Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing, Boeing...Gone: Titan Clipped Its Own Wings  
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9518 times:



Boeing, Boeing ... Gone
How an American titan clipped its own wings

By Eamonn Fingleton
January 31, 2005
The American Conservative

One evening a generation ago, several up-and-coming aerospace executives gathered to commune with the Boeing's chief executive, Thorton Wilson. The discussion turned to Boeing's vaunted expertise in making aircraft wings. Wilson evidently came across as boastful - so much so that a young General Electric executive named Harry Stonecipher suggested that Boeing was arrogant. "And rightly so," came Wilson's serene reply.

The exchange, which was recorded in Fortune magazine a few years ago, is worth recalling partly for what has happened to Stonecipher in the meantime - and partly for what has happened to Boeing.

In a remarkable twist of fate, Stonecipher now fills Wilson's old job at Boeing. But whereas the Boeing that Wilson led in the 1970s utterly dominated the skies, today's Boeing is another matter. Its once masterful technological leadership is gone and, in an orgy of indiscrimante outsourcing, Stonecipher is presiding over the destruction of what remains of Boeing's erstwhile manufacturing greatness - not least the world-beating wing business that was the apple of Wilson's eye.


A fairly comprehensive and detailed article that postulates how Boeing has fallen to No. 2, why it won't be able to regain its former greatness, and why that is very detrimental to America. Unfortunately, the 6-page article is not available on-line. However, if you don't want to get depressed, I suggest that you don't go out and buy it!

As indicated in the extract above, and the one following, the article does not reflect positively on Boeing's recent management....

Boeing's top management has presided over one of the most lamentable downsizing programs in American corporate history. Not only has the Boeing group cut 77,000 jobs in the last 7 years, but it has euthanized its research and development - all this while spending $10-billion to "enhance shareholder value" in a buy-back of one-sixth of its outstanding stock.

The title says it clearly: How an American titan clipped its own wings


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9355 times:

I dunno, sounds to me like it's been spending an awful lot on R&D. I'm not just referring to the 787.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMidway2airtran From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 864 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9161 times:

Let me now admit that I have wasted five minutes of my life reading this material, still trying to keep my mind open! Just don't personally agree with it. Should have judged it by the title of the publication. Outsourcing is the best thing that has ever happend for US companies, I personally come from a family of business owners and a employee myself so I am very aware of both sides of the story. It helps to create more wealth within the US in the way of savings and future expansion for the US COMPANY while creating opportunity for new wealth for the countries doing the work. Things are changing quickly so people here have to change their thinking or get left out on the street. Yes, extreme comments and hard truth, but that is true capitalism, the information age and the Global economy! Oh, by the way, Airbus also makes jobs for us here the US too.

As for Boeings "ignorant" stance, they are a dam'n good maker of aircraft and have the right to be that way if they wish whether it hurts them or not. As for the loss of market share, Airbus is also pretty dam'n good too and hence they are growing rapidly and taking on their own market share. Kudos to both for their innovations!

I could go on forever on this subject, but that is the summary!

**I'm not trying to offend any of those against the Global economy and wanting to keep the US in a bubble, they are also entitled to their own opinions!



"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9049 times:

"How a titan clipped its own wings...."

Says a magazine called the American Conservative? Hahahahaha.... I'm trying to rate Eamonn Fingleton's comprehension of Boeing's quoted "demise," but it's so false I cannot find a sacrastic quip to match such an ignorant rant!

I much prefer a 50/50 diachotomy than I prefer a single manufacture dominating the market, it creates a tension that is positive for the industry.


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9048 times:

Planemaker, I'm surpised someone so knowledgable about the aviation market could fall for this....


First, no one should ever listen to Pat Buchanan on economics. Ever.

But whereas the Boeing that Wilson led in the 1970s utterly dominated the skies, today's Boeing is another matter.

This is totally absurd. Boeing laid off almost one hundred thousand people between 1969 and 1971. Employment bottomed out at 38,000. The expense and difficulty of building the 747 almost drove Boeing into bankruptcy. After an initial wave, orders fell sharply as airlines were faced with huge overcapacity. The loss of the SST contract eliminated 12,000 more jobs (below, the mockup being hauled away).



