No. Garuda's 4.9 billion would have fully contributed to Boeings revenue but only part of it - say 10 % or 490 million - would have been profits. Those 490 million are the actual loss.
Even then, there's a high chance that those slots will be taken up by someone else. So the direct impact on Boeings finances is almost nil. But the extra development and certification work, the storage costs for the currently built 737, the damage compensation to airlines and relatives, that's all real money going straight out the door. Not everything will need to be paid today but Boeing will pay sooner or later.
Look I get your point, and somewhat correct. However lets say you get paid $1000 per month, after all your bills come out its $100 disposable income (aka profit)
Now if you made a mistake at work, and you were not paid $1000 this month, would you say:
A) ive only lost $100 profit
B) ive lost my entire $1000 pay
Just because only a % of it is profit, doesnt mean boeing only lost out on the profit, the 4.9 billion would have paid towards staff, overheads, productions, debts, which now they have to find the money elsewhere.
Respectfully, you whilst your point is partly true, its not factoring in everything and is wrong.
Respectfully, you have turned the world on it's head.
The $1000 /month pay analogy is so wrong, explaining it would take forever. Let's just say that it would only work for a lumberjack who spends $300 / month on travelling to site, $300 maintaining their chainsaw, and $300 having his lunchbox delivered by helicopter every day. Furthermore, he is told ahead of next month that he can stay at home. Travel costs are now nil. Wear & tear on chainsaw now nil. He still needs to eat to stay alive, but he can do that on a much reduced budget of say $150/month.
Yeah, he is down $1000 in terms of earnings, but his costs are only a fraction of what they would have been. Obviously he is also "losing" the $100/month profit he was putting aside for a holiday... in Canada.
Unfortunately this crazy analogy still needs several thousand more words to cover all
the real world equivalents, and even then we won't see the wood for the trees.
You are correct that Boeing still have obligations to pay staff (excepting where they reduce overtime, and make other temporary cuts)
They can also divert a limited number of staff to other production lines.
You are correct that Boeing still have overheads, such as paying ground rent (?) and maintaining all those beautiful huge buildings.
But with the MAX production rate reduced, there will also be savings, such as lower electricity usage, and a paintshop using far less paint.
Not to mention the parts suppliers, who are sharing the pain because they are currently supplying components at a slower rate.
And yes, if Boeing are borrowing money, they still have debts to service.
But the only way Boeing would lose $4.9billion is if they continued to build 50 Max's for Garuda, painted them up in full livery, and then flew them into the ocean
Even then, they would only lose $4.4billion in actual costs, (and $490million in potential profit)
Unless the MAX is permanently grounded, what is going to happen is that they will build 50 Max's for Garuda, paint them up in somebody else's livery, and sell them to somebody else... for $4.9billion, albeit after a delay of some months, possibly a year, due to the current grounding.
What part of that do you not understand?
Perhaps you are under the misunderstanding that Garuda paid the entire $4.9billion up front, like you or I would if we were ordering a burger at McDonalds?
If that had been the case, then yeah, Garuda demanding their money back would have deprived Boeing of $4.9b overnight.
Except it doesn't work like that.
As it stands, Garuda would only have placed a small deposit against the original order, and for all we know Boeing kept that (non-refundable) deposit scoring a "profit" for building absolutely nothing.
Nothing to see here; move along please.