Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Were People That Down On Boeing A Few Years Ago?  
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

In Randy's latest blog, he mentions that a little while ago he was having ask questions about Boeing's very existence in the commercial aircraft sector. Elsewhere, people made out like BCA was going to disappear and Airbus would inherit the Earth. Given that the 737NG and 777 remained strong, was there really that such pessimism about BCA's future?

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePicarus From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 299 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4766 times:

In a word, yes--at least from the outside looking in. During the 90s, Boeing took its eye off the proverbial ball and essentially slowed its commercial product research and development in favor of military business. While I don't argue the merits of trying to diversity its product line to become less dependent on the cycles of commercial aviation, it seemingly appeared to have lost interest in taking the risks it was famous for taking. To me, it become "McDonnefied."

Remember, at one time this was a culture that willingly "bet the company" to develop the 707 and 747. While those days are long gone, it is good to see Boeing become an aggressive competitor once again with compelling products.

Picarus


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4713 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
Given that the 737NG and 777 remained strong, was there really that such pessimism about BCA's future?

Yes. And don't forget, those were the ONLY two aircraft out of the entire product line that were selling well and there was nothing else new at the time on the horizon. Airbus' entire line was selling well, they had consistently been developing new aircraft every 7 or 8 years, and they had invested major sums of money into a new airplane, the 380, which they foresaw (rightly or wrongly) as a game-changer in the industry. Airbus believed in the future, believed in taking risks, and believed in keeping pace with a changing market.

On the other hand, Boeing had become stagnant under its CEO at the time, Phil Condit, and had become risk averse and was trying to re-focus its core business in other areas, like defense. Indeed, I lay ALL of the blame for Boeing's stagnation at the time on Condit alone. If you look at Boeing closely, you'll see that the company's culture changed dramatically after he took the helm from Frank Schrontz in the early 90's. And once he got sacked (resigned under intense pressure), it was like someone opened the door and let fresh air in and new life was breathed into the organization.

Condit was the worst CEO that company ever had; a stain on an otherwise illustrious organization known for strong and decisive leadership.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4702 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
In Randy's latest blog, he mentions that a little while ago he was having ask questions about Boeing's very existence in the commercial aircraft sector. Elsewhere, people made out like BCA was going to disappear and Airbus would inherit the Earth. Given that the 737NG and 777 remained strong, was there really that such pessimism about BCA's future?

You be there was, for a time, Wall Street was very sour on Boeing & a share of Boeing was hovering around $30 a share, in fact, I was planning to buy some stock if was went down any lower.

No new aircraft released since the 1990's (777)

Sales of the 747, 757, 767, & 717 were slowing down

Several "almost" launches of different versions of the 747

Announcement of the Sonic Cruiser & then due to lack of orders (and other reasons, Boeing cancelled the program.

Airbus was selling aircraft like hot cakes.

There was a rumor that Boeinig should get out of the commercial aircraft business & stick to the military projects.

Even though the 737 & 777 were selling well, the other Boeing aircraft were not.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineBoeingBus From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1596 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4696 times:

Well, the media played such a large part of this planned 'doom and gloom' for Boeing.

Impropriety with some government contracts played a part of this negativity.

An ageing product line as the 747/767/757 was not selling in the numbers required to keep a company rolling.

To some degree the misinformation by Airbus pundits (Leahey) and analysts, media, etc... at the time they publicly stated that Boeing would not follow through with the Sonic Cruiser, as it was all smoke and mirrors. At the end they were right with the Sonic Cruiser.

The Sonic Cruiser project met its doom and more bad press followed. Hindsight, I believe Airbus did not realize how useful that project was to Boeing and how it required its existence to make way for the 7E7. The pundits continued with the same negativity with the 7E7. So yes, everyone thought Boeing would go no where... I remember when I was in Lisbon early 2002 reading the Economist article predicting BCA ending its existence. Very sad period for Boeing...

