Boeing at X-Roads?
RobinS49
You are right on target with what you say . what has happened to Boeing exists right across much of America and the UK, complex companies/entities run largely by peopel who understand little but Money and the purely commercial side of a business. The UK has ittle left in the way of manufacturing Airbus Uk is owned by France Germany and Spain, the British shareholder BAe systems ina a momne tof short termist idiocy sold their shre becuase they could make more money in defence, ie swindling the UK tax payer and giving dubious foreign governments incentives to but their products. Eighteen years on Airbus is the biggest airliner manufacturer by far and its rival is eating its dust. Typical British short term view.
Rolls Royce aero , a company with hugely complex processes and a long term business cycle . It hasnt been managed that well and its prodcuts are too often questioned. What do they do bring in a CEO whose mantra is" I believe that our commitment to the four C's; customer, concentration, cost and cash, will help us to achieve our vision of better power for a changing world. Our business priorities are to deliver on the promises we have made, decide where to growth and where not to, and to improve our financial performance"...I dont see much mention of product quality and reliability and engineering and R&D expertise -he also cut 2,500 jonbs as a first step.
These people are handing what remains of western Industry to China on a plate complementing the insane outsourcing boom of the last 25 years. Which ahs given expertise and funding to China and other mostly Asian countries everything needed to out compete the west and reduce huge numbers of US and other western citizens to wage slaves in low tech low pay and no future jobs. And we have seen where that lies in terms of politics as these people are exploited yet again by those claiming to stand up for them
You are right on target with what you say . what has happened to Boeing exists right across much of America and the UK, complex companies/entities run largely by peopel who understand little but Money and the purely commercial side of a business. The UK has ittle left in the way of manufacturing Airbus Uk is owned by France Germany and Spain, the British shareholder BAe systems ina a momne tof short termist idiocy sold their shre becuase they could make more money in defence, ie swindling the UK tax payer and giving dubious foreign governments incentives to but their products. Eighteen years on Airbus is the biggest airliner manufacturer by far and its rival is eating its dust. Typical British short term view.
Rolls Royce aero , a company with hugely complex processes and a long term business cycle . It hasnt been managed that well and its prodcuts are too often questioned. What do they do bring in a CEO whose mantra is" I believe that our commitment to the four C's; customer, concentration, cost and cash, will help us to achieve our vision of better power for a changing world. Our business priorities are to deliver on the promises we have made, decide where to growth and where not to, and to improve our financial performance"...I dont see much mention of product quality and reliability and engineering and R&D expertise -he also cut 2,500 jonbs as a first step.
These people are handing what remains of western Industry to China on a plate complementing the insane outsourcing boom of the last 25 years. Which ahs given expertise and funding to China and other mostly Asian countries everything needed to out compete the west and reduce huge numbers of US and other western citizens to wage slaves in low tech low pay and no future jobs. And we have seen where that lies in terms of politics as these people are exploited yet again by those claiming to stand up for them
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Farnham
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Manufacturing
RobinS49
You are right on target with what you say . what has happened to Boeing exists right across much of America and the UK, complex companies/entities run largely by peopel who understand little but Money and the purely commercial side of a business. The UK has ittle left in the way of manufacturing Airbus Uk is owned by France Germany and Spain, the British shareholder BAe systems ina a momne tof short termist idiocy sold their shre becuase they could make more money in defence, ie swindling the UK tax payer and giving dubious foreign governments incentives to buy their products. Eighteen years on Airbus is the biggest airliner manufacturer by far and its rival is eating its dust. Typical British short term view.
Rolls Royce aero , a company with hugely complex processes and a long term business cycle . It hasnt been managed that well and its prodcuts are too often questioned. What do they do bring in a CEO whose mantra is" I believe that our commitment to the four C's; customer, concentration, cost and cash, will help us to achieve our vision of better power for a changing world. Our business priorities are to deliver on the promises we have made, decide where to growth and where not to, and to improve our financial performance"...I dont see much mention of product quality and reliability and engineering and R&D expertise -he also cut 2,500 jonbs as a first step.
These people are handing what remains of western Industry to China on a plate complementing the insane outsourcing boom of the last 25 years. Which ahs given expertise and funding to China and other mostly Asian countries everything needed to out compete the west and reduce huge numbers of US and other western citizens to wage slaves in low tech low pay and no future jobs. And we have seen where that lies in terms of politics as these people are exploited yet again by those claiming to stand up for them
You are right on target with what you say . what has happened to Boeing exists right across much of America and the UK, complex companies/entities run largely by peopel who understand little but Money and the purely commercial side of a business. The UK has ittle left in the way of manufacturing Airbus Uk is owned by France Germany and Spain, the British shareholder BAe systems ina a momne tof short termist idiocy sold their shre becuase they could make more money in defence, ie swindling the UK tax payer and giving dubious foreign governments incentives to buy their products. Eighteen years on Airbus is the biggest airliner manufacturer by far and its rival is eating its dust. Typical British short term view.
