https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... into-2021/

Grim years ahead. The article quotes a lot of industry analysts, a union forum, even Airbus analysts and others. Boeing declined contributing. Us MOM enthusiasts will take heart in the challenge that Boeing should do something by 2023, or resign itself the being a 2nd rate aircraft company. I have only read the article once, there is so much meat there I will reread it and post more reactions.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-on-edge-as-a-shrunken-commercial-jet-industry-limps-into-2021/

Grim years ahead. The article quotes a lot of industry analysts, a union forum, even Airbus analysts and others. Boeing declined contributing. Us MOM enthusiasts will take heart in the challenge that Boeing should do something by 2023, or resign itself the being a 2nd rate aircraft company. I have only read the article once, there is so much meat there I will reread it and post more reactions.

A lot of meat, yes, but pretty stale one I feel. Not too many news if any and a bit sad, Boeing refused to participate.

At any rate, still a nice recollection of 2020s situation at Boeing and for that it is worth reading.

There is a lot of meat in there, but it isn’t particularly new regarding the 737 or 777x. Quotes come from the union leaders and Scott Hamilton (whom gets insider Airbus marketing information regardless of whether or not he is on Airbus’ payroll).

What I didn’t see was commentary on how Boeing dominates the freight market. Freighters are keeping the 767 and 777 lines open and continue to bring in desperately needed revenue. Freighter conversion programs are also bringing in money. Widebodies sales will be down for years, but it is an area of strength for Boeing. Diversification and having freighters helps.

John Leahy trusts the updated MAX and would put his family on it.
He would not need to say this but he did. Fair play.

Basically says, bring the NSA/NMA/MOM or whatever forward and launch it no later than 2023, or risk being left behind on the commercial airplane field. It will be to the 787 what the 757 was to the 767. Advanced materials and newest engine tech. Maybe half a generation newer engines than the 787.

Boeing is one of the most arrogant Fortune 500 companies out there. For every incredible innovation it has achieved over the years (and there are many) it has stumbled many times over, treating its employees like crap, flouting regulations to cut costs, and having too close a relationship with the FAA, helping to damage its own reputation and that of the FAA in the process. It will be a long and tough road for it ahead but it does have some key metrics in its camp. On the 737 and specifically, the MAX, the cost per seat operations are too good to pass up and most airlines that have ordered it, or have deliveries pending, would love nothing more but to put it in service quickly. Boeing also dominates the freighter market, which will become important and relevant in the current and post-COVID19 world. Business travel is not going to recover to levels where it was pre-COVID19 for several years, and the airline business model will change again to adapt. Freighters will be in higher demand as long haul travel remains muted. As for Airbus, it has some advantages over Boeing, including the A321 and the A350, but it too is a victim of its own arrogance. Just look at the A380.

[quote="frmrCapCadet"]https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-on-edge-as-a-shrunken-commercial-jet-industry-limps-into-2021/

Grim years ahead. The article quotes a lot of industry analysts, a union forum, even Airbus analysts and others. Boeing declined contributing. Us MOM enthusiasts will take heart in the challenge that Boeing should do something by 2023, or resign itself the being a 2nd rate aircraft company. I have only read the article once, there is so much meat there I will reread it and post more ]

Gates focused on Boeing hit pieces. No real shocker that Boeing itself didn't participate. They are focusing on getting 737s out the door, transforming 787 production & testing 777s. I agree that a 757 style jet above the 737 is necessary but when it gets launched is still a mystery.

Overall, both Boeing and Airbus are in the same boat. Reduced sales, reduced workforce and a much smaller forecast of sales. Boeing's future lays right now in the 737 and 777, while Airbus's rides on the 320/350. Boeing has a smaller narrowbody share but a much larger Defense portfolio which includes very well selling F-15, F/A-18 and T-7 aircraft to name a few. Both companies will be clawing hard to move through the next several years.

It's not just Boeing...any company that gets this big loses their way - e.g. Exxon Mobil, AT&T etc. The C-Suites think all that matters is Wall Street and their bonuses.

The Government set this in motion by allowing all these mergers. The best that can be hope for is someone buying BCA and spinning it off. What's Elon Musk's phone number?

Let's go back and spend money on research and innovation again and not on stock buy backs. This will bring in young talent as well.

I feel Boeing really needed the Embraer merger, for the purposes of developing an eventual 737 replacement. However they were probably overpaying, especially in light of the deal Airbus got for the C series program. Perhaps they can revise the deal at a less premium.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's not just Boeing...any company that gets this big loses their way - e.g. Exxon Mobil, AT&T etc. The C-Suites think all that matters is Wall Street and their bonuses.

