Boeing posts first loss in two decades as 737 Max costs double
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Warwick
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?.
The uncertainty in my mind is will the Max actually fly again ? , what are the consequences of breaking all those new aircraft?.
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.
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet no. 3
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s criminal negligence, pure and simple:
https://www.marxist.com/capitalism-k...negligence.htm
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.
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...
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet no. 3
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Pointing out the consistent failure of Marxism is not a straw man argument. It's simply point out documented facts.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And now back to our regular programme...
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Zurich
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: PA USA
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Unfortunately, test pilots, in any company, may be faulty....
.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 billion dollars? that's in the same ballpark as the annual GDP of a number of small countries. Deep pockets, indeed.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
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
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.
And TWO segments? You left out helicopters, jet fighters, tankers and their entire Space and Services divisions.
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.
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.