Rolls Royce aero , a company with hugely complex processes and a long term business cycle . It hasnt been managed that well and its prodcuts are too often questioned. What do they do bring in a CEO whose mantra is" I believe that our commitment to the four C's; customer, concentration, cost and cash, will help us to achieve our vision of better power for a changing world. Our business priorities are to deliver on the promises we have made, decide where to growth and where not to, and to improve our financial performance"...I dont see much mention of product quality and reliability and engineering and R&D expertise -he also cut 2,500 jonbs as a first step.
These people are handing what remains of western Industry to China on a plate complementing the insane outsourcing boom of the last 25 years. Which ahs given expertise and funding to China and other mostly Asian countries everything needed to out compete the west and reduce huge numbers of US and other western citizens to wage slaves in low tech low pay and no future jobs. And we have seen where that lies in terms of politics as these people are exploited yet again by those claiming to stand up for them
As a fellow Brit, who has seen manufacturing and finance close up, I'd agree with all of that. We still have the universities and potential innovation, but the City ensures that it never develops into anything substantial.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ pax britanica: the concept of " neo liberalism" s still very much the mantra of many CEOs, and what I believe still taught in major Universities, from MBAs to advanced economical studies. Return on investment within the shortest possible time has caused many casualties.
The current European solar panels fiasco is another example of short term vision and costs being the only factor . . A Couple of years ago most European Governments helped new companies to create and produce high quality solar panels, arguing they would need millions to meet the EU emissions targets. Some did believe them , invested in and built such factories. . Since last year China is bombarding us with cheap heavily subsidized relatively good quality solar panels, for half the price of those produced in the European factories. Old school would have reacted by raising import duties to make Chinese products the same price as those locally produced to maintain jobs and expertise plus production autonomy . No instead , the pure "economic" argument" won , : cheap panels are what people need so let's close the brand new local factories and let's buy Chinese. .
No long term vison, just immediate profits .
Boeing management is not an exception in following that logic, this is unfortunately the world today.
The current European solar panels fiasco is another example of short term vision and costs being the only factor . . A Couple of years ago most European Governments helped new companies to create and produce high quality solar panels, arguing they would need millions to meet the EU emissions targets. Some did believe them , invested in and built such factories. . Since last year China is bombarding us with cheap heavily subsidized relatively good quality solar panels, for half the price of those produced in the European factories. Old school would have reacted by raising import duties to make Chinese products the same price as those locally produced to maintain jobs and expertise plus production autonomy . No instead , the pure "economic" argument" won , : cheap panels are what people need so let's close the brand new local factories and let's buy Chinese. .
No long term vison, just immediate profits .
Boeing management is not an exception in following that logic, this is unfortunately the world today.
@ pax britanica: the concept of " neo liberalism" s still very much the mantra of many CEOs, and what I believe still taught in major Universities, from MBAs to advanced economical studies. Return on investment within the shortest possible time has caused many casualties.
The current European solar panels fiasco is another example of short term vision and costs being the only factor . . A Couple of years ago most European Governments helped new companies to create and produce high quality solar panels, arguing they would need millions to meet the EU emissions targets. Some did believe them , invested in and built such factories. . Since last year China is bombarding us with cheap heavily subsidized relatively good quality solar panels, for half the price of those produced in the European factories. Old school would have reacted by raising import duties to make Chinese products the same price as those locally produced to maintain jobs and expertise plus production autonomy . No instead , the pure "economic" argument" won , : cheap panels are what people need so let's close the brand new local factories and let's buy Chinese. .
No long term vison, just immediate profits .
Boeing management is not an exception in following that logic, this is unfortunately the world today.
The current European solar panels fiasco is another example of short term vision and costs being the only factor . . A Couple of years ago most European Governments helped new companies to create and produce high quality solar panels, arguing they would need millions to meet the EU emissions targets. Some did believe them , invested in and built such factories. . Since last year China is bombarding us with cheap heavily subsidized relatively good quality solar panels, for half the price of those produced in the European factories. Old school would have reacted by raising import duties to make Chinese products the same price as those locally produced to maintain jobs and expertise plus production autonomy . No instead , the pure "economic" argument" won , : cheap panels are what people need so let's close the brand new local factories and let's buy Chinese. .
