Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Boeing posts first loss in two decades as 737 Max costs double

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Boeing posts first loss in two decades as 737 Max costs double

Old 30th Jan 2020, 18:00
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by fdr View Post
re your quotes, is English a second language to the new CEO? Apparently there is a King now in the white house, so we appear to have come full circle, back to old blighty. perhaps it is the media, but, golly.
We can blame the media for many things, but few writers or editors at even the lowest tier of English-language outlets would have slipped the "me" in there.
OldnGrounded is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 18:04
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 139
The share price went up because investors believe Boeing are too big to fail!. Maybe that is the real outcome of the 737 MAX affair.
The uncertainty in my mind is will the Max actually fly again ? , what are the consequences of breaking all those new aircraft?.
Deltasierra010 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 19:45
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Boeing's problem right now is that they have to replace TWO aircraft types rather soon - the 737, which the MAX debacle shows has reached (and overreached) its limits, and the 757/767.
I don't think there are a lot of 757s left whose replacements are not already on order - principally A321Neos, of course, but also the larger Max. A good proportion of the 767s have already gone as well, and by the time any clean sheet gets to the delivery stage those will be history too.
WHBM is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 21:14
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,201
As to the size of the loss the usual corporate wisdom is that any loss is bad so if you have one you may as well make it a big one to get rid of all kinds of nasties lurking in the accounts and get the matte over and done with. Get your banks onside first and there is no great problem
A huge severance pay for a CEO who put them in a loss making position for the first time in twenty years and trashed their good name is little short of criminal and shows utter contempt for small shareholders staff and some customers
pax britanica is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 21:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet no. 3
Posts: 99
It’s criminal negligence, pure and simple:

Within the aviation industry, with its massive infrastructural needs, the state has always played a big role. Perversely, after deregulation in the 1980s, Boeing was allowed to effectively become a public entity with private profits. It gladly accepted the money and the safety net from the American public. In return, it has made private shareholders and upper management fabulously rich, while producing aircraft that put the public at risk. The laws of capitalism have a logic of their own and after decades of “ripping up the rules” and cutting corners in search of profit, the chickens are coming home to roost.
https://www.marxist.com/capitalism-k...negligence.htm
vlieger is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 21:29
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,827
Originally Posted by vlieger View Post
It’s criminal negligence, pure and simple:

www.marxist.com/
Marxist.com - right, no agenda there...
I suppose the next article will explain why Venezuela is really a huge success and it's all the West's fault that they have issues there...

tdracer is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 21:35
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet no. 3
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
I suppose the next article will explain why Venezuela is really a huge success and it's all the West's fault that they have issues there...
Straw man argument, who said anything about Venezuela?
The former CEO walking off with more than 60 million in the bank after supervising the botched Max design, is pretty scandalous, wouldn’t you say?
vlieger is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 22:20
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Sydney
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
Marxist.com - right, no agenda there...
...
There does seem to be an awful lot of people VERY keen to preemptively dance on Boeing’s grave.

Are aircraft manufactured by Marxist states really that good?

.
JustinHeywood is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 22:28
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,827
Originally Posted by vlieger View Post
Straw man argument, who said anything about Venezuela?
The former CEO walking off with more than 60 million in the bank after supervising the botched Max design, is pretty scandalous, wouldn’t you say?
Point to the former CEO is also a straw man argument that in no way supports the related claims
Pointing out the consistent failure of Marxism is not a straw man argument. It's simply point out documented facts.
tdracer is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2020, 22:53
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
Pointing out the consistent failure of Marxism is not a straw man argument. It's simply point out documented facts.
I have no truck whatsoever with those who advocate Marxist government, but as a paradigm for economic analysis the work of Marx has been profoundly influential and successful, even amongst many who do not remotely consider themselves Marxists. You wont get far as a student of economics without knowing your Marx. Indeed Marxist *analysis* need not be at odds with capitalism (he highlighted and popularised the significance of capital), even though the implementation of government extrapolated from Marxist-derived principles by Lenin, Stalin, Mao (and the Trotskyist school of thought) proved to be a blight upon the Twentieth Century.

And now back to our regular programme...
robdean is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2020, 00:50
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Now the question arises - can Boeing afford to develop both a new single-aisle and a new double-aisle at the same time? Does there exist any one design (SA or DA) that can simultaneously handle, via fuselage stretching/shrinking, both ends of the "medium" market? Or other commonalities (757/767-style) that can reduce the total costs of two aircraft designs? And what will be the best choice for the market/economy/world situation of 2030, when the NMA or NMA/NSA actually goes into service?
No crystal ball necessary. They can't. As a matter of fact no aircraft manufacturer on this planet can. And they need a lot more than two airplanes. They have a hole in their range stretching from A220 all the way to 787, which itself is slowing down in sales, plus they need to start working on the 777/X replacement because A350 is very young and is developing, and they have nothing in the top end of that segment. They need FOUR new models. An impossible task.