The Government set this in motion by allowing all these mergers. The best that can be hope for is someone buying BCA and spinning it off. What's Elon Musk's phone number?

Well, Wall Street owns these companies and management works for the owners. You need to serve all stakeholders (customers, employees, communities and owners) to be successful, but writing off generating returns to owners is pretty ignorant of capitalism.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's not just Boeing...any company that gets this big loses their way - e.g. Exxon Mobil, AT&T etc. The C-Suites think all that matters is Wall Street and their bonuses.

The Government set this in motion by allowing all these mergers. The best that can be hope for is someone buying BCA and spinning it off. What's Elon Musk's phone number?

I own a Tesla and given the QC issues on the brand, you'd have a MAX falling out of the sky weekly.

Musk should be appreciated for his Innovation and branding, but behemoths need Tim Cooks and Akio Toyotas of the world too.

I hope CFM is working quickly on a geared fan, otherwise PW may jump out ahead in the market. I think the GE9 will be the last non-geared new engine program.

I have read enough aviation articles by Dominic Gates now that I must ask, why does he hate Boeing so much? Everything about Boeing is pejorative in every article. Did Boeing fire his dad, did kids whose fathers worked for Boeing beat him up constantly as a kid? Also, he essentially gives John Leahy 100% of the credit for Airbus success. It is ridiculous to credit a hyperbolic salesman who sold far too many aircraft at little or no profit with Airbus's success. But maybe that is what Gates and others want Boeing to become, a nationalistic not-for-profit that exists primarily to generate export dollars, high wage employment and new technology.

Jetport wrote:

I have read enough aviation articles by Dominic Gates now that I must ask, why does he hate Boeing so much? Everything about Boeing is pejorative in every article. Did Boeing fire his dad, did kids whose fathers worked for Boeing beat him up constantly as a kid? Also, he essentially gives John Leahy 100% of the credit for Airbus success. It is ridiculous to credit a hyperbolic salesman who sold far too many aircraft at little or no profit with Airbus's success. But maybe that is what Gates and others want Boeing to become, a nationalistic not-for-profit that exists primarily to generate export dollars, high wage employment and new technology.

Same situation with Leeham News, Scott seems to be on Airbus's and / or the union's payroll. With the terrific hometown support Boeing gets, is it any wonder they moved the production of the 787 to SC or their headquarters to Chicago. Yes, Boeing is its own worst enemy - the 787 introduction was between really botched and incredibly botched, the MAX should have been a slam dunk, but came back to bite royally because they did the frankenplane approach. The KC-46 should have been real easy, but they face planted. How can FOD be in 40% of the MAX's fuel tanks, I could understand 4%, but less than 1% should be where the standard is, with those fixed before delivery.

I do think that Boeing should follow thru getting the 737-10 and 779 certified and out the door, then with the lessons learned of the new way certifications will be done, design the modern cockpit ready for autonomous flight even though singe and dual pilots will be the norm for a decade or more. The plane needs to be able to fly itself, with the pilots there only for the really unusual, the software needs to be idiot proof and that is really hard to accomplish because IDIOTS are so capable of screwing the pooch.

Launch in 2023, EIS in 2029. 6ab but about 12" wider than the current 737 with the floor higher for larger cargo holds. 5,000 nm range for the smaller one, 3,500 nm range for the larger model in a payload for range swap. Designed to have swap-able floor beams for a freighter conversion.

Jetport wrote:

I have read enough aviation articles by Dominic Gates now that I must ask, why does he hate Boeing so much? Everything about Boeing is pejorative in every article. Did Boeing fire his dad, did kids whose fathers worked for Boeing beat him up constantly as a kid? Also, he essentially gives John Leahy 100% of the credit for Airbus success. It is ridiculous to credit a hyperbolic salesman who sold far too many aircraft at little or no profit with Airbus's success. But maybe that is what Gates and others want Boeing to become, a nationalistic not-for-profit that exists primarily to generate export dollars, high wage employment and new technology.

Gates’ only real sources now are with the unions, supplies and Leeham. Those is the know at Boeing are tired of being stalked and misquoted and are engaging with the better aviation journalists at Bloomberg and the WSJ.

Sounds a little unfair. I don't think he "hates" Boeing and I don't understand how you could come to this conclusion?
Didn't D. Gates even win a Pulitzer price for his excellent MAX reporting?

Reads like "the sky is falling" article. The 777X will eventually do well, the MAX is returning to the sky - albeit slowly. He is right that Boeing needs to re-emerge as an innovative engineering company again.

I just read what Wikipedia says about Dominic Gates. He was born in Ireland. He has a degree in Math and taught math. He has been "reporting" for about 30 years. He did win the Pulitzer for his reporting along with some others. So, on the surface, he doesn't have it "in" for Boeing.