Now it's the end of 2005, Airbus underestimated the 787 program - it is now Boeing's saving grace and Airbus' biggest threat. Ah, tables have turned in 2005. If there is anyone or any company that saved Boeing's behind it was ANA. As without that large order to officially kickstart the 7E7 who knows what would of happened.'

So let's all that ANA for believeing in Boeing for this amazing year.



Airbus or Boeing - it's all good to me!
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4312 posts, RR: 29
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 4):
If there is anyone or any company that saved Boeing's behind it was ANA. As without that large order to officially kickstart the 7E7 who knows what would of happened.'

Boeing would have garnered an order (perhaps not as big) from another carrier eventually had ANA not come through. Especially once fuel prices started going through the roof. Do you see any correllation between high fuel prices in 2005 and the number of marquee carriers that have placed orders for the 787 in 2005? Despite the ANA order back in April 2004, sales for the 787 were somewhat slow until 2005 when fuel prices rose dramatically and airlines realized those prices were more than likely here to stay for the foreseeable future.

What saved Boeing was the sacking of it's CEO, Phil Condit, and the appointment of Harry Stonecipher as his replacement. Stonecipher was pivotal in getting the 7E7 project approved by the board. Despite the fact that the 7E7 was conceived under Condit's watch, being the pusillanimous leader he was, he couldn't make the decision to move forward with it out of fear of risk. Once Stonecipher took over, there was no doubt in his mind that the project had to move forward. It was, potentially, Boeing's only chance for making a comeback and perhaps even its only chance for remaining in the commercial aircraft business.

Yes, Stonecipher would get sacked, too, for getting caught with his pants down (literally). But he almost singlehandedly turned the company's fortunes around and dramatically improved its cultural environment (sexual indiscretions notwithstanding) before being shown the door.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4615 times:

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 5):
Yes, Stonecipher would get sacked, too, for getting caught with his pants down (literally). But he almost singlehandedly turned the company's fortunes around and dramatically improved its cultural environment (sexual indiscretions notwithstanding) before being shown the door.

Yeah, isn't that ironic, that it was a former Douglas employee that saved Boeing!!!!  Smile



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2823 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
In Randy's latest blog, he mentions that a little while ago he was having ask questions about Boeing's very existence in the commercial aircraft sector. Elsewhere, people made out like BCA was going to disappear and Airbus would inherit the Earth. Given that the 737NG and 777 remained strong, was there really that such pessimism about BCA's future?

Yep. I joined A.net at the height of the bashing of Boeing. Something Boeing fans should remember and be a bit more graceful about when bashing Airbus.

Thankfully, I ignored them and bought Boeing stock (which I sold way to early, but it was still a nice little profit).

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
On the other hand, Boeing had become stagnant under its CEO at the time, Phil Condit, and had become risk averse and was trying to re-focus its core business in other areas, like defense. Indeed, I lay ALL of the blame for Boeing's stagnation at the time on Condit alone. If you look at Boeing closely, you'll see that the company's culture changed dramatically after he took the helm from Frank Schrontz in the early 90's. And once he got sacked (resigned under intense pressure), it was like someone opened the door and let fresh air in and new life was breathed into the organization.

Condit was pretty much a disaster. He was also (IIRC) involved in the disasterous production hike that nearly killed Boeing before 9/11. About the only saving grace to that is instead of going from 600 planes a year to 200, Boeing only had to go from 450/year to 200. He did do a great job slowing Boeing down when they were exposed after 9/11.

Stonecipher's aggressive new sales pitches (and the fact that CEO finally got involved in the sales campaigns) won many of the early battles to get the blue chip carriers to commit to the 787 platform. Mullally (who was also the chief engineer for the 777) is responsible for the rest, and the technical strength of the project. Mullally sticking around Boeing has really been critical for it's recent strength.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 3):
Announcement of the Sonic Cruiser & then due to lack of orders (and other reasons, Boeing cancelled the program.