No long term vison, just immediate profits .
Boeing management is not an exception in following that logic, this is unfortunately the world today.
Classical example, it is POSSIBLE to grow olive trees in the South West of England but it is better to let the e.g. Iberian peninsular do this while England focuses on growing apples for which the climate and geography gives a comparative advantage.
The extent to which European economies have tranferred resrouces from solar panel production to e.g. software writing (where there is, allegedly, an advantage) is moot. However, protectionism is rarely a long term solution.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This, though, is not neo-liberal econimics but classical economic theory: it is not good for an economy to be using resources making things when they can be made (and then purchased) using less resource elsewhere - an economy is then able to use the resources freed up to make things the OTHER economy cannot.
Classical example, it is POSSIBLE to grow olive trees in the South West of England but it is better to let the e.g. Iberian peninsular do this while England focuses on growing apples for which the climate and geography gives a comparative advantage.
The extent to which European economies have tranferred resrouces from solar panel production to e.g. software writing (where there is, allegedly, an advantage) is moot. However, protectionism is rarely a long term solution.
Classical example, it is POSSIBLE to grow olive trees in the South West of England but it is better to let the e.g. Iberian peninsular do this while England focuses on growing apples for which the climate and geography gives a comparative advantage.
The extent to which European economies have tranferred resrouces from solar panel production to e.g. software writing (where there is, allegedly, an advantage) is moot. However, protectionism is rarely a long term solution.
Protectionism reflects an unwillingness or inability to integrate sectors of economies so as to account for sets of larger, broader and more impactful developments. Consider space programs and technologies as an example. Economic activities across many sectors have become more and more dependent on satellite systems. But space technology deployments and utilization transcend both literal and conceptual demarcation of national borders and national economies. Protecting a given country's space technology sector would be ineffective (perhaps laughably so) given the almost complete detachment of space - Earth orbit - from the physical and geographic frame of reference for protectionism. Now throw in cybersecurity threats (borders relatively unimportant), the rise of AI constantly trumpeted in media of all sorts, add some cryptocurrency issues, and the frame of reference for "protecting" industrial and technological capacities and know-how looks pretty outdated.
Sorry (not sorry) to go all pedantic.... this SLF/attorney holds no portfolio for "globalization." I think wrenching reform (drastic changes) of educational systems is an absolute necessity. I happen to think that study and appreciation of foreign languages is a critical component, one that is receiving too little attention. If that makes this viewpoint "globalist", first of all, what do you see when you look toward the Earth's center from the ISS in LEO (maybe, ....."the globe"??) and second, Ja, Flugplatz.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting discussion . . I am not at all an encomiast nor I have the pretention to know this area very well , my point was indeed on the long term , and return to investment strategies , putting short term gains before strategy.. My solar panels example was perhaps wrongly chosen bur reflects our times. Sustainable energy is a Government long term objective , solar panels availability is one of the key elements, on which your future depends. Maninthebar , I get you point about olive oil or apples production but those are not essential activities , Aviation and sustainable energies are, and Governments , just like Boeing BOD decide the way forward, not the " markets".. In the solar panels issue , depending 100% on China for an essential activity, just because it make short term economical benefit will backfire one day . mark my words. . Just like it does now with 5G or the medical drugs production in Europe.
and I fully agree with WR 6-3 that the length of the "term" is getting shorter every day.
@WR 6 -3 : On the of borders protectionism , indeed in the XXIst century that notion has been blurred by the combination of space based essential services and over-reliance on internet based activities, Cloud- based storage of data and even banking activities. Those know no borders indeed , and in Civil aviation Traffic management ( my area of expertise) the words " sovereign States " has lost a lot of its original meaning since 1944 when it was first used to draw ICAO convention.
\
Boeing used to be a pure US Company competing with a few foreign manufacturers during many years . Today Airbus ,their main competitor, is a multinational whose production is in 4 different countries and its headquarters in a 5th one. , same for ATR on the turboprop front.. The notion of protectionism by one State against another is blurred .and frankly useless. If Boeing fails , the US airlines will have not much choice to buy Airbus , at any price.
On the Space front, another area I am learning a little bit about everyday , the so called " new entrants" and the future upcoming wars will soon completely change the existing rules.. The current militarization of space could make essential satellites services depending on the good will of a single State. The Government of that State might not be a friend of your own .The notion of borders and sovereignty will be completely gone on that field
I do hope Boeing survives this , it is in our common interest it does .
