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

Boeing to cut 10% of workforce amid staggering $641 million loss in first quarter

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 to cut 10% of workforce amid staggering $641 million loss in first quarter

Old 30th Apr 2020, 08:14
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,945
Originally Posted by procede View Post
You would be surprised how much attention parked aircraft need, unless you accept you need to do a full A-check (or higher) before you can use them again. For one need to cover the engines and then uncover them when you start the engines every few days.

The 757 is dead. Compared to the 737 MAX9/10 it does not offer enough passenger or range advantage.

Revamping the 767 would make sense. High bypass engines, weight savings, aerodynamic improvements (sharklets) and integrate the 787/777 fly by wire system, so it is type rating compatible (and the larger diameter engines do not cause MAX like issues).
Boeing has published manuals and procedures covering how to take care of parked aircraft - not much need for day-to-day coverage by a large team of customer support engineers who normally deal with things like AOG and operational aircraft problems that the operator can't figure out how to fix.
I've long advocated for a "767X" - a new (or at least updated) wing, engines, and updated avionics - but my friends on the inside keep telling me that option isn't even on the table.
One of the biggest hurdles to any new mid-market aircraft is that currently there are no modern engines in the necessary 40k-50k lb. thrust range. So someone has to step up and commit to spending several billion dollars to develop a suitable engine.
tdracer is offline  
Old 30th Apr 2020, 08:47
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,001
And then you end up with some old fuselage and setup just with new wings and engines?
Any truly new airplane will be constructed with automated manufacturing in mind, made from new materials and with latest systems layout, aerodynamics and such integrated into one concept from the beginning. This is how you get the maximum efficiencies.
Some legacy 767 might be good enough for today and as a freighter but not for tomorrow. Boeing therefore should invest in something truly new not an update. The 767 fuselage diameter will always be too small for lower deck LD3 pairs.

I agree we need more workhorse airplanes again like the 767 was. Made for easy operations low operating cost, robust, simple and a little less fancy all together.

Last edited by Less Hair; 30th Apr 2020 at 09:39.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 30th Apr 2020, 09:59
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 43
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
I've long advocated for a "767X" - a new (or at least updated) wing, engines, and updated avionics - but my friends on the inside keep telling me that option isn't even on the table.
One of the biggest hurdles to any new mid-market aircraft is that currently there are no modern engines in the necessary 40k-50k lb. thrust range. So someone has to step up and commit to spending several billion dollars to develop a suitable engine.
It is probably just the marketing department why it is off the table. I do not see how a new NMA could improve on the 767 with respect cabin layout or the general wing. Also composites do not make much sense.

The only new engines that come close are the Trent 7000's, which are slightly overpowered. Maybe they could base it on the MD-11 instead and use 3 Leap 1A's? ;-)




