territories. and arctic lands. With global warming and the ice cap shrinking, Canada needs to have a strong presence in those lands.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 4, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Personally, I think Canada needs to invest more in its navy and infastructure in the NW territories. and arctic lands. With global warming and the ice cap shrinking, Canada needs to have a strong presence in those lands.


i would think you would have gone the opposite way seeing how US governments always state that they aren;t Canadian waters but international


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 5, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> i would think you would have gone the opposite way seeing how US governments always state that they aren;t Canadian waters but international



I dont always support what the Bush admin says. Hes gone in 2 years, the sooner the better.

And there is a difference between right of transit and claims on the land.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 9, 2007)

So who your Commander in Chief of choice Syscom? Hillary? Obama? Lieberman? Let's have it...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2007)

None of the three you mentioned.

I'd like to cast a ballot for Tom Tancrado.


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 10, 2007)

Oh. Well. Then all is good.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 10, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Personally, I think Canada needs to invest more in its navy and infastructure in the NW territories. and arctic lands. With global warming and the ice cap shrinking, Canada needs to have a strong presence in those lands.


Hmmm.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 10, 2007)

heheheheheheh


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 10, 2007)

There goes DND's budget for the next decade.


----------



## Wildcat (Feb 11, 2007)

abramsteve said:


> A shame.
> 
> Great aircraft, a true airlift asset. I cant wait to one of our four at the up-coming Avalon airshow!



Yeah I can't wait to see one either Steve. Here is a clip of the first one arriving last year.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT1RbD-p3zc_


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 11, 2007)

I love the paint job. Unless the picture is decieving, remarkabley different from US camo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 11, 2007)

Its just a slightly different shade of grey...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 11, 2007)

That's a mighty cool little vid there, Wildcat. 

In another while it'll be the same sort of thing, only with Canadian Forces markings.




...At long last.


----------



## abramsteve (Feb 12, 2007)

Great clip and a great Pic! Im not sure if the shade is different to be honest. I think its the same as the USAF, cant see much point in it being different....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

Naw it is slightly different. The USAF C-17s are bit darker shade, atleast in person up and close it seems that way.


----------