The 1970s were not glory days here. Unemployment in Seattle hit double digits for the first time since the Great Depression. A suicide net was suspended below the Space Needle. There was even a billboard posted along I-5 that read "Will the last person leaving Seattle, please turn out the lights?":



The only reason Boeing "dominated" the skies was that Europe doubled down and lost on Concorde, while Lockheed, Douglas, and Airbus all fought each other to mutually-assured destruction over the 300-seat market.

But hey, it's easier to remain ignorant of history and make up wild, sensational articles than do some real research, especially when we can blame those dirty foreigners!


Not only has the Boeing group cut 77,000 jobs in the last 7 years

What are they supposed to do, pay thousands of people to stand around and do nothing? Recall them all back and see how well Boeing fares.


Stonecipher is presiding over the destruction of what remains of Boeing's erstwhile manufacturing greatness

Today, Boeing assembles airplanes in half the time, with less inventory and with fewer workers than ever. Higher productivity -- oh, the horror!

The 787 is one of Boeing's fastest-selling new products ever. The 777 is dominating its market segment and the 737NG holds its own against the A320. This doom-and-gloom garbage is getting pretty tiresome.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8143 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8982 times:

While B2707SST's assertions that "the 787 is one of Boeing's fastest-selling new products ever," that, "the 777 is dominating its market segment and the 737NG holds its own against the A320" are not strictly accurate, this article looks to be a little over-the-top and under-informed. The American Conservative? Ugh, I note another headline on the same cover is "How To Stop Gay Marriage" - like anyone with half a brain could give a shit about that.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8959 times:

B2707SST:

Nice and concise historical recap discounting the "good 'ole days" mentality of the article. Excellent job and good insight from someone who wasn't even a twinkle in his daddy's eye when all this went down.  Wink/being sarcastic

Regards


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8929 times:

Boeing's situation is somewhat analogous to IBM's situation, except with a lot less competition. Boeing has to improve productivity, focus on core compentancies, outsource where appropriate, offering outsourcing services to others where appropriate, and maintain good customer relationships. If they do all of those things, they will turn things around like IBM did. And one should note that IBM was in a much worse position in the early 90s than Boeing is now.


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineMD11LuxuryLinr From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1385 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8904 times:

Yeah, nice picture they're printing on the front of that magazine.. A 777 in a dive.. Wonderful.  Insane

Oooh.. and they're going to tell us 'How To Stop Gay Marriage' too? Terrific. Sounds like a super read..

Again, I say:  Insane



Caution wake turbulence, you are following a heavy jet.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8893 times:

While B2707SST's assertions that "the 787 is one of Boeing's fastest-selling new products ever, are not strictly accurate."

Then which product is ?  Big grin

Boeing's situation is somewhat analogous to IBM's situation, except with a lot less competition.

IBM chopped themselves apart and put themselves for sale. Boeing became an aircraft assembler rather than an aircraft manufacture. big difference. In realty, Boeing is moving toward what Airbus has been doing from the 1970s...

Boeing has to improve productivity, focus on core compentancies, outsource where appropriate, offering outsourcing services to others where appropriate, and maintain good customer relationships

I'd argue that Boeing has already done this... though it will be several years before all the rewards are reaped. All I know is this article hasn't made me consider dropping BA stock  Insane


User currently offlineVctony From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8888 times:

I really wouldn't trust that magazine. That magazine, as well as others on both sides of the political spectrum, tend to write sensationalistic articles all the time.

User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8853 times:

Boeing's situation isn't like IBM's at all. IBM has continued to plow billions per year into R&D and are one of the largest (if not the largest) investors in pure R&D in the world. They are #1 when it comes to patent approvals on an annual basis, and they continue to dominate several industries. They have built the fastest computer in the world, and are selling the core processors to not one but all three of the manufacturers of the next-generation game consoles (so no matter which one of those three does best, the real winner is IBM.) IBM just jettisoned the dead weight—the low-margin divisions and turned themselves into a research and service company. They're like GE; even if the product you're using might not say IBM, there's a good chance there's something in there that they did. I am typing this on a system with IBM processors (a Mac) and there are several consumer electronics devices in my house with IBM components forming some part of the core functionality— and none of these devices are particularly unusual.

