Reports are coming out that a proxy firm has suggested that two of Long term Boeing directors should not be re-elected. Chairman Larry Kellner and Edmund Giambastiani.

The two directors that are stepping down now actually failed to receive up to 60% of the vote last year btw.

The board is also said to be considering whether or not to extend Calhoun stay as he turns 65 next year.

Apparently one of the new directors (who was the CFO of United technologies - one of Boeing’s suppliers) has been asking tough questions of Calhoun.

Do we think Calhouns stay will be extended?

Boeing is also struggling to find directors that are qualified for the role because nobody seems to be interested.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-sha ... 1618225201

Opus99 wrote:

Boeing is also struggling to find directors that are qualified for the role because nobody seems to be interested.

That's quite an exaggeration - a phrase not found in the linked WSJ piece. The WSJ spends more time on the matter of seeking diversity candidates:

Mr. Kellner said earlier this year that the board would work to identify “diverse candidates with appropriate expertise who bring qualified perspectives.” However, those efforts have taken longer than expected, people familiar with the matter said. And Boeing’s business challenges have hampered the company’s ability to attract directors, one of these people said.

Companies across industries are under pressure to diversify their boards, especially following racial-justice protests last summer as well as California legislation and a Nasdaq proposal requiring board diversity, recruiters and board members said. Boeing says its slate of 10 directors up for re-election includes two women and two people of color.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Boeing is also struggling to find directors that are qualified for the role because nobody seems to be interested.

That's quite an exaggeration - a phrase not found in the linked WSJ piece. The WSJ spends more time on the matter of seeking diversity candidates:

Mr. Kellner said earlier this year that the board would work to identify “diverse candidates with appropriate expertise who bring qualified perspectives.” However, those efforts have taken longer than expected, people familiar with the matter said. And Boeing’s business challenges have hampered the company’s ability to attract directors, one of these people said.

Companies across industries are under pressure to diversify their boards, especially following racial-justice protests last summer as well as California legislation and a Nasdaq proposal requiring board diversity, recruiters and board members said. Boeing says its slate of 10 directors up for re-election includes two women and two people of color.

Sorry. I paraphrased from this tweet

https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/138 ... 80294?s=21

Just pick the best candidate for the job. Certainly without discrimination but without "casting" PR-profiles. This should include the option to finally pick the "average joe" male white engineer if he ends up being the best.
Boeing is a top company and will have a choice to pick from the most talented.

Noshow wrote:

Just pick the best candidate for the job. Certainly without discrimination but without "casting" PR-profiles. This should include the option to finally pick the "average joe" male white engineer if he ends up being the best.
Boeing is a top company and will have a choice to pick from the most talented.

There is no easy way to find the best candidate. Boeing is one of the most international US companies. Having a diverse board that can represent multiple perspectives will only make the company stronger. They need perspectives from international trade, military operations, manufacturing, government regulations, etc. Too many people from an inner circle focused on GE’s business model from the 1980s is not a good thing and probably won’t make the best decisions even if those people may be the most talented on paper. You need a board that can healthy debate. Currently the board doesn’t have that much aviation experience and it’s hard to tell who is actually an expert in leading teams in multiple countries. Finding a qualified candidate who has experience running an airline outside of the United States would be a powerful addition, but I don’t imagine many such people exist that would also have the appropriate clearances to see the military sensitive work from the defense side of the business.

Noshow wrote:

Just pick the best candidate for the job. Certainly without discrimination but without "casting" PR-profiles. This should include the option to finally pick the "average joe" male white engineer if he ends up being the best.
Boeing is a top company and will have a choice to pick from the most talented.

The problem is that historically the best candidate hasn't always been chosen.

I certainly agree that they should pick the best candidate for the job, while understanding that
1. Diversity of thought is good - it stops groupthink.
2. All things equal, pushing for some diversity can help as well. This is possible without bringing unqualified people on.

It must be more of a diplomat than some top people like Harry S were in the past.

Opus99 wrote:

Reports are coming out that a proxy firm has suggested that two of Long term Boeing directors should not be re-elected. Chairman Larry Kellner and Edmund Giambastiani.