9/11 really killed the Sonic Crusier. Boeing has much to be thankfull for. The Sonic Cruiser was ugly fuel consumption wise. If that program had gone ahead as the main program to replace the 757/767 Airbus would have absolutly eaten Boeing when the fuel energy spikes started.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 3):
There was a rumor that Boeinig should get out of the commercial aircraft business & stick to the military projects.

One that was heavily pushed on some of these boards.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 4):
The Sonic Cruiser project met its doom and more bad press followed. Hindsight, I believe Airbus did not realize how useful that project was to Boeing and how it required its existence to make way for the 7E7. The pundits continued with the same negativity with the 7E7. So yes, everyone thought Boeing would go no where... I remember when I was in Lisbon early 2002 reading the Economist article predicting BCA ending its existence. Very sad period for Boeing...

The 787 really ended up being in the sweet spot for Boeing. Companies tend to pick their products based on what they don't have or what is failing. Hence Airbus has thrown almost all of their energies into two small niches the last 5 years. The A318 which competes with the 717 and MD90/DC-9 (the average seat count is too high now for these planes) and the A380 replacing the 747 (the average seat count is way too low for these platforms). On the other hand the A330/A340 were eating into the 767 and 757. The 777 easily took care of part of the 747's market and part of the 767s market. The remainder of the market should be covered by the 787.

Boeing's next move is going to have to address the dominance of the A320 platform over the 737. Airbus still has it's bed made with the A380, and will have to address the 787 if the sales continue to be this lobsided.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 958 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4520 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 7):
Boeing's next move is going to have to address the dominance of the A320 platform over the 737.

Say what? The sales total since the 737NG was introduced is very closely matched, and every year it comes down to a few orders for one or the other to pull slightly ahead. They are virtually equal competitors in respects of performance, economics, etc. The A320 series is not dominating the 737NG, and vice versa.


User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4470 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
They are virtually equal competitors in respects of performance, economics, etc.

Add they are also equal competitors because of the engine choice  Silly

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 8):
The A320 series is not dominating the 737NG, and vice versa.

Maybe your statement is true ...just in the US market! (not worldwide)


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4446 times:

Quoting Anxebla (Reply 9):
Maybe your statement is true ...just in the US market! (not worldwide)

Worldwide sales figures for the A320 and 737NG are within 100 frames of each other since the 737NG debuted (someone posted the exact numbers on another thread, but I can't find them at the moment). DfwRevolution is exactly correct: the two have fought to a virtual draw.

In the US, three of the six "majors" fly 737s (AA, CO, DL) and three fly A320s (NW, UA, US). AS, FL, TZ, and WN fly 737s. DH, B6, U5 (USA 3000), and the now-merged HP fly A320s. The 737 has the lead in the US market, but it's not as if Airbus has been shut out.

--B2707SST

[Edited 2005-12-24 18:25:36]


Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24973 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 7):
Yep. I joined A.net at the height of the bashing of Boeing. Something Boeing fans should remember and be a bit more graceful about when bashing Airbus.

Thankfully, I ignored them and bought Boeing stock (which I sold way to early, but it was still a nice little profit).

Thank you. That is one of the best, most balanced posts on that I have read in a while.

I think you may be one of the very few posters here who remembers the effect of 9/11 on the manufacturers.

cheers

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4409 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
Given that the 737NG and 777 remained strong, was there really that such pessimism about BCA's future?

In a word...

Condit

Phil Condit was sat at the top of an arrogant empire, and the principal driver at Boeing's top table was shareholder value. They seemed to be floowing the mantra that Boeing made products that the world wanted, and they could dictate the terms of any deal to clients.

Investment in ongoing model upgrading and replacement was stagnant. The 764 and 753 were sticking plasters and just papered over the cracks in that philosophy (please let's not have any more of this crap about CO and DL. The 764 was a huge lossmaker at Boeing and was shopped all over the world to less than stellar acclaim).