On the other hand, that article is intentionally baiting and skewed, and I'm a conservative. It is overly pessimistic and there are all indications that Boeing is on a comeback on the civil side. Sales are up and soon, so will production capacity. Aside from price, that seems to be their Achilles heel. Obviously the military side is doing reasonably well once they get over these ethics investigations.

[Edited 2005-01-31 01:30:10]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8741 times:

While I am concerned about where Boeing is headed I sort of agree with B2707SST that news of Boeings demise is somewhat exaggerated. As he pointed out Boeing has gone through tough times before. My biggest concern is that all the ex McDonnell people at Boeing will screw things up like they did at their old company.

Cedarjet:

The 737 is doing just fine.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7690 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8639 times:

LMP737

IMO Boeing faces two issues

Short term, keeping production up with the B757/B767 drying up. The key here is the KC767 contract, which they need to win. They also need to decide re the B747ADV.

Provided that the contract is awarded on the basis of what the USAF needs, then it would be hard to see why this should not be acheived.

In the long term, they need to start thinking more loudly about what comes after the B737NG. Like any other aircraft, it can not last forever. Equally a long term successor to the B747 is needed.


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8615 times:

B2707SST, your "inspired" response is based on only a couple of anecdotal introductory paragraphs out of a 6 page article. With absolutely no knowledge of the several points and supporting arguments that the author lays out in the body of the article, it is more than just a bit premature of you to go off on a tangential rant.

First read the article... then rant if you want to. But at least it will be informed!  Smile



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 8605 times:

IBM chopped themselves apart and put themselves for sale. Boeing became an aircraft assembler rather than an aircraft manufacture. big difference. In realty, Boeing is moving toward what Airbus has been doing from the 1970s...


IBM didn't chop themselves apart. They have only sold some parts of their business. IBM has sold off manufacturing facilities and entire product lines in some cases, but Boeing is also selling off or in the process of selling off facilties. Why? Because the buyer can possibly use the facilties more efficiently by providing services and products to companies that Boeing might otherwise not be able to. Likewise, IBM sources more parts from other vendors than it did in past when IBM was more vertically integrated. Boeing hasn't sold entire product categories like IBM has, but then again Boeing didn't have the portfolio breadth that IBM did.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlinePlaneSmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 987 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8487 times:

B were distracted by the McD purchase.

B execs took a certain perverse pleasure in decimating McD facilities and expertise, rather than viewing it as an asset, although thats typical behaviour in an acquisition. The difference is that unlike general manufacturing, aviation is a knowledge industry, and you lose expertise at your peril.

B enjoyed a period where they could do no wrong. U want a 747 in 24mths, what else are you going to order?

Being top dog in any industry creates complacency. This again is not unique to B.

My background is in selling funding for capital items like trucks, ships, and for the last 14yrs civil airliners. In any of these industries, the best product and/or price does not necessarily win the order, because usually A & B are pretty close.

The deciding factor is often support and service, of which part comes down to perception.

B sales staff 14yrs ago were the most arrogant i had ever encountered. They didn't sell - they took orders, and if they didn't like you, you weren't supplied, or you got a so so price, or a lengthy delivery.

Times have really changed at B, but perceptions, memories, and of course the stories (which get embellished) live on far longer. To win back some of these customers, B doesn't need to just match, or even be a little better than A, they need to be consistently a lot better.

Like if you had a particular car (brand Z) and had lots of problems with it, so you bought a different brand (Y) and was happy with the car. You replaced a Y with Y, and again was happy with the purchase. Brand Z is going to really have to make it worth your while if they want to persuade you to buy from them again. A few dollars cheaper or an extra years warranty may still not be enough to get you to switch.