procede is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 12:10
  #24 (permalink)  
Aso
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Belgium
Posts: 51
Revamping the 767 would make sense. High bypass engines, weight savings, aerodynamic improvements (sharklets) and integrate the 787/777 fly by wire system, so it is type rating compatible (and the larger diameter engines do not cause MAX like issues).
Agree and give it a lighter fuselage too... Oh hold on... That is already the 787
Aso is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 23:51
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 171
And that is why the 757-Plus is a viable single-aisle option. And the 737 kept growing into that category to such an extent it has become overstretched.
Might not be ideal but could definately be an alternative stopgap if the Max debacle keeps going on and on and on. And faster development than a clean sheet.
It certainly is a pretty longlegged bird in TrumpForce One disguise. Plenty of room for big diameter engines. Any thoughts of it with a composite body and winglets.
With a new cockpit in addition if some tooling is lost not so important. But these things are seldom lost, just stored, and one can always make new tools based on existing parts.
vikingivesterled is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 00:52
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,945
Originally Posted by vikingivesterled View Post
And that is why the 757-Plus is a viable single-aisle option. And the 737 kept growing into that category to such an extent it has become overstretched.
Might not be ideal but could definately be an alternative stopgap if the Max debacle keeps going on and on and on. And faster development than a clean sheet.
It certainly is a pretty longlegged bird in TrumpForce One disguise. Plenty of room for big diameter engines. Any thoughts of it with a composite body and winglets.
With a new cockpit in addition if some tooling is lost not so important. But these things are seldom lost, just stored, and one can always make new tools based on existing parts.
Viking, there is no 757 tooling in existence - it was all scraped over a decade ago. If you're going to go through all the time, trouble, and expense to retool a 40 year old design, you might as well do a clean sheet. A clean sheet won't take any longer, won't cost significantly more, and the result would be a modern design with all the advantages that go with it - not a rehash of a 4 decade old design.
tdracer is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 01:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
Viking, there is no 757 tooling in existence - it was all scraped over a decade ago. If you're going to go through all the time, trouble, and expense to retool a 40 year old design, you might as well do a clean sheet. A clean sheet won't take any longer, won't cost significantly more, and the result would be a modern design with all the advantages that go with it - not a rehash of a 4 decade old design.
Always my favorite aircraft. I don't buy any clean sheet design in this environment. What is the probability that some of the stored (and paid off) aircraft will return to the skys as opposed to taking delivery of more fuel efficient but costly airframes, particularly if fuel prices stay on the low side? What is the differential in cost of recovering tooling for designs that probably still exist vice creating from scratch in a market that has so much uncertainty that layoffs are the order of the day? This is like rolling dice because nobody knows what is going to happen in the next two years. I'd suggest a clean sheet design is not financially practical from a corporate perspective in a market where airlines are delaying delivery, cancelling orders, and laying off crew. I expect that the smaller aircraft of the regionals will dominate for quite some time in the US - at least on domestic routes. In my local airport, SW is the only airline still flying 'full-sized' AC and a good portion of those flights are cancelled daily.
b1lanc is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:09
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 43
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Aso View Post
Agree and give it a lighter fuselage too... Oh hold on... That is already the 787
The 787 has a much higher OEW due to the larger wingspan for the longer range requirement.

But yes, a 787 with a smaller wing will also work.
procede is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 09:06
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 490
Are they considering reintroducing the 787-3?
Banana Joe is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 13:46
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 41
Posts: 598
Originally Posted by procede View Post
The 787 has a much higher OEW due to the larger wingspan for the longer range requirement.

But yes, a 787 with a smaller wing will also work.
The "787 with a smaller wing" has been tried, and it failed miserably. Turned it only produced a marginal improvement over the -8 on sectors shorter than 500NM or so.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 13:55
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,001
The -3 had some -8-wing that had just been brutally chopped off. Not very efficient. At that time the 787 was overly expensive to build and needed some serious redesign. So they restreamed early built -8s with not enough range to the -3 role and didn't built the -3.
The 787 is still said to be costly to produce but with some custom made short range wing it might nicely fill that niche. And it might fill empty slots in final assembly.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 2nd May 2020, 17:53
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 171
Neither a smallish 787 or an updated 767 will solve Boeing's single aisle problem. How can widebodies help replacing the overstretched and shortlegged ExMax
2 aisles require more cabin crew and a low fares airline will only fly with what the rules minimum requires and that is 1 per 50 passengers.
How do you do sample safety demos with 5 cabin crews in a 250 seat plane with 2 aisles and no back of seat screens.
How do you, to avoid delays waiting for passengers, offload that 1 bag quickly if the luggage is in belly containers. Not to talk about all the containers and container handling equipment needed.
And no freight advantage because the likes of Ryanair don't do freight, normally.
Do they come with onboard steps, to avoid waiting for availability of external steps, for prompt offloading.
Do they fit in the relatively narrow and cheaper stands of most airports.
Besides airport parking fees are per tonne.

Widebodies might be more prectigious to fly, for some, but they don't suit 1-3 hour short hops which is sample Ryanair's bread and butter.
And they are the likes who have pressed for the more passengers = longer 737 with more economical = bigger diameter engines.

vikingivesterled is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 18:04
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,001
Some shuttle Dublin-London would be exactly the market we talk about. And it could go to New York as well.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 2nd May 2020, 20:16
  #34 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,207
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
And as a result the Boeing share price jumped 10% today ... crazy world.
The stock market is looking for ANYTHING that will push stocks higher - so that they can then sell them to recoup some losses. This movement is insignificant as the market has not yet reached the bottom - by some measure.