The Boeing story in recent years can all be pinned down to the two events of the McDD merger and (even more importantly) the failure to promote Allan Mullaly into the top job.

It's also arguable that there is a lack of strong leadership that's been there for a long time now. No Donald Douglas or Bill Boeing type character. For me, Allan came the closest.

I don't think D. Gates hates Boeing or that its his mission to bring Boeing down. I would rather see this as critical reporting, which there was maybe not enough of in the past. Boeing has only themselves to blame for being under intense public scrutiny because of their past actions (MAX disaster, too close ties with the FAA, quality control, use of state taxe brakes in combination with a emerging anti union stance, something that usually is not too well liked by large segments of the general public). It is the job of the media as the 4th estate to serve as an institution of checks and balances.

I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that Boeing needs to go out of business, and long term Boeing will survive one way or another as it is too big to fail as no US administration can let Boeing go under. As others have pointed out Boeing has its strengths, Frighters, WBs and the Defence business. All Boeing needs is to refocus on its core strengths of quality airplane engineering and manufacturing and be less beholden to Wall Street. I guess that is what the general publics as well as many AV geeks would like to see happening.

sxf24 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's not just Boeing...any company that gets this big loses their way - e.g. Exxon Mobil, AT&T etc. The C-Suites think all that matters is Wall Street and their bonuses.

The Government set this in motion by allowing all these mergers. The best that can be hope for is someone buying BCA and spinning it off. What's Elon Musk's phone number?

Well, Wall Street owns these companies and management works for the owners. You need to serve all stakeholders (customers, employees, communities and owners) to be successful, but writing off generating returns to owners is pretty ignorant of capitalism.

And Boeing is serving all it's stakeholders equally? (you left one out -customers) When the C-Suites are mainly compensated by stock options, bad things can happen (Enron for e.g.). We will see how good Boeing management is in a few years.

Jetport wrote:

I have read enough aviation articles by Dominic Gates now that I must ask, why does he hate Boeing so much? Everything about Boeing is pejorative in every article. Did Boeing fire his dad, did kids whose fathers worked for Boeing beat him up constantly as a kid? Also, he essentially gives John Leahy 100% of the credit for Airbus success. It is ridiculous to credit a hyperbolic salesman who sold far too many aircraft at little or no profit with Airbus's success. But maybe that is what Gates and others want Boeing to become, a nationalistic not-for-profit that exists primarily to generate export dollars, high wage employment and new technology.

He doesn’t hate Boeing. He just reports on Boeing and just about everything has been bad news lately for Boeing. I have been reading this forum long enough that I remember when Airbus fans claimed he was biased towards Boeing because he was from Seattle.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's not just Boeing...any company that gets this big loses their way - e.g. Exxon Mobil, AT&T etc. The C-Suites think all that matters is Wall Street and their bonuses.

The Government set this in motion by allowing all these mergers. The best that can be hope for is someone buying BCA and spinning it off. What's Elon Musk's phone number?

Well, Wall Street owns these companies and management works for the owners. You need to serve all stakeholders (customers, employees, communities and owners) to be successful, but writing off generating returns to owners is pretty ignorant of capitalism.

And Boeing is serving all it's stakeholders equally? (you left one out -customers) When the C-Suites are mainly compensated by stock options, bad things can happen (Enron for e.g.). We will see how good Boeing management is in a few years.

I listed customers, and I think that is one area where Boeing is doing well.

I agree that time will tell how Boeing’s current management is. One thing is certain, if they don’t keep shareholders at bay, they won’t be able to raise more capital and they’ll really struggle.

Opus99 wrote:

Boeing will be fine. They’re trying to get Boeing to do too much. Boeing needs to focus on getting back on its feet. Covid has slowed down anything anybody was going to do anyway. Launch an aircraft in 2023? Come on. Boeing still has competitive aircraft. Their widebody and freighter business is strong. Much stronger than Airbus. Boeing is not going to launch an aircraft in 2023 and they will be fine not doing so.

I agree and they didn't touch on Boeing's defense business, which is strong. P-8, KC-46, T-7, F-15, F-18 and Chinook helicopter programs as well as space and other entities. Every thinks of BCA but Boeing is much more diversified.

The whole reasoning for the new plane makes no sense. If the demand for new planes shrinks as expected, having empty production facilities and engineering talent sitting idle, is simply not enough reason to do a new plane. There simply is not enough new technology ready at the moment and Airbus will always be able to counter any new single isle with a re-winged A320.

