I think that was obvious from at least 10 years ago. Airbus’s bet at the time raised a lot of eye brows, while boeing’s didn’t. The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly.
> The only thing Boeing screwed up on was outsourcing too much of the assembly
Selling planes is complicated. For the same reason the F-35 sources random things from practically everywhere [1], Boeing may have found it advantageous to have suppliers in the countries of national airline purchasers.
The F35 program's decision to source parts from nearly every state in the US is a political one, not from a logistics issue. Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut.
> Boeing finds it much easier to convince Congressmen to continue the program if jobs would be lost in their state if the program was cut
Just as Boeing might find it easier to convince Singapore Airlines to buy its planes if its government knows jobs would be lost if demand for the plane is insufficient.
The comment you're replying to is saying Selling planes is complicated. Not building them. Convincing congress to continue the program falls under selling.
Boeing’s decision to outsource internationally on the 787 was more of a political move (well, foreign customers buy planes you know) than a technical one. Surely they would have outsourced some parts, but not the wings and the tail!
International supply chains are the rule rather than the exception. The 787 pushed the novelty envelope further than it needed to with the amount of composite materials used (it's possible that in time, this will look like a smarter bet as it'll be easier to reengineer if competing with future generations of aircraft where composites are commonplace) which as one of the factors delaying launch, and also had major issues with engines and batteries which were always going to be supplied by third parties.