Boeing will make sure they get FAA approval for the Max - so that they can say that they did it. It's subsequent failure can then safely be seen as the fault of CV19. As PAX I would see it as a point of principle not to fly the Max.

Last edited by PAXboy; 2nd May 2020 at 22:45.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 22:34
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,186
Originally Posted by Less Hair View Post
Some shuttle Dublin-London would be exactly the market we talk about. And it could go to New York as well.
It seems a strange time to be talking about Boeing launching a new aircraft or new variant of a current type.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 2nd May 2020, 23:34
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
It seems a strange time to be talking about Boeing launching a new aircraft or new variant of a current type.
The thread is about Boeing and its current predicament, and it and the industry will hope there is a continued furture in selling and flying passenger aircrafts.
Therefore in time it will need a new cash machine now when the 737 is coming to the end of its life,
Something it can sell at least 7000 of, or rather convert its existing 7000 ExMax orders to, that would save its continued presence in the passenger aircraft market.
Else we are talking about a greatly reduced size of Boeing also after the pandemic dip.
vikingivesterled is offline  
Old 3rd May 2020, 10:37
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 93
YOU ARE THE NEW CEO OF BOEING

The entire board has been sacked in a shareholder revolt and they've appointed you to turn the company round. What would you do?

Here's my 2p worth:

1) Put 737Max on the back burner.

2) Fill the board with genuinely good senior engineers.

3) Pull the best young engineers together from across the business, and start a clean sheet design for 737 replacement.
3a) Design philosophy full fly by wire, but keep connected yokes and thrust levers that move properly (no secret computer generated thrust)

Reasoning:
MAX: There's no demand for the next few years, just keep a few staff chipping away at approvals until it's certified. If it's not certified after a year, write it off. 900 airframes yes; but sunk cost. Break for parts, reuse engines.
New design: The best time to start a new business, start a new anything, is in the middle of a recession. By the time you've got set up / got certification, the world will be out of depression and flying again.
Design philosophy: Take the best of both A and B.
Engineers: Get back to Boeing's heritage of a cutting edge engineering-led company.

That's my plan, what's yours?
PerPurumTonantes is offline  
Old 3rd May 2020, 10:58
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,880
A staggering $641m? The biggest airlines here would gladly have lost merely $641m.
Check Airman is online now  
Old 4th May 2020, 05:52
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Where the Money Takes Me
Posts: 942
Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes View Post
YOU ARE THE NEW CEO OF BOEING

The entire board has been sacked in a shareholder revolt and they've appointed you to turn the company round. What would you do?

Here's my 2p worth:

1) Put 737Max on the back burner.

2) Fill the board with genuinely good senior engineers.

3) Pull the best young engineers together from across the business, and start a clean sheet design for 737 replacement.
3a) Design philosophy full fly by wire, but keep connected yokes and thrust levers that move properly (no secret computer generated thrust)

Reasoning:
MAX: There's no demand for the next few years, just keep a few staff chipping away at approvals until it's certified. If it's not certified after a year, write it off. 900 airframes yes; but sunk cost. Break for parts, reuse engines.
New design: The best time to start a new business, start a new anything, is in the middle of a recession. By the time you've got set up / got certification, the world will be out of depression and flying again.
Design philosophy: Take the best of both A and B.
Engineers: Get back to Boeing's heritage of a cutting edge engineering-led company.

That's my plan, what's yours?
I'd take on tdracer as my COO.
LGW Vulture is online now  
Old 4th May 2020, 12:49
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 231
Originally Posted by PerPurumTonantes View Post
Design philosophy: Take the best of both A and B.
Engineers: Get back to Boeing's heritage of a cutting edge engineering-led company.
Good idea!

When Boeing was run like that - especially the "best of Boeing design language and fully-integrated (Airbus-style) automation" - they produced the 777, their last unequivocal success.

If they'd done that with the 737-latest (now MAX) they would not be in the pickle they are now. They might have different problems, as Ryanair and Southwest took turns in abusing them for making those airlines have to spend anything on new pilot training, but that would not have placed them in a worse position vis-a-vis Airbus (only an even position). They also wouldn't have two smoking holes in the ground full of corpses and a shattered safety reputation.
nicolai 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.