I don't know their reasons/basis, but as WSJ points out it's the proxy advisor Glass Lewis that has recommended against reelecting Kellner and Giambastiani and that ISS has recommended support for the reelection of all directors. Glass is the smaller of the two advisor firms, so neither director appear to be in much risk of facing the same levels of dissent the board got in 2020.

Giambastiani and Ron Williams are approaching the mandatory retirement age for directors - so their seats should be open in the next year or two. The size of the board is down to 10 from 13 back in 2019 and I could see them keeping this slightly smaller size to focus on the quality of directors and not just quantity, especially after all the flack Boeing got regarding board composition in 2020.

Mainland wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Reports are coming out that a proxy firm has suggested that two of Long term Boeing directors should not be re-elected. Chairman Larry Kellner and Edmund Giambastiani.

I don't know their reasons/basis, but as WSJ points out it's the proxy advisor Glass Lewis that has recommended against reelecting Kellner and Giambastiani and that ISS has recommended support for the reelection of all directors. Glass is the smaller of the two advisor firms, so neither director appear to be in much risk of facing the same levels of dissent the board got in 2020.

Giambastiani and Ron Williams are approaching the mandatory retirement age for directors - so their seats should be open in the next year or two. The size of the board is down to 10 from 13 back in 2019 and I could see them keeping this slightly smaller size to focus on the quality of directors and not just quantity, especially after all the flack Boeing got regarding board composition in 2020.

Do you think they will extend calhouns term?

Opus99 wrote:

Do you think they will extend calhouns term?

Unsure. Calhoun is 63, so there is still one or two years until that call absolutely has to be made. The board should already be evaluating the tier of leadership just below Calhoun and have a broader succession plan in mind. If I had to guess, extending Calhoun would not be their first option, but that is less about anything he has or has not done and more about the board wanting to show that the "bench" of talent at Boeing is strong. I think they'll want to stay in-house and not look for an external hire.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Just pick the best candidate for the job. Certainly without discrimination but without "casting" PR-profiles. This should include the option to finally pick the "average joe" male white engineer if he ends up being the best.
Boeing is a top company and will have a choice to pick from the most talented.

There is no easy way to find the best candidate. Boeing is one of the most international US companies. Having a diverse board that can represent multiple perspectives will only make the company stronger. They need perspectives from international trade, military operations, manufacturing, government regulations, etc. Too many people from an inner circle focused on GE’s business model from the 1980s is not a good thing and probably won’t make the best decisions even if those people may be the most talented on paper. You need a board that can healthy debate. Currently the board doesn’t have that much aviation experience and it’s hard to tell who is actually an expert in leading teams in multiple countries. Finding a qualified candidate who has experience running an airline outside of the United States would be a powerful addition, but I don’t imagine many such people exist that would also have the appropriate clearances to see the military sensitive work from the defense side of the business.

Kinda interesting Airbus announces two senior executives (head of defense, head of technology) are leaving the same day (July 1).

It doesn't seem that diversity played a role, but balance of power might have.

Although passports no longer dictate hiring policy, the shake-up remains carefully balanced, with one fewer French seat on the top committee but France awarded greater visibility over the Airbus portion of FCAS. Airbus is officially linked with Germany and Spain on FCAS, while Dassault represents France.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airb ... 00012b75f4

Remember how Calhoun got to be CEO - asking tough questions of Muilenburg - and how long he has been there - since Jan 2020. Asking Calhoun tough questions about how the MAX crisis came to be doesn't do much because he wasn't in charge for that. But stranger things happen in board politics

In my opinion, replacing Dave Calhoun with another Boeing CEO at this time would be an outrageous and foolish decision. US Corporations are finding out that hiring 65+ year-olds in both technology and management (mid and high level) has been a major benefit to many corporation’s renewed success.

As such, Dave Calhoun being 65 has no relevancy to his capacity to continue the success (and his positive, objective management metrics) in leading Boeing after taking over the CEO position not too long ago.

The fact that Dave Calhoun is (only) 65 years old should never enter into a CEO decision. It’s about tangible “results”, not how old one is, what race one is…and on and on.