The Boeing board were sat on their corporate butts watching money roll in from military contracts, existing model lines and residual income from aircraft parts. However the damage was being done. Boeing accounts for one year showed that the civilian operation was ENTIRELY supported by the aftermarket parts operation, which produced something like $350m profit. The aggregated accounts for the same year showed a $300m profit on civilian activities, meaning that construction was losing money. New products were also at the design phase but taking extraordinary amounts of time to be pushed through the chain to project launch.

Another major pointer was the easyJet deal, where Condit arrogantly stated they were not prepared to sell aircraft at the price easyJet wanted. That alone raised hackles worldwide. and just what was all that Chicago crap (with its huge cost) all about?

So Boeing had an image of "we are great, customers should be grateful that we sell aircraft to them". Thankfully Condit and others were collateral damage in the tanker scandal, and as soon as Stonecipher and others started to take positions on the board Boeing seemed to wake up and smell the coffee. Many insiders at client airlines noticed a definite change in Boeing attitudes around the same time, with their sales teams and management starting to do their jobs properly. New products are on the way or out there plus Boeing now fights harder for deals.


User currently offlinePlaneDane From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4400 times:

Quoting Picarus (Reply 1):
In a word, yes--at least from the outside looking in. During the 90s, Boeing took its eye off the proverbial ball and essentially slowed its commercial product research and development in favor of military business. While I don't argue the merits of trying to diversity its product line to become less dependent on the cycles of commercial aviation, it seemingly appeared to have lost interest in taking the risks it was famous for taking. To me, it become "McDonnefied."

Picarus, even from the inside during that time, there were those of us who really wondered where the future of commercial aviation at Boeing was heading and did not have so much optimism.

Essentially, MacDac was saved by Boeing and then it returned the favor -- just as you describe. Now, we really do think of ourselves as one large company and it is so much better now.


User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4399 times:

Was it really productive for Boeing to relocate their HQ to Chicago?

User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2463 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

"9/11 really killed the Sonic Crusier. Boeing has much to be thankfull for. The Sonic Cruiser was ugly fuel consumption wise. If that program had gone ahead as the main program to replace the 757/767 Airbus would have absolutly eaten Boeing when the fuel energy spikes started."

To a large extent, that's true but the Sonic Cruiser was projected to have 767-like fuel consumption so it really wasn't that bad. Problem was, BETTER fuel consumption, not extra speed, was what was really needed by the airlines. What became the 787 was a parallel development study that put a lot of the same technology: composite contruction and bleedless engines into a more conventional design that traded off that 15% greater speed for better fuel burn.

"Investment in ongoing model upgrading and replacement was stagnant. The 764 and 753 were sticking plasters and just papered over the cracks in that philosophy (please let's not have any more of this crap about CO and DL. The 764 was a huge lossmaker at Boeing and was shopped all over the world to less than stellar acclaim)."

The 764 initially looked good on paper but relied too heavily on "minimum-change" design pholosophy to prosper in the market. The 'semi-widebody' fuselage Boeing thought in the late 1970's was a good compromise between twin-aisle comfort and a slimmer cross-section to save fuel became its albatross because it couldn't carry tandem rows of LD-3 containers. Sticking with the existing 767 wing(except for adding raked-tip extensions) and existing 767-300ER engines hampered the range, putting it well below that of the competing A330-200. The planned 767-400ERX model that would've increased the range with more powerful engines was shelved when Boeing cancelled the 747X, with which it was to share those engines. The 757-300 must've initially looked like a good idea, too but it seems buyers like Condor were unhappy with the turnaround time of the long fuselage.

RedFlyer couldn't have said it better about Condit. As good an engineer as he undoubtedly was earlier in his career, he sucked at being a CEO. His embracing of the corporate mandate to walk away from all deals of marginal profitability almost sunk BCA. Although Harry Stonecipher heartily embraced profitability, he recognized that BCA needed to get back to aggressive pricing when necessary. Under Condit, BCA's R&D budget plunged to new lows under seemingly a 'derivatives only' product development cycle. This also helped Airbus surge past its rival. Finally, with Condit on the way out, BCA execs woke up to the painful truth the company wasn't fully competitive and began taking steps to turn it around. Until recently, Airbus underestimated their resolve but this year have been dealt a wake-up call of their own. Just goes to show, when you're on top, don't get cocky because you never know...