User currently offlineElwood64151 From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2477 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8475 times:

B2707SST:

Every one of your points is true, but buying back billions in company stock in an effort to improve shareholder value was a stupid move. It makes you popular with your current investors but leaves you in a bad cash position to take on your competitors. It's a financial move, not a business move. And cost accountants/finaciers should never be the CEO...

Ugh, I note another headline on the same cover is "How To Stop Gay Marriage" - like anyone with half a brain could give a shit about that.

You'd be surprised how very intelligent people are worried about that very issue. I say take the government out of marriage entirely and let the churches sort it out. Give everyone civil unions. Let them be civily-united to their impact driver so long as it is of-age and can sign its own name, but don't give it the religious title of marriage... Who could be against that?

I'd argue that Boeing has already done this... though it will be several years before all the rewards are reaped. All I know is this article hasn't made me consider dropping BA stock

Excellent point.

Aside from price, that seems to be their Achilles heel

Which is one of the reasons for the currently depressed dollar. Like it or not, it helps us sell our products overseas. I would argue it's dropped a little too far, but that's my opinion, and I'm no economist.

but then again Boeing didn't have the portfolio breadth that IBM did.

Maybe Boeing should consider expanding horizontally. Offering contract maintenance like SABRE, et al; setting up a computer reservations system (buy OpenSkies?); expand into ground and sea transportation options.

Boeing may need to ask itself: Are we an Aerospace Giant, or are we a Transportation Giant? Some critical thinking for Mr. Stonecipher...

p.s. There is no reason that Boeing can't assemble boats. Especially hydrofoils, which may be the next development in trans-oceanic shipping. The boats just need to be a lot bigger than the largest hydrofoil I know if, which was a US Navy patrol vessel just over 350 feet long.



Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it in summer school.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8465 times:

It helps to create more wealth within the US in the way of savings and future expansion for the US COMPANY while creating opportunity for new wealth for the countries doing the work.

And it takes wealth from the worker who's job is tossed out of country by said US COMPANY looking to squeeze a little more profit at the expence of US WORKER.

Forget that little caveat?


User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 8364 times:

Falcon, you hit the nail on the head. Why is it that outsourcing advocates always claim that the savings to the company always results in the company spending that money on innovative projects and white collar hires? If they did spend the saved money on hiring domestic (typically U.S.) workers, what would they hire them to do, anyway? All the work is being done overseas. Are they going to hire a domestic worker to come in and twidle his thumbs all day just because they want to spend that money they saved? Rather, outsourcing execs typically line their pockets with the profits while sending the domestic worker on his of her rear.


"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8284 times:

B2707SST, your "inspired" response is based on only a couple of anecdotal introductory paragraphs out of a 6 page article. With absolutely no knowledge of the several points and supporting arguments that the author lays out in the body of the article, it is more than just a bit premature of you to go off on a tangential rant.

My point was that the "facts" laid out in the opening paragraphs of that article were completely wrong. If the author thinks that Boeing and Seattle were groovy places under Wilson in the 1970s, he obviously doesn't know anything about Boeing's history. Boeing's high market share in the 1970s was not due to visionary and adept management; for the first years of the decade, it was struggling just to survive. Boeing was fortunate in that its competitors decided to throw billions of dollars into a) a wildly expensive and commercially untenable SST or b) three separate aircraft designs pursuing the same limited market. If Airbus, Lockheed, or Douglas had instead invested in a real competitor to, say, the 727, Boeing might not exist today.

A geography textbook may have beautifully detailed maps, but if it begins with the assertion that the world is flat, it's still dead wrong. I have no interest in reading the entire piece when the author can't manage to get basic foundational facts right.