I wonder if Alan Mulally at 75 would be willing to come back for a few years. Letting Mulally go to Ford instead of promoting him was one of the bigger HR mistakes Boeing made.

Interesting article on next week's Boeing shareholder meeting in the Guardian today at:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... plnews_d-1

Boeing needs to pick directors that are engineering oriented, not Wall Street lackeys. This company is digging itself a hole because it has lost sight of what is necessary to succeed in a complex technological industry. No bean counters (and I used to be an accountant!).

Jetport wrote:

I wonder if Alan Mulally at 75 would be willing to come back for a few years. Letting Mulally go to Ford instead of promoting him was one of the bigger HR mistakes Boeing made.

One of a.net's favorite memes.

No one knows if he would have been able to do what he wanted to do had he become CEO.

At the time, due to his large grants during the McDD era and after the merger, Harry Stonecipher controlled more stock than anyone else, so when he spoke of shareholder value, he was speaking of himself. He himself was ex-GE and he was the one that went down the route of pulling in the GE clique of management.

The guy who was Boeing's CEO and made the decisions related to merging with McDD was Phil Condit, who started out at Boeing as an engineer.

jimatkins wrote:

Boeing needs to pick directors that are engineering oriented, not Wall Street lackeys. This company is digging itself a hole because it has lost sight of what is necessary to succeed in a complex technological industry. No bean counters (and I used to be an accountant!).

I guess it's time to point out again that the guy who drove Boeing's response after the two MCAS crashes was Dennis Muilenberg, who started out at Boeing as an engineer.

CanukinUSA wrote:

Interesting article on next week's Boeing shareholder meeting in the Guardian today at:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... plnews_d-1

I feel for the victim's families, but they need to be working on getting the institutional investors to change their votes and need to offer up an alternate slate that they feel will do a better job. Keep in mind it's the institutional investors that support people like Calhoun, he was one of them for a while after he left GE and before he became Boeing CEO. He wouldn't be CEO without their support.

Jetport wrote:

I wonder if Alan Mulally at 75 would be willing to come back for a few years. Letting Mulally go to Ford instead of promoting him was one of the bigger HR mistakes Boeing made.

I have a 2014 Ford Focus with possibly the worst automatic transmission ever installed knowingly by a company. It's cost Ford billions and still is. The Detroit Free Press did a great piece on it

Excerpt from series - " A high-level, confidential analysis by Ford in 2012 acknowledged rushing the cars to production, taking shortcuts to save money and apparently compromising quality protocols instituted with fanfare by then-CEO Alan Mulally. That review, obtained by the Free Press, also said the transmissions would be phased out and a different technology used going forward, but that didn’t happen."

Mulally may not have known about the transmission. He should have stayed at Boeing.

Mulally oversaw the 787 outsourcing model and left when he saw things falling apart. I’m not sure why people are so obsessed.

Muilenburg was an aerospace engineer and we know how that worked out.

Perhaps hiring directors and executives that are experienced leaders and know how to listen to experts is a good path.

sxf24 wrote:

Mulally oversaw the 787 outsourcing model and left when he saw things falling apart. I’m not sure why people are so obsessed.

Muilenburg was an aerospace engineer and we know how that worked out.

Perhaps hiring directors and executives that are experienced leaders and know how to listen to experts is a good path.

I also don’t have the same obsession with Mullally. During his time as BCA CEO, Boeing’s commercial market share went from over 60% to 40%. I’ve also heard people who worked for him say he was very unpredictable and could be difficult to deal with.

There are good things about Alan, but I don’t think he’s the panacea that some people think he is.

What is this Mulally bashing good for? Not relevant. He saved Ford and he would know the 777 by hand.

Boeing needs some long term leader with enough technical background to get the BoD commiting money to long term program strategy and company development. More of a diplomat again. From my point of view they were too stock minded (and bonus minded?) and did too much decisions neutron jack style. Including loosing too many of their experienced specialists. Taking R+D money to polish the stock fires back now. This will take some years to rectify.
Mr. Calhoun does a good job calming things down and getting things back to work normally.

They need some one who can change the culture and give the company new meaning. I think somebody from the outside and probably not from the aviation sector, maybe not even engineering.