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

Quoting Glom (Thread starter):
In Randy's latest blog, he mentions that a little while ago he was having ask questions about Boeing's very existence in the commercial aircraft sector. Elsewhere, people made out like BCA was going to disappear and Airbus would inherit the Earth. Given that the 737NG and 777 remained strong, was there really that such pessimism about BCA's future?

Yes, it was that bad. In 2002, when things were looking bleakest, I remember a local TV station ran a story entitled "Will Airbus Bury Boeing?" Reporters actually flew to Toulouse and interviewed Airbus execs to get them to reassure people here that Airbus wouldn't totally destroy Boeing. There were rumors floating around that Boeing would divest the commercial business to the Chinese or Japanese and focus solely on space and defense.

It's amazing how quickly things have changed. Outstanding products like the 777-300ER and 787 deserve a lot of credit, as do the many innovations in how Boeing builds airplanes, such as the moving line. But it seems like the biggest change has been one of attitude; arrogance and complacency have been replaced by determination and even a little bit of underdog spirit. Hopefully the "Lazy B" is gone for good.

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 13):
Essentially, MacDac was saved by Boeing and then it returned the favor -- just as you describe. Now, we really do think of ourselves as one large company and it is so much better now.

Surprising, really, given that many people on A.net and in the media had pegged Stonecipher as a major force behind the decline of first McDonnell Douglas and the Boeing: too conservative, too concerned about the bottom line, too much of a bean-counter. When he took over, it was supposed to be the very death of Boeing. In reality, he was the one who turned things around after the mess Condit made of BCA. James Bell also did a great job keeping the ship on course during his term as interim CEO. Alan Mullaly has been a superstar for years and, in a perfect world, would have gotten the top spot, but I'd guess that the directors decided he is too good at the job he's doing to move him now.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 10):
(someone posted the exact numbers on another thread, but I can't find them at the moment).

Since launch of 737NG (Nov 17th, 1993)

Airbus:
A318: 74
A319: 1081
A320: 1478
A321: 363
Total: 2996 (this figure is not updated at the moment as it comes from October 20, 2005. So this are not showing the Chinese 150 A320s order and others such as Germawings)

Boeing:
-600: 78
-700: 1132
-800: 1537
-900: 85
Total: 2832

Source: Jonathan-l in this thread (reply 30)
RE: Airbus: Sales & Widebodies Right Now (by Anxebla Dec 24 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2510201

2996-2832= 164 planes in advantage for Airbus on Oct 20th, 2005


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Quoting Anxebla (Reply 17):
Since launch of 737NG (Nov 17th, 1993)

According to BCA's website, during that period, they sold 2,844 examples. That's a 5% difference between the two. If you were trying to assert some sort of superiority over a 5% market share difference, I don't think you can. It's a statistical dead heat.

And you're also missing some major Boeing orders in there, too, so I compared apples to apples and just used the period from the 737NG intro to the update of Airbus' spreadsheet that you refer to.

[Edited 2005-12-24 20:02:27]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6849 posts, RR: 63
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4261 times:

Reading about how "the 777 remained strong", I seemed to remember a couple of fallow years for the programme but when I checked they were very 'relative'! Over a decade the figures are:

1995 101
1996 68
1997 55
1998 68
1999 35
2000 116
2001 30
2002 32
2003 13
2004 42

That's 560 over 10 years = 56 a year = more than 1 a week for 10 years.

I'd say that's pretty "strong"! (And 2005 has been better still). How long till the 777 is the second best selling widebody ever? (Indeed, how long till it's the first...?!)


User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 582 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4236 times:

Oddly enough, Boeing's ups-and-downs are a terrific way to make money if you're inclined. Don't sell it, though. When you get old you'll get a kick out of those 100% dividends, and no one will believe you.