When the market recovers there will be a need for new airplanes. Especially as sector length, route networks, classes onboard and required aircraft sizes might change. A new plane can be optimized for new needs. And a new plane can be configured to be adoptable to future technologies. Like super large diameter fans and such. Should Boeing sit idle and wait? Should Airbus be left to eat Boeing's lunch all alone? NMA, NSA what happened to all this? Vaporware?
Today Boeing has the people and the know how. In five to ten years getting things going after some pause will be more difficult.

seahawk wrote:

The whole reasoning for the new plane makes no sense. If the demand for new planes shrinks as expected, having empty production facilities and engineering talent sitting idle, is simply not enough reason to do a new plane. There simply is not enough new technology ready at the moment and Airbus will always be able to counter any new single isle with a re-winged A320.

The whole reason Boeing didn't do a clean sheet and did the MAX was because the technology wasn't there to get enough improvement. At the time they were saying 2030 it would be. If it is, and Boeing launches a clean sheet to take advantage, Airbus will have to do the same unless it is purely engine technology that can be adapted to the A320 design.

Noshow wrote:

When the market recovers there will be a need for new airplanes. Especially as sector length, route networks, classes onboard and required aircraft sizes might change. A new plane can be optimized for new needs. And a new plane can be configured to be adoptable to future technologies. Like super large diameter fans and such. Should Boeing sit idle and wait? Should Airbus be left to eat Boeing's lunch all alone? NMA, NSA what happened to all this? Vaporware?
Today Boeing has the people and the know how. In five to ten years getting things going after some pause will be more difficult.

When the market recovers, Boeing has a brand new airplane (777-9), a quite new plane (MAX) and a still decently recent design (787) in the line-up. Imho the logical steps are a 787 engine up-date with an EiS around 2030-32 that would bring the first geared turbofans for wide bodies. Then new single aisles designs after 2034. Maybe one Hybrid electric short range version and a larger, longer ranged conventional (or flying wing) solution.

What Boeing does right now looks to me like they want to sell the Everett site. What will be left after the 747, 767, 777-300ER, 787?
An empty space waiting for the 777-9 and for CFRP wing production.

CX747 wrote:

Gates focused on Boeing hit pieces. No real shocker that Boeing itself didn't participate.

Gates focused on reporting on Boeing hitting themselves and taking FAA down with them, not to mention the unfortunate crash victims and all the airlines who invested in the MAX.

Jetport wrote:

I have read enough aviation articles by Dominic Gates now that I must ask, why does he hate Boeing so much? Everything about Boeing is pejorative in every article. Did Boeing fire his dad, did kids whose fathers worked for Boeing beat him up constantly as a kid?

In retrospect he could have been far harsher on Boeing. For instance compare his reporting on the FAA test failure at the time compared to the recent coverage we saw from others. It makes Gates look fair and balanced, IMO.

Jetport wrote:

Also, he essentially gives John Leahy 100% of the credit for Airbus success. It is ridiculous to credit a hyperbolic salesman who sold far too many aircraft at little or no profit with Airbus's success. But maybe that is what Gates and others want Boeing to become, a nationalistic not-for-profit that exists primarily to generate export dollars, high wage employment and new technology.

As opposed to a capitalist for-profit that exists primarily to squeeze every penny out of aging technology by cutting corners on safety?

The article says:

Company leaders have never fully acknowledged the flaws in the original design.

Is this a fair statement or an unfair statement? Why or why not?

TFA also says:

Likewise, at the large end of around 200 seats, the MAX 9 and MAX 10 lack the range and capacity to compete effectively with the Airbus A321neo, which has racked up nearly 3,500 orders.

Leahy, Hamilton, Epstein, Michaels and Aboulafia all envisage the same solution for Boeing: A new plane the size of the 757 that the company discontinued in 2005, seating 220 to 260 passengers and made from new advanced materials with the latest aerodynamic technology and scaled-up versions of the latest jet engines.

Problem is the A321neo already is doing what a 757 does and has captured the market for this generation. Boeing needs to go bigger (NMA i.e. 767-200 size) or smaller (NSA starting at 738 size and growing to A322 size). Building a better A321neo will just leave you the dregs that remain after the A321neo has locked in most of that market segment.

Noshow wrote:

What Boeing does right now looks to me like they want to sell the Everett site. What will be left after the 747, 767, 777-300ER, 787?
An empty space waiting for the 777-9 and for CFRP wing production.

Nothing is “waiting for the 777-9”. The 777-9 has already been manufactured in Everett. There are a number of them in flight test. Which is going fairly well. The KC-46 will also be manufactured in Everett for a long time.

I’m quite sure that Boeing isn’t going to sell Everett. But yes, we all share concerns of what the future holds.

I have a bit more faith in current leadership than I do in Jim McNerney who is more interested in beating the unions to satisfy his own fragile ego than he was in properly running the company.