While B2707SST's assertions that "the 787 is one of Boeing's fastest-selling new products ever,"

The 787 received its launch order on April 26, 2004, or nine months ago, and has 186 announced and 116 firm orders. Within nine months of launch, Boeing had sold:

- 48 707s
- 81 727s
- 83 737s
- 85 747s
- 38 757s
- 49 767s
- 49 777s

Granted, some orders may have been announced earlier and only firmed up after 9 months, but I stand by my statement that the 787 is one of the fastest-selling new Boeing products ever.


that, "the 777 is dominating its market segment and the 737NG holds its own against the A320"

People on A.net have gone round and round on the 777 market share issue, but it's beyond dispute that the 777 has outsold its direct competitor, the A340, by 673 to 374 despite the Airbus' longer availability. The 737NG has sold about 2400 frames since its launch in late 1993 versus about 3400 for the A320 family since its launch in the mid-1980s, which is not bad at all.


but buying back billions in company stock in an effort to improve shareholder value was a stupid move. It makes you popular with your current investors but leaves you in a bad cash position to take on your competitors. It's a financial move, not a business move. And cost accountants/finaciers should never be the CEO...

I certainly agree. That cash could have been much better used launching the 787 several years earlier to counter the A330. Boeing's strategic focus in the late 1990s was pretty cloudy, to say the least. Phil Condit's tenure will probably go down as a low point in the Boeing story. I was quite skeptical of Stonecipher at first, but I have to say that he is doing a pretty good job so far.

I'm not arguing that all is hunky-dorey at Boeing. Far from it -- they are now playing second fiddle for the first time in 50 years and have a lot of work to do to get back on top. But I do think the 787 is exactly the right move after some false starts on 747 derivatives and the well-intentioned but unfortunately timed Sonic Cruiser. Hopefully further developments, including the 747ADV and a 737 successor, will follow in relatively short order.

In short, Boeing has enough problems without paleoconservative, protectionist, xenophopic columnists spewing forth dreamy fabricated visions of the good ol' days while condemning the very steps that Boeing must take to regain its former status.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6240 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8246 times:

As I have already noted, the article is 6 pages long. However, the people that have attacked the article (without having read it) have nevertheless missed the clear connection between the article title and the context of the short introductory paragraphs (I guess it "flew" right over their heads  Big grin ).


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8244 times:

p.s. There is no reason that Boeing can't assemble boats. Especially hydrofoils, which may be the next development in trans-oceanic shipping. The boats just need to be a lot bigger than the largest hydrofoil I know if, which was a US Navy patrol vessel just over 350 feet long.

Except, the large civil ship building industry in this country went bust a long time ago due to foreign competition. Now maybe if Boeing figure out how to build a tough composite single piece hull and a autoclave big enough to cure it, they might have something.

I certainly agree. That cash could have been much better used launching the 787 several years earlier to counter the A330.

While it would be nice to have the cash now, it is not clear that they could have launched the current 787 much sooner, with 9/11 and the dot-com bust and without the advantage of a few more years of technology R&D by Boeing and by engine makers. And they can always go back to the equity markets and offer convertible debt to raise money if they can make business case for it.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8190 times:

For what it's worth, Boeing has already built hydrofoils before. Look at the Pegasus class.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 7885 times:

the outsourcing of key components such as the wings etc. is terrible. Clearly Boeing could have used other large manufactures here in the US (such as Lockheed) but instead they chose to use a lot of asian content, since that is where many customers are.

Unfortunately, there is not much that can be done about it. Stock price in King, and to get a good stock price you need sales. I think it is short sighted to give these key technologies away, but this is what Boeing thinks they need to do in order to keep the stock price high.

So I think the best thing to do is buy Boeing stock and wait for the returns. Then, when Fuji or Kawasaki heavy industries start their own aircraft (the day is coming, mark my words) products and take over the market, be ready for Boeing to do outsourcing for them, which will in turn take the stock price even higher.

This is the natural cycle of commerce and business. Just look, IBM sold their PC business to a Chinese outfit.

Eventually, the business and industry will return to the US after Asia has caught up with us. The the cycle will repeat itself. No country can remain dominant forever. A good example of this is the car industry. Remember when the first Japanese cars came to the US. We called them rice grinders and laughed. Then they became huge titans and took market share away from the big three. Then in order to meet demand, Toyota, Nissan etc started building plants here, and guess what, the jobs returned to the US. The same will happen with aircraft, electronics, consumer devices etc.