User currently offlinePHXinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4220 times:

Quoting Anxebla (Reply 17):
Quoting B2707SST (Reply 10):
(someone posted the exact numbers on another thread, but I can't find them at the moment).

Since launch of 737NG (Nov 17th, 1993)

Airbus:
A318: 74
A319: 1081
A320: 1478
A321: 363
Total: 2996 (this figure is not updated at the moment as it comes from October 20, 2005. So this are not showing the Chinese 150 A320s order and others such as Germawings)

Boeing:
-600: 78
-700: 1132
-800: 1537
-900: 85
Total: 2832

Source: Jonathan-l in this thread (reply 30)
RE: Airbus: Sales & Widebodies Right Now (by Anxebla Dec 24 2005 in Civil Aviation)#ID2510201

2996-2832= 164 planes in advantage for Airbus on Oct 20th, 2005

Man, you're a piece of work. This thread is about the past perception of Boeing, yet you're trying to argue about the 320 outselling the 737. Stunning.



Keepin' it real.
User currently offlineSaloth Sar From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

Keep in mind that BCA accounts for only 40% of revenue (IDS 60%) as oppose to 80% before the merger with McDonnell Douglas. That's the legacy of Phil Condit.

User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3947 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 16):
Surprising, really, given that many people on A.net and in the media had pegged Stonecipher as a major force behind the decline of first McDonnell Douglas and the Boeing: too conservative, too concerned about the bottom line, too much of a bean-counter. When he took over, it was supposed to be the very death of Boeing. In reality, he was the one who turned things around after the mess Condit made of BCA.

I liked Harry and was stunned when he was forced to walk the plank.

He wasn't a Boeing man per se; he came with the experience of trying to keep Douglas going when they were struggling and also years of experience of the much more competitive environment that is General Electric.

Another plus point has been the elevation of Alan Mulally who I also like. He's a smart cookie and knows how to reform working practices to cut costs and improve productivity on the line.


User currently offlineNijltje From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

Or maybe Echelon saved Boeing....
No they just forgot a few years the basic; building innovative planes. But their comeback is even more impressive.


25 B6sea : I think a lot of Boeing employees would disagree whole-heartedly with you on that. And you probably believe he only left because of his "misconduct",
26 Zvezda : Yes, exactly. Boeing stopped innovating for a while, but recovered by returning to innovation. I'm confident that Airbus can also return to innovatio
27 Pilotpip : And a St. Louis, Long Beach, and Wichita company before it will ever be a Chicago company.
28 ASMD11 : I'll probably get flamed for this one lol, but even though the line is closed here and it wasn't very big Boeing will be a Spokane company before it
29 GARPD : So you are clinging onto the "A320 dominating" due to a measly 5% market share? Now is the A320 had 30% or 40% more market share, you'd have a point.
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...
BA / US Cooperation A Few Years Ago posted Wed Jul 13 2005 05:34:14 by FlyinTLow
Questions About United A Few Years Ago posted Mon Apr 11 2005 04:56:19 by Daron4000
Routes That Did Not Exist 20 Years Ago... posted Mon Jul 12 2004 06:10:09 by Lehpron
That Incident At PVD A Few Years Back posted Mon Mar 8 2004 17:21:03 by 727LOVER
757 Crashed Off Coast Lima A Few Years Ago.. posted Mon May 8 2000 07:25:55 by Big777jet
Meal Service On Short US Flights Years Ago posted Mon Feb 27 2006 16:13:50 by Zrs70
Registration Of Planes That Flew About 5 Years Ago posted Mon Apr 18 2005 14:34:01 by DRAIGONAIR
Bomb Explodes On TWA 707 33 Years Ago posted Thu Mar 10 2005 04:28:11 by Qqflyboy
Thoughts On A380 Compared To 3 Years Ago. posted Sun Feb 1 2004 20:34:48 by Espion007
Last Boeing 737-900 More Than 2 Years Ago? posted Thu Mar 7 2002 12:55:22 by Vfw614