Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Would Happen If Boeing Went Bye Bye?  
User currently offlineUSAir330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 820 posts, RR: 1
Posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3733 times:

If boeing went bankrupt or something like that would Airbus try and takeover or Lockheed?

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3714 times:

I don't think the government would allow Boeing to go bankrupt. Boeing supplies the gov't with transports, and fighters. Without Boeing, we would be F***ed.

User currently offlineNBC News1 From UK - England, joined May 2001, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3701 times:

Exactly. Boeing will go bankrupt when the U.S. govt goes bankrupt. And for that to happen, the world would be unimaginably different so we could never guess what would happen to Boeing's assets or if anyone would takeover.

User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3657 times:

If Boeing goes under, the whole industry is going under. Because when Boeing goes belly up, you know something is seriously the f**k wrong!


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3639 times:

Correct 766. The US Government might try to save parts of Boeing by facilitating the takeover of those parts (mainly the missile division and divisions producing spare parts) by other corporations but it won't inject unlimited funds into the company to keep it going.

What would happen after that is that the price of Airbus aircraft will skyrocket, the only reason they're selling them low gone forever.
That will have an adverse affect on ticket prices, reducing passenger volume and thus airline buying power.
That will reduce the number of aircraft Airbus can sell, reducing their profits and maybe meaning the end of them as well.
At the very least they'll slow down or stop new development (why innovate if there is no competition driving you to do so in order to stay or get ahead?).

Bye bye airliner industry.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3631 times:

"Bye bye airliner industry."

I disagree completely. In the short term, yeah, EVERYONE is going to eat it, just as if Airbus went down for good. Prices go up for planes, innovation slows down, ticket prices go up, etc.

However, in the long run, 5-10 years, a group of investors links up with parts of the old Boeing, and guys from MD, and from Lockheed, and gets going on a new design. Now, considering how capital intensive that is, might it take an existing aerospace company to fill the role? More than likely, HOWEVER, don't think anyone is going to stand on the sidelines with only one major aircraft manufacuter left, be it Boeing OR Airbus.

George



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (11 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3510 times:

...pigs might fly Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up
But seriously,given the US current stance on defence and US firms maybe they would let the Boeing commercial aircraft arm go but support the military side.


User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3486 times:

actually, if the government allowed Boeing to go under (which I doubt), I think that you would see Embraer and Bombardier stepping up to develop and produce larger aircraft.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3454 times:

I don't think Boeing are going to go bust. But many of the predictions above could still come true, all it would take would be for Boeing to stop the 7E7 project and they'd be out of the civil aviation business. And I don't think that's particularly unlikely, they need to reinvent themselves in every single civil market sector - the 737, 747, 757, 767 programmes are all basically winding down. The 747, 757 and 767 will be out of production within five years easy. Which leaves the last few orders for the 737NG and some 777 action. Which makes them little more than Lockheed circa 1981. They don't just need a 767 substitute (the 7E7), they need a new single-aisle line that is significantly more attractive than the A32X (which is asking a lot) and a VLA to rival the A380. Plus the 7E7. The US gov't are gonna have to lease a LOT of 767 tankers for a LOT of money for Boeing to be able to afford all that.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3422 times:

Boeing is worth far more as a going concern than it is as a collection of individual warehouses, ideas, offices, contracts, workshops, parts, and employees.

In the unlikely event that the government allowed the airliner side of Boeing to go bye bye (for a given value of bye bye), then much of it would be bought by creditors and would reappear in new, smaller firms; or as new arms of existing firms currently in the market; or maybe even an MBO.

In the very unlikely event that Boeing collapsed and nobody else took over airliner production, it's silly to claim that this would reduce airliner sales by other manufacturers.

(assuming that whatever caused Boeing to collapse is not a global factor, IE somebody inventing a teleporter machine)

What would happen after that is that the price of Airbus aircraft will skyrocket, the only reason they're selling them low gone forever.

True.
(Except insofar as other competitors appear at the edge of the market; IE RJs on steroids, or revitalised Tupolevs, or...)

That will have an adverse affect on ticket prices, reducing passenger volume and thus airline buying power.

True.

That will reduce the number of aircraft Airbus can sell, reducing their profits and maybe meaning the end of them as well.

False. You seem to be claiming that, if Airbus (or anybody else) had a monopoly, they would intentionally set their prices so high that their sales collapse.

Rather, Airbus (or anybody else) would enjoy bigger margins, and on higher sales than before - but lower than the total number of sales across all manufacturers before the collapse of Boeing.

At the very least they'll slow down or stop new development (why innovate if there is no competition driving you to do so in order to stay or get ahead?).

Possibly.
By that argument, Microsoft has little incentive to continue producing new versions of Windows and Office.  Big grin



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (11 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3410 times:

all it would take would be for Boeing to stop the 7E7 project and they'd be out of the civil aviation business
**********************

Huh ?, Boeing is still selling plenty of aircraft, but sales slowing are more or less directly attributal to the state of the US aviation industry. If an economic recovery happens, or just natural growth that will happen, you will see orders from American, Delta, Continental perhaps United, Northwest etc too.

As for your comment "Which leaves the last few orders for the 737NG and some 777 action"

They sold 147 737NG this week alone, never mind orders for 777 and 767 this week also.

If you look at the actual reports, Boeing is actually a profitable company even if you narrow them down to strictly airliners, not military equipment.

I can't believe that this sort of nonsense gets this far


User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3389 times:

Boeing is actually a profitable company even if you narrow them down to strictly airliners, not military equipment.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes lost $112m in the first quarter, surely?



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3377 times:


Boeing Commercial Airplanes lost $112m in the first quarter, surely?


Is that before or after taxes? Did you take money set aside for 7E7 development into account?
Money paid out to close outstanding loans which reduces cash reserves in return for reducing expidenture in the future?

Just a single number never tells the whole story.
And a loss like that in a single quarter of a year in which the entire industry is in a deep down isn't too bad given the multi-billion dollar market they are in.
One good quarter and they're recouped that loss, and if the reasons I mentioned are part cause for the loss than cost in the next quarters should be lower thus profitability more likely.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineArtsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3358 times:

A company needs to be profitable over the full year in order to be considered profitable. Therefore one quarter of losses followed by three quarters of profits will often make a profitable year.

It is just as inaccurate for me to say that Boeing sold 145 odd 737ng last week making a profit of x million, and then multiplying that weekly total out and suggesting that this is the picture for every week.

Airlines also traditionally lose money in the first quarter when travel is low (Jan-March) and then make profits in the summer that hopefully override the earlier losses....


User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (11 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Is that before or after taxes? Did you take money set aside for 7E7 development into account?
Money paid out to close outstanding loans which reduces cash reserves in return for reducing expidenture in the future?


That's an operating figure (and unaudited), and does not include new aircraft development ($157m in the same quarter, should get bigger) or the $341 goodwill impairment charge.

Of course, if you're interested in any other details, it's probably easier to dig around in http://www.boeing.com and let us know the results.

All this is rather academic anyway. Boeing (commercial aircraft) may not be in perfect health right now, but they're hardly about to go bankrupt.

To answer the original question; anti-monopoly measures would usually prevent another airliner manufacturer taking over Boeing; and in any case the Bush administration would never allow it to be taken over by foreigners. Airliners are, err, a strategic resource. Or they're potential weapons. Or something like that.  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 3323 times:

The US government let MDD fail and Lockheed exit.

User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

MDD failed as a business, but they didn't disappear from the market; Boeing is still producing the 717, and other (non-airliner) MDD products closer to the government's heart.

If Boeing (now having digested MDD) were to go down the same path that MDD did, what would happen? It would be more difficult finding another business that could swallow Boeing whole without either choking on it, or being labelled a monopoly.

Personally, I think the appearance of 2 or 3 BabyBoeings is more likely. This is all wild speculation, though.  Smile

If boeing went bankrupt or something like that would Airbus try and takeover or Lockheed?
If there were a straight takeover, I'd gamble on GE. What odds? 5:1?  Smile



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (11 years 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3181 times:

Airbus has a couple months where they sell a couple more airliners than Boeing.