This exactly NOT.
Boeing needs being "more Boeing" again not less.

jimatkins wrote:

Boeing needs to pick directors that are engineering oriented, not Wall Street lackeys. This company is digging itself a hole because it has lost sight of what is necessary to succeed in a complex technological industry. No bean counters (and I used to be an accountant!).

Wall Street (via mutual funds) holds the shareholder votes. If the CEO doesn't please Wall Street, Wall Street votes him out.

Who initiated the original decision to buy MDD, move to Chicago and adopt GE-style management back then? Are the same investors still there and what do they think about it now?

Noshow wrote:

What is this Mulally bashing good for? Not relevant. He saved Ford and he would know the 777 by hand.

Boeing needs some long term leader with enough technical background to get the BoD commiting money to long term program strategy and company development. More of a diplomat again. From my point of view they were too stock minded (and bonus minded?) and did too much decisions neutron jack style. Including loosing too many of their experienced specialists. Taking R+D money to polish the stock fires back now. This will take some years to rectify.
Mr. Calhoun does a good job calming things down and getting things back to work normally.

As above, a lot of this is at the foot of Harry Stonecipher. He was ex-GE, and he was the one who brought in more ex-GE people, and he was the one who wanted the focus on shareholder value, since he himself had a large holding due to his role as CEO at McDD for several years then board member and then CEO at Boeing. He's the one that had the famous quote about finding Boeing as an engineering firm and turning it into a business. So, if Mulally ever did get advanced to CEO, he'd run right into the wall formed by Stonecipher and the ex-GE clique. In fact it's pretty clear he knew that, and when ex-GE man McNearney was made CEO, he left. He may have had some good ideas on what he'd like to do with Boeing, but he'd never get a chance to implement them. When he went to Ford, it was the opposite. Ford was in decline and the shareholders knew they had to do something big to change their fortunes.

Noshow wrote:

This exactly NOT.
Boeing needs being "more Boeing" again not less.

Sadly, I think "that Boeing" died in the early 00s.

Noshow wrote:

Who initiated the original decision to buy MDD, move to Chicago and adopt GE-style management back then? Are the same investors still there and what do they think about it now?

The merger happened in 97 and the move in 01, both on Engineer Condit's watch (96-03).

I think the move made sense in that Boeing wanted to diversify more into defense and space to offset the ups and downs of the commercial sector.

The "unintended consequences" was an internal clash of corporate cultures, one that the ex-McDD managers "won". The McDD management, whatever you think of their goals, was more savvy and more in tune to what Wall Street wanted, which is what owns most large corporations. They ended up killing off the old Boeing, IMO.

I saw a similar thing happen from the inside when HP and CPQ merged. My observation was that the HP side were extremely savvy corporate in-fighters, whereas the CPQ side was much more collaborative and not used to the kind of in-fighting that the HP side was so skilled at. Basically, you could view HP as an invasive species that took down the CPQ side since the CPQ side had no natural defenses against it. I guess it should have been expected, as HP was the stronger side due to the cash horde the printers had created. Yet again it was the fact that the HP insiders knew what Wall Street wanted (ref: Carly Fiorina) that gave them the inside track.

I am convinced they can and will recover. With a bit more of "working together" again.

Calhoun can stay up to 2028

CFO gregg smith out in July

More here;

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2021-04-20 ... ip-Updates

Calhoun is okay. He will continue to sort things and already did a good job. Greg Smith did a good job as well it seems. Why did he have to go? Fed up? Did they want "his" money to fund something else? Any roadblocks ahead?

Noshow wrote:

Calhoun is okay. He will continue to sort things and already did a good job. Greg Smith did a good job as well it seems. Why did he have to go? Fed up? Did they want "his" money to fund something else? Any roadblocks ahead?

Have to go? It says he's choosing to retire after thirty years at Boeing. The announcement has a paragraph with Calhoun praising him along with his own statement of thanks. This isn't what you get if you are being forced out the door. Dennis Muilenberg got nothing like this, for instance.

McDonnell did a lot to ruin Douglas' commercial business. MDD in turn appears to have done similar to Boeing's commercial business.