All that at the time when their engineering base is destroyed by decades of layoffs, their workforce is demoralized, their wallets are empty, and the regulators all over the world don't trust them. And now they have a CEO who needs to climb a college-sized learning curve at 62.
ProPax is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2020, 05:12
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: PA USA
Posts: 21
This should be a lesson of what happens when a company lets bean counters control the direction of a company. Unfortunately, it won't, the lessons to be learned will of course be hidden behind the never ending bean counter agenda of manipulating stock prices.

Given that Boeing may not put an airplane guy in charge of the airplane company, they should at least hire the PR firm that Airbus uses. After all not a single Airbus has ever gone down because of any kind of manufacture design or manufacturing flaw, all accidents are all the pilots fault. Even when company test pilots are flying.
fr8tmastr is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2020, 07:08
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by fr8tmastr View Post
This should be a lesson of what happens when a company lets bean counters control the direction of a company. Unfortunately, it won't, the lessons to be learned will of course be hidden behind the never ending bean counter agenda of manipulating stock prices.
The bean counters, and I am not one, are only doing what the shareholders want: to increase the revenues per share, whichever the consequences are. The problem is that the shareholders - including many of us, possibly by the intermediate of pension funds - do not measure the consequences such as Boeing today, or low-cost airlines practices (pilots employment terms and conditions) for instance.

Originally Posted by fr8tmastr View Post
Even when company test pilots are flying.
Unfortunately, test pilots, in any company, may be faulty....

.
Bidule is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2020, 08:25
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 854
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Now the question arises - can Boeing afford to develop both a new single-aisle and a new double-aisle at the same time? Does there exist any one design (SA or DA) that can simultaneously handle, via fuselage stretching/shrinking, both ends of the "medium" market?
As commented in a different thread, the fundamental of the above seems the most obvious. How? That's for Boeing to decide. A single product line replacing both previous ones (Max & NMA) envisaged makes most sense at this point.
Arguably, a separate DA may not be required if the design of the SA is superior (eg a wide enough space for passing in isle or even a cabin shape enabling either configuration depending on operator). Could for instance a configuration of 2/2/2 and 3/4 be established using a slightly wider cabin diameter? Using existing engine technology production time could be vastly reduced, maybe two years from go-ahead, especially considering all resources available now that NMA and Max work have essentially all but ceased
Skyjob is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2020, 13:39
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,435
Originally Posted by Bidule View Post
The bean counters, and I am not one, are only doing what the shareholders want: to increase the revenues per share, whichever the consequences are. The problem is that the shareholders - including many of us, possibly by the intermediate of pension funds - do not measure the consequences such as Boeing today.
You are of course correct, and ultimately this Killing The Goose That lays The Golden Egg can destroy shareholder value. So what the corporate shareholders are judging is the moment when to get out before their value starts to go negative. It really reduces the whole stock market, and beyond that the overall economy, to a Ponzi Scheme.

In such conditions, and certainly with a product so on the edge of public safety, that's where a Regulator comes in to oversee things. And of course, with FAA certification, that is all set up and in place. But they don't seem to look for issues in depth any more - here there should have been a process where knowledgeable people at the Regulator looked in detail at the MCAS code as finally certified. But they were taking shortcuts, and I get the feeling at regulators that while they consider those with this technical ability somewhat expendible to fit a budget, the office admin lot make sure they are all still in post.
WHBM is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2020, 08:28
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 115
Originally Posted by JustinHeywood View Post
There does seem to be an awful lot of people VERY keen to preemptively dance on Boeing’s grave.
.
Not really - just watching with rapt fascination as Boeing racks up nearly a year's worth of unsold aircraft without being visibly nearer a complete solution. Reminds me of the time I witnessed an ultimate test on a large pressure vessel.

10 billion dollars? that's in the same ballpark as the annual GDP of a number of small countries. Deep pockets, indeed.
fizz57 is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2020, 13:34
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 759
The guy's been sitting on the Boeing's board of directors for ELEVEN YEARS, and he still "wants to be sure he understands" the only two segments his company works in!!!
Please open your eyes and your mind : A third segment is the computer ! Boeing, Airbus, FAA, NTSB, ICAO are still unable to manage the specificites of computing science which is totally different from aeronautics.
I.e; using computers in real time needs specific documents which mostly are missing until yet (and missing by ETHIOPIAN and LIONAIR, ...and HABSHEIM!).
The change must be done at UNO level.to create a other institution, with specific standard.
rh
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2020, 18:16
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: europe
Posts: 6
Reading between the lines, Calhoun wants to dump (or sideline) the Max and develop an aircraft that he can stand over.
DrDonkey is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2020, 18:51
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: London
Posts: 11
Yes, too harsh, especially if his actual comment was "I want to be sure I understand EVERYTHING about the widebody, narrowbody world,"
And TWO segments? You left out helicopters, jet fighters, tankers and their entire Space and Services divisions.
NOC40 is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2020, 11:10
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
The bean counters, and I am not one, are only doing what the shareholders want: to increase the revenues per share, whichever the consequences are.

In all too many cases, this has been overtaken by the desire to increase shareholder value, which is not the same thing. Dividends and buybacks don't increase revenue, but they increase share price while diverting cash that would otherwise be used for internal investment, such as creating soundly engineered new products.
LowObservable is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.