.
and I fully agree with WR 6-3 that the length of the "term" is getting shorter every day.
@WR 6 -3 : On the of borders protectionism , indeed in the XXIst century that notion has been blurred by the combination of space based essential services and over-reliance on internet based activities, Cloud- based storage of data and even banking activities. Those know no borders indeed , and in Civil aviation Traffic management ( my area of expertise) the words " sovereign States " has lost a lot of its original meaning since 1944 when it was first used to draw ICAO convention.
\
Boeing used to be a pure US Company competing with a few foreign manufacturers during many years . Today Airbus ,their main competitor, is a multinational whose production is in 4 different countries and its headquarters in a 5th one. , same for ATR on the turboprop front.. The notion of protectionism by one State against another is blurred .and frankly useless. If Boeing fails , the US airlines will have not much choice to buy Airbus , at any price.
On the Space front, another area I am learning a little bit about everyday , the so called " new entrants" and the future upcoming wars will soon completely change the existing rules.. The current militarization of space could make essential satellites services depending on the good will of a single State. The Government of that State might not be a friend of your own .The notion of borders and sovereignty will be completely gone on that field
I do hope Boeing survives this , it is in our common interest it does .
.
I don't think I'm "underselling" Condit - I'm sure he was quite a good engineer (I didn't actually know the guy, although I knew one of his wives quite well - worked with her for years). The problem was he was a shining example of the "Peter Principle" in action. Worse, even though he was way over his head as CEO, he still thought he was the smartest guy in the room and didn't need to listen to differing opinions. He decided to turn Boeing into a huge conglomerate - years after that path had fallen out of favor - and in building his empire hugely overpaid for the various companies that Boeing acquired under his watch. It takes a special kind of mindset to buy another company for billions, only to turn around and write off half it's value six months later. Even more special is the ability to then make the same mistake repeatedly. This finally culminating with the MacDac merger (worked out in a hotel room over a weekend with almost no expert input) - not realizing that 'buying' closely held MacDac with Boeing stock would turn MacDac into the largest shareholders is the 'new' Boeing and hence putting MacDac in charge of the merged company.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard it said many times in context of the airline business. Regardless, bitterly and ironically true as applied to what once was Boeing's treasure of engineering preeminence and excellence, and pioneering innovation.
MacDac with Boeing stock would turn MacDac into the largest shareholders is the 'new' Boeing and hence putting MacDac in charge of the merged company
That logo started as the logo of Douglas Aircraft Company. It was modified by McDonnell and then again by Boeing. Are you saying that DAC is the boss? Boeing killed everything that DAC was building except the C-17.
Last edited by EXDAC; 4th Apr 2024 at 15:11.
Like MANY (all?) here, I am more than concerned about the direction a company which I, as a Brit, tended to "worship" in years gone by, but sorry to say nomess, your post is about as sensible and logical as all the absolute rubbish which is published by the world press (and TV) etc, as soon as they manage to see the name Boeing.
What was MacDac still building as far as commercial aircraft when they merged? The MD-11 was all but OOP, as was the MD-90. The MD-95/717 was still in development/cert at the time, it wasn't exactly selling well, and it turned out (like the MD-11 and MD-90) to not be a particularly good aircraft when it finally hit the streets. Worse, the 'growth' versions of the MD-95/717 that MacDac had been counting on would have been redundant to the 737-600/700, so it made no economic sense to invest more money on something that would have been competition to something that was already certified and in-production.
If there had been strong demand for the MD-95/717 after it went into service, they would have kept building it. There wasn't, so they didn't.
If the post-merger company (with ex-MacDac execs largely in charge) thought that the MD-95/717 was going to become the cash cow that the MD-80 became, it would have stayed in production (it's not like the similarly sized 737-600 was a big seller either).
The truth is that the MD-80 was the only MacDac or Douglas commercial jet that ever ended up mading money - the DC-8, legacy DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, and MD-90 didn't even break even.
Anyway - back to why Boeing can't make aircraft anymore.
From the old times :
"The ideal aircraft would be ...
- Designed by Lockheed
- Built by Boeing
- Have Sales & Marketing by McDonnell Douglas.
Shame how Boeing dropped the ball on their onetime specialist area.
"The ideal aircraft would be ...
- Designed by Lockheed
- Built by Boeing
- Have Sales & Marketing by McDonnell Douglas.
Shame how Boeing dropped the ball on their onetime specialist area.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Reuters, yesterday: