United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7411 times:
After what happened today and from all the people I do know at Boeing I have came across a prediction about Boeing. That is I think in 10-20 years time Boeing will start to end all of it's commercial aircraft unit and focus only on defense and space. There will be still a maker of jets but just won't be a part of Boeing anymore. I've been reading that right now Boeing is only making two percent of commercial aircraft sales and really does not see a market it for it in the next 10-20 years.
I think with the way things are going at Boeing unless we get more executives up there that are from the "old Boeing" we will see Boeing only as a defense and space company. Think about it all the highest executives jobs at Boeing now are pretty much old McDonnell Douglas workers and defense and space was there game.
Also think 10-20 years from now. We are going to see way more countries out there making new jets. Not just USA, France (Europe), Canada or Brazil. We will see China, Japan and even India.
It looks like Airbus is here to stay ahead of Boeing when it comes to commercial jets. I think the 757/767 should have been cancelled in like 1999-2000.
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1689 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7350 times:
No I don't agree...not a market? Please. Like Boeing is going to hand the 737 seat market on a silver platter to Airbus, China or even India? Not going to happen. As for the 747, a replacement is going to be needed and most airlines are not going to opt for the A380. They've will also probably develop a new kind of 737-900 to replace the 757. The next 20 years look bright for Boeing in the commercial sector.
Also, don't forget, whether airlines are Airbus or Boeing customers, the airlines will demand Boeings existance when it comes to price stability for these new planes. India, China and Japan also don't have the proven safety record, or brand for that matter to move in on share if Boeing were gone. I.E. every airline would build 90% of its fleet around Airbus if that happened. Why would Boeing allow this?
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5481 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7265 times:
I don't agree, either. For one thing, a lot of airlines don't care for Airbus aircraft. A friend of mine who is a commercial pilot calls them Scarebuses, because they are automated to the point that the plane second guesses the pilot. He won't fly one.
Second, people have been writing obituaries for Boeing for years. The 747 was supposed to be a white elephant after the energy crisis of 1973. The plane is still in production.
After EA got Boeing to stretch the 757 to 180 seats in a two-class configuration, it was supposed to be a white elephant, too. But for the 737-900, it would probably continue in production until the 7E7 flies.
Boeing's problem isn't that Airbus builds better aircraft. The problem is that Boeing answers to shareholder who want to see earnings growth. That means selling planes at prices that return a profit. Since Airbus is owned by European governments, its focus is on production, regardless how little profit is made on each plane.
Third, what drove Phil Conditt to resign was all of the problems on the millitary side of the business, both aircraft and satallite launches.
Considering that the 7E7 is more efficient than the A330, and the A380 has a parking problem (see the forum on space problems at LAX), Boeing is in a very good position.
FlyLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 154 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7249 times:
Look people. Boeing isn't going anywhere. For all of you who seem to be happy to think that will happen are just flat out wrong. Boeing is here to stay. Airbus WILL not put them out of the commercial aircraft business period. Don't even ask me to back up this statement with facts because you all should know them by now. The industry needs and wants Boeing and will continue to for years to come. Boeing may be in trouble at the moment but that will soon change. For those of you who think Airbus wins; you're wrong again. Airbus is just ahead right now, but will soon change as well. So please, enough with all this "Boeing is finished" crap.
737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 378 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7129 times:
Re:"Boeing is only making two percent of commercial aircraft sales and really does not see a market it for it in the next 10-20 years".
Where did you come up with that figure? Last I saw Boeing and Airbus have an almost even split of the over 100 seat market. It might not be the 60-70% it had in the Eighties but it's still alot. The 737 and 777 are doing just fine and of course the 7E7 is just on the horizon to replace the 757 and 767.
As far as other countries go the only way it can be done (as was proven by Airbus) is if their governments spend billions of Dollars in subsidies and force their national airlines to purchase those aircraft (like Russia). The japanese have so far been stoped in this ambition by becoming major sub-contractors for Boeing, and I don't see them changing this arangement in the near future as it looks like they will be working on the 7E7.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7055 times:
I think the only thing that would put Boeing out of the business would be a serious 3rd player. If it were not for Airbus and Lockheed, Mcdonald Douglas would still be in the business. Otherwise they could go down to 40 or even 30 percent but could nevertheless keep a viable product line. The commercial jetliner business will grow in time, and there will be plenty of room for two competitors.
Profit margin does not mean much without volume, and vice versa. Also, you have to look at the total profit of a given business over several economic cycles. Commercial airplanes look bad relative to defense now simply becuase the economy has been down and because of the 9/11 related wars. Go back about five years and the exact opposite was the case - commercial markets were more lucrative. In fact, people were then pointing out the huge advantage Boeing had over Lockheed Martin in surviving the defense drawdown - it had a commercial business to fall back on.
Boeing will not willingly stop being competitive in the commercial aircraft market. That is certain. What is NOT certain is whether Boeing's executives (particularily the notorious Stonecipher) are willing to see that you have to be willing to take risks and make new products in order to stay competitive. Boeing is very innovative on the drawing board but has a mortal fear of actually cutting metal. Everyone fears screwing up and then getting blamed and punished by others who never would have had the courage to try themselves. This is a very government-like attitude - and I suspect it comes from having to deal with the government so much. In this respect, Boeing's defense business may actually be a disadvantage. It gets the whole company used to doing things by way of delay, beauracracy and politics - it creates a culture where PROPOSING things is thought of as brilliant but DOING things usually gets punished.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6946 times:
I will agree considering the current market projections state more for regionals, they just might take over the market by then. I'm guessing Airbus will try to compete with Boing wherever they go.
I am sure it will not happen with 10-20 years, that is too soon, maybe 50-70 years down the line. By then there should be a market for extreme transportation systems that would make everything we see as giant taxis.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 69
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6924 times:
Ckfred, that has to be one of the most ridiculous posts that I've read in quite a while...
First of all, Airbusses do not "second guess" the pilot - that's an old cliche that was "created" after there were some accidents/incidents with pilots who were not fully used to flying Airbusses: ask some pilots who actually fly them (because I doubt that your friend flies one) - they'll tell you what they're actually like...
Second of all, do you live in the 1980s? Check the facts - Airbus is not owned by European Governments - it is owned by EADS and British Aerospace (or however they call themselves these days).
Other than that, I can only agree with the general sentiment here: the market wants more than one manufacturer of large aircraft, Boeing - just as Airbus - isn't going anywhere.
United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6921 times:
I like some of your guys response! Honestly though I've been talking to some Boeing workers here in Seattle and I got a lot of my information from them. What I really tried to say or I guess I put some stuff in the wrong way. What I really tried to say is that I don't see 737,747,777 and 7E7 under the Boeing name in a few years. I think the commerical group will be it's own company all together.
Hey by the way for some of you people. Dude this is a public forum and I understand if some of you don't agree with me but dude if you want to say stuff back to me stay back from the personal stuff. Anything else is fine with me.
Clickhappy - Dude thanks a lot, that's what I meant to say!
Shenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1717 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6873 times:
As everyone in this forum knows, you either bring new products to the market place, or risk the chance of being pushed out.
Boeing is at a cross roads with their product line. If they invest in the 7E7, which I personally see them doing, this will probably be the start of a new line of products that will see them through the foreseeable future.
In a few years time, Airbus will be at this same cross road, and will also need to make some major decisions on revamping their entire product line (less the A380). If they decide to make incremental changes, like what they did with the A340, in 10 years, they could be in the same boat as Boeing is today.
The major difference in the future, Airbus can not rely on the EU to finance 100 percent of the development costs, as they did with Airbus' current product line. This will make the future decisions much harder then their past.
Hopefully, everyone will continue to succeed, because many families rely on both these fine companies for their welfare.
Gamarocchi From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 6778 times:
I think also that the current few years are really important for Boeing's
survival in the civil aviation business. My idea is that they have been
cutting too many product lines already, for example I think cutting the 757
is overkill and if they also cut the 747 I think they are halfway through
going out of business. I sincerely hope their sales can pick up cause I
think having AT LEAST two strong aircraft manufacturers is good for us in
general, as it can keep the price of aircrafts (and consequently, travel)
down. But I think they are basing too much of their planning on temporary
issues. It is not a good idea to cut a product line or a factory just
because the economy is weak, bringing the product back once the economy
recovers will be more expensive probably than it would have been just
keeping it alive even if it does not sell. I think in this American
companies are a little short sighted because usually immediate return is
favored rather than sound investments in the future. I think this is a lot
relevant to the Toyota/GM confrontation (even more than to the Boeing/Airbus
Vimanav From India, joined Jul 2003, 1528 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6482 times:
Every company has a lifespan which is cyclical in nature. Failure to improvise or adapt to market requirements would well mean the death knell of the company. Boeing is in neither of these stage, though its going through a difficult phase.
As we look at newer and leaner managment systems, it is not difficult to visualize a Boeing Airplane Co. which hives off its Commercial Airplanes as a separate company altogether. Yes they have been kind of upstaged by the Europeans, but let's not forget that they make darned good planes. The 737 line may safely be expected to remain in production until at least 2012. Ditto for the B777. It's too early to comment on the 7E7 though but given Boeing's track record, its unlikely that this programme would not be a success. Let us not forget that highly capital intensive industries like aviation are particularly prone to heavy political lobbying and therefore there will still be a very large number of customers globally who may want Airbus aircraft but will still opt for Boeing due to political pressures.
As for the aircraft manufacturing industries of other nations go, let's not forget that the Americans and Europeans have decades of a headstart as compared to the other nations in the so called race, Japan, China, Brazil and India. Even the Russians who have a pretty strong aviation lineage are hard pressed to produce an aircraft that can be a global success in the twenty first century. I'd give 50+ years to the countries above (except Brazil) before they have an aircraft manufacturing industry which can be even remotely equal to the Americans or the Europeans.
I however do not discount the possibility of one of these nations probably discovering an alternate fuel / energy source which may revolutionize the current tried and tested modes of fuelling transportation much sooner than 2020. After all necessity is the mother of invention.
Sarfaroshi kii tamannaa ab hamaare dil mein hai, Dekhnaa hai zor kitnaa baazu-e-qaatil mein hai
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6471 times:
leskova ROFLMFAO...that is the only thing that remains to be said to the likes of ckfred...knows nothing, understands nothing, remembers old nonsenical posts from earlier on, hears only rumours and then only half of it, and then posts the whole mixture as a strightforward factual statement....oh well...
just a few thoughts:
1. It would be desastrous if Boeing went out of business. We call such a situation a monopoly, and trust me, nobody wants that, not even Airbus!!! (Think of the situation on the chip markets, Intel and AMD...Intel would be horrified if AMD went out of business).
2. Why would they do go out of business? They account for about half the aircraft sales worldwide, and Airbus is not willing to push up capacities to take away further sales from Boeing, that would be deadly in terms of risk!
3. I wouldn't give too much credibility to the statements of "workers", there's a reason why they are workers and not top management, and they certainly do not have access to all the info necessary to give judgement.
4. Even the stupidest management will after some time recognize strategic mistakes and adjust to it. Customers will buy even me-too products just to put an end to any sort of monopoly.
Gamarocchi From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6320 times:
Andreas, it is very true what you say. In fact Airbus does not WANT to have more than 60% of the market, one reason is to avoid causing commercial troubles between Europe and America as Boeing going down would surely become a political issue in America. Anyway about monopolies... Microsoft for instance does not mind being one in the consumer market (and don't tell me about Apple, in the CONSUMER market it is practically non existant.. as for Linux, maybe in the future but..) and actually they seem to do what they can to remain one.
It will be humiliating anyway to Boeing if they were to shut down the 747 and 717 programs. And you could foresee a future where a third contender from Brazil or China or Russia comes up and then things would become really bad. Even if I think maybe in 20 years there will be traffic enough to sustain three aircraft makers again...
B747FAN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6281 times:
Do you actually believe that the US Govt will allow a huge company like Boeing to fold, or cease production of commercial aircrafts. Impossible. Just like they bailed out General Motors, and the major airlines they will do so for Boeing if the time comes. Not to mention, Boeing's alliances with Japan, China and numerous other countries who have a significant part in aircraft manufacturing. Boeing may be a US company, but its infrastructure is definately global. And like some of you have stated above, there are numerous development plans on the drawing board. Boeing engineers are definately looking into the future and experimenting with revolutionary materials and energy sources and futuristic concepts way past the 7E7. The first thing they teach you in business school, "If you sit still, the world will pass you by."
) He turns not back who is bound to a star. - Leonardo Da Vinci.
Andreas From Germany, joined Oct 2001, 6104 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6223 times:
Gamarocchi: It is correct what you say, I probably created a misunderstanding in my post: Of course everybody strives to be number one on their respective world markets, but NOT WITHOUT at least an existing competitor, whoever it is, because of the problems that would create (even Microsoft does recognise this in the meantime, maybe not Mr. Gates, but the rest of the gang seems to understand ).
CanadianNorth From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3406 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6144 times:
The 777 is coming along nicely.
The 737NG is doing just fine.
The 7E7 is on the way down the pipe.
Boeing has way more than 2% of the 100 seat market.
Safety and efficiency will go down and prices up at Airbus if Boeing goes.
The U.S. government probably will do something to try to keep Boeing in the bizz.
Most airlines like the Boeings.
BOEING IS HERE TO STAY!
Gamarocchi From Italy, joined Nov 2003, 198 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6123 times:
Andreas I do agree with you. In fact I think some Microsoft people were embarassed by Bill Gates some times, as they know at the very end it is best for Microsoft to have some competition.
As for Boeing I do hope the 7E7 is a big success,but especially I do hope traffic picks up nicely and airlines start again showing big profits. I would like a lot if they made a nice new 747 ADV, as I think the 380 is not nice looking (still an impressive aircraft though!).
CitationX From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6045 times:
It would be nice if the US government decided to force the major aerospace conglomerates such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman United Technologies and L-3 Communications to break up. Since the mergers of the 1990s we have seen gross mismanagement, a total lack of cost and schedule control, a stagnation of technological innovation, massive layoffs, and serious ethical scandals in the aerospace/defense business.
If Boeing exits the commercial airliner business, it will have a poisonous impact on the United States balance of trade. It is in our national interest to have a major presence in this business in the future. One way to insure this is to force Boeing to spin off the commercial airplane business into a separate company or get DQ'ed when bidding for future defense contracts (that should get Stoney's attention!).
ILoveORD From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 220 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5829 times:
I don't agree either.
Who the hell are you to be posting predictions about the future of Boeing's Commercial division? Unless you're an analyst at Goldman (which I highly doubt) and/or company observer, why don't you the spare the rest of us members and help get rid of rid of these kind of b/s forums so we can all have one less line to skim over in the forum index, please.
"I think," "I think," "I think," yeah, yeah, so you say; put up some charts, graphs, tables, data, etc. to back up your claims before making such a prediction; or worse yet, "borrowing" somebody else's work/article (see link below); yeah, you've been reading; next time cite your sources. Rule #8 in discussion forum terms and conditions: "If you have something to say, please do so; however be sure to mention your sources, perhaps with an HTML link or reference to a publication. If you are merely providing an opinion, please MENTION THIS in your post. We would like to avoid arguments based on rumors or misinformation."
If everybody started posting their own (unqualified, unfounded, and unintelligible) predictions, this place would be cluttered with utter nonsense (though it already is)....something you help to abate.
"Boeing is only making two percent of commercial aircraft sales and really does not see a market it for it in the next 10-20 years."
What? What are you talking about??: are you saying that only 2% of Boeing's sales are made by commercial aircraft or 2% of entire commercial aircraft sales are Boeing planes?? In either case, you're DEAD wrong!
According to Boeing Co. and charts offered by the Associated Press in many newspapers today, in the business section dealing with the Condit retirement, Boeing's 2002 sales and operating revenues were as follows:
Military aircraft and missile systems: 25%
Space and communications: 20%
Boeing capital corp. and other: 02%
Commercial airplanes: 52%
Yes, commercial aircraft sales account for more than half of Boeing total sales and operating revenues.
Yes, Boeing's annual sales have not dropped as significantly (and in case of 2002, higher sales than 2000) post 9/11 as some people would have you believe.
Additionally, if you mean to infer Boeing is only making 2% of total commercial sales, then you're wrong again. According to article below, Airbus has 50% of market share, then in a likelihood, Boeing has a good chunk (definitely more than 2%) of the other 50%; likely around 40 or so, accounting for smaller plane manufacturers, such as Saab, Embraer, etc.
Here's an article that deals with the issue at hand. I think we can all read it and then come up with our own, somewhat informed opinions...