Gee I don't remember people were going to say that Ford was going to go out of business in 1994 when Dodge came out with the Ram and was actually outselling the F-150 for a couple of months.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

I don't think the government would allow Boeing to go bankrupt. Boeing supplies the gov't with transports, and fighters. Without Boeing, we would be F***ed.
---

Correction. Without Boeing's factories, engineers, workers, etc. we would be F***ed. We are not that dependent on Boeing the corporate entity, Boeing's management team, or Boeing stockholders. All of the above are completely replaceable, and the government knows it. If any or all of them were to disappear others could be easily found - in fact, Boeing truly irreplaceable assets will be used by someone simply because they are so irreplaceable and valuable. If the government gets nervous about them leaving the country, they can do something about that if they need to.

It is all to often easy to forget that companies, in and of themselves, are mere paper entities. It is their assets and people that matter. Big corporate failures matter, but they matter less than people think. The underlying economic strength or weakness of an industry, the demand for its products, and the free-market value (or lack of value) of its assets are not changed by a corporate failure - unless such a failure creates a monopoly. At least, it does not change things in the long term.


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3047 times:

I thought I had heard just about everything.....

Boeing could buy EADS for less then what it would cost to develop the 7e7. What is the market cap.... 7 billion, where Boeing is close to 30 biillion.

Best performing airplanes for Boeing
737NG, 777

Best performing for Airbus
A320, A330-200

What is the difference? Didn't Boeing sell more 747s last year then Airbus sold A380s. A simple stretch and update of the 747, to say 450 pass will keep it around for some time. Just need to make a little bigger so that it isn't competeing with the 777-300.

A340-600 isn't really big enough to compete with the 747, it is more closer in size to a 777-200, if you considered the sq. feet of the cabin.



User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2964 times:


Shenzhen,

If EADS' market cap was one euro, Boeing still couldnt' buy it due to regulatory reasons.

And I sincerely doubt that Boeing sold more 747s last year than Airbus did 380s. I'm not sure about that but you could do well to dig up the relevant numbers. And regarding the 747 stretch, Boeing already tried that and it flopped.



User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2830 times:

Joni,

Yes, we all know that a takeover wouldn't be allowed, I just wanted to get across what the market place values Boeing versus EADS, and I think it worked.

Regarding 747-400s order last year........ 17
How about A380s................................ 10

You watch and see, Boeing will launch an updated 747, won't be as big as was proposed a couple years ago, just a bit bigger so that it is firmly between the A380-800 and 777-300. Once the engines are developed for the 7e7, we'll see them on a 747 with maybe a new wing, maybe a 3-4 meter stretch, and new systems that are more common with the new 7e7/777.


User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (11 years 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2686 times:

In the future, the best way would be if Boeing / Airbus got together.
Then nothing would threaten them.
What do U think?

Michael/SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (11 years 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Solnabo-

That's called a monopoly. Innovation is stiffled, prices go up, quality generally down, all becuase they can, and everyone has to live with it.

See: Microsoft Windows.

George



They're not handing trophies out today
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Would Happen If Oil Hit $65? posted Thu Feb 24 2005 23:25:02 by WGW2707
What Would Happen If AA Did This? posted Wed Aug 13 2003 16:43:08 by Atcboy73
What Would Happen If... posted Wed Feb 28 2001 01:34:36 by KLMBlue
What Would Happen To Awac If UAL Went... posted Wed Mar 12 2003 23:48:53 by Douglas DC-9
What Would Happen To Skymiles If DL Was Gone? posted Thu Mar 16 2006 21:57:02 by DLX737200
What Would Happen To SLC If DL And NW Merge posted Wed Jan 11 2006 16:45:49 by BestWestern
What If Boeing Went In The RJ Market? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 02:04:02 by 797
What Would Happen To Concorde If........ posted Wed Nov 7 2001 12:05:59 by VS744
What Would Happen To This Pilot? (video) posted Mon Aug 21 2006 07:03:10 by Alberchico
What Will Happen If LCC's Formed Alliances? posted Mon Apr 17 2006 11:50:54 by EK156