Revelation wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Calhoun is okay. He will continue to sort things and already did a good job. Greg Smith did a good job as well it seems. Why did he have to go? Fed up? Did they want "his" money to fund something else? Any roadblocks ahead?

Have to go? It says he's choosing to retire after thirty years at Boeing. The announcement has a paragraph with Calhoun praising him along with his own statement of thanks. This isn't what you get if you are being forced out the door. Dennis Muilenberg got nothing like this, for instance.

It feels like he was nudged to retire. Especially seeing as he’s leaving in about 3 months. Usually you get a long notice when one is about to retire. I’m honestly not mad at it anyway.

They have no successor announced yet which would be typical for any planned CFO retirement? They are "searching".

Opus99 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Noshow wrote:

Calhoun is okay. He will continue to sort things and already did a good job. Greg Smith did a good job as well it seems. Why did he have to go? Fed up? Did they want "his" money to fund something else? Any roadblocks ahead?

Have to go? It says he's choosing to retire after thirty years at Boeing. The announcement has a paragraph with Calhoun praising him along with his own statement of thanks. This isn't what you get if you are being forced out the door. Dennis Muilenberg got nothing like this, for instance.

It feels like he was nudged to retire. Especially seeing as he’s leaving in about 3 months. Usually you get a long notice when one is about to retire. I’m honestly not mad at it anyway.

Definitely not mad about any of this stuff.

Reuters says:

(Smith) was also seen by some people in the industry as a likely candidate for the top executive role after Calhoun.

Ref: https://news.yahoo.com/1-boeing-cfo-smi ... 40847.html

So maybe he sees the 64 year old guy isn't going to leave till age 70 and decides he doesn't want to stick around waiting for his chance.

Noshow wrote:

They have no successor announced yet which would be typical for any planned CFO retirement? They are "searching".

Fair enough, but "unplanned retirement" is different than "had to go". Seems more plausible he was hoping to get the CEO job, and when it became clear he wasn't going to get it he decided it was time to do something else with his life.

If I am recalling things correctly, there really has been a lot of retirements in the wake of the MCAS tragedy and Calhoun's hiring, a big changing of the guard.

Airbus went through the same thing after Faury took over from Enders, we saw Bregier, Williams, Evard etc leave in the same time frame.

Given Calhoun has been given up to five years to stay, we may see other execs realize they won't have a chance to move up any time soon and decide to leave.

Also whilst we are on the topic of Boeing management, there’s rumours they do not plan to extend their Chicago lease and will move to their défense HQ in Arlington Virginia and that will become corporate HQ

Opus99 wrote:

Also whilst we are on the topic of Boeing management, there’s rumours they do not plan to extend their Chicago lease and will move to their défense HQ in Arlington Virginia and that will become corporate HQ

Boeing owns their building in Chicago.

sxf24 wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Also whilst we are on the topic of Boeing management, there’s rumours they do not plan to extend their Chicago lease and will move to their défense HQ in Arlington Virginia and that will become corporate HQ

Boeing owns their building in Chicago.

https://leehamnews.com/2021/04/15/aviat ... countdown/

Leeham briefly touch on it in this podcast/zoom. It maybe the tax break that’s up. Something is definitely expiring this year

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Have to go? It says he's choosing to retire after thirty years at Boeing. The announcement has a paragraph with Calhoun praising him along with his own statement of thanks. This isn't what you get if you are being forced out the door. Dennis Muilenberg got nothing like this, for instance.

It feels like he was nudged to retire. Especially seeing as he’s leaving in about 3 months. Usually you get a long notice when one is about to retire. I’m honestly not mad at it anyway.

Definitely not mad about any of this stuff.

Reuters says:

(Smith) was also seen by some people in the industry as a likely candidate for the top executive role after Calhoun.

From a former insider, engineers within Boeing are cheering and popping champagne corks at the departure of Greg Smith who was seen as placing too much emphasis on limiting budgets and research and development expenditures. Smith needed to go if Boeing was to return to being an engineering company run with long term vision and sense of purpose.

Well. Kudos to the board for biting the bullet now, they didn't have to announce the age waiver today.