Bottom line. Buy Boing shares. They will be climbing for many generations to come.


25 Columbia107 : I have just browsed the contents of this tread and all I can say is what utter nonsense. I call it "Have a scoop that sells" exercise. An engineering
26 Post contains images Planemaker : In short, Boeing has enough problems without paleoconservative, protectionist, xenophopic columnists spewing forth dreamy fabricated visions of the go
27 Leelaw : "buying back billions in company stock in an effort to improve shareholder value was a stupid move. It makes you popular with your current investors b
28 Post contains images Glideslope : "Interesting that you can come up with such a virulent personal condemnation of the columnist based on a couple of short introductory pararaghs... or
29 Aerokiwi : Planemaker: Why bother posting these paragraphs then if you don't want people to comment on them? It seems ridiculous that unless they share the same
30 Leelaw : Planemaker: I agree with Aerokiwi. Therefore, if, as you claim, there are such compelling arguments beyond the introduction which are significantly di
31 Planemaker : "Why bother posting these paragraphs then if you don't want people to comment on them? It seems ridiculous that unless they share the same opinion as
32 Lehpron : Why do I get the impression that if any journal comments/focuses on what Boeing may have done or what may happen is somehow B.S.?
33 N328KF : Lehpron: Depends on the journal. We're not likely to question Aviation Week & Space Technology or The Wall Street Journal. We are likely to question T
34 Post contains links B2707SST : Please... show us exactly where the author "spews forth dreamy fabricated visions of the good ol' days." Fine. I'll go line by line, again. But wherea
35 Skymileman : I must say, I'm a huge Boeing fan, but I have been extremely unimpressed with their business methods lately. If they want the business, then darn it,
36 Post contains images N328KF : B2707SST: The 777 and 787 are the most technologically advanced aircraft ever built. The 787 is the most revolutionary jetliner since the 747; no one
37 Skymileman : N328KF What on earth is that one? By the way, do you know what percent of the 787 will be the composites?
38 Post contains images N328KF : I don't know the percentage of the 787 that is composite. Try checking out the Boeing site. I'm sure it says there. That aircraft is the RQ-3 Dark Sta
39 DfwRevolution : I don't know the percentage of the 787 that is composite. Try checking out the Boeing site. I'm sure it says there. I've heard 80% by volume and 50% b
40 DAYflyer : Whoever wrote the article needs an immediate rectal lobotomy to remove his head from his uhemmmm... Boeing is far from dead. Apparently the author neg
41 Thrust : Boeing is anything but dead, I agree. The 787 is going to sell incredibly well, and the 777 and 787 remain the most technologically advanced aircraft
42 Post contains links N79969 : B2707SST, I think your last post was among the best I have read in a long time. I consider myself a disciple of economic thinking, free markets, and g
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...
NYT: Boeing Bets The House On Its 787 Dreamliner posted Mon May 8 2006 00:55:54 by Leelaw
Where Are The Boeing-orders Gone? posted Mon Aug 4 2003 18:27:34 by Stefandotde
YYZ Spotting At Boeing Lot Gone?! posted Mon Sep 16 2002 21:26:21 by 9y-isa
First Alitalia Boeing 777 Set To Make Its Debut posted Fri Jul 26 2002 00:32:28 by Renton_WA
Should Boeing Have Gone Through With 747X? posted Fri Aug 17 2001 22:00:16 by 747_pilot85
Boeing To Have Its Own "Super Transporter"! posted Tue Oct 14 2003 02:02:54 by MCIB757
Boeing 727- A Tribute By Wings posted Wed Oct 18 2006 12:27:16 by WINGS
Boeing Updates Its Orders Page posted Thu Oct 5 2006 18:55:55 by Katekebo
Boeing Will Begin Shipping Wings, Fuselage For 787 posted Mon Sep 18 2006 03:06:56 by NYC777
KE Starts Cargo Conversions Of Its Own 747s posted Fri Aug 4 2006 15:58:26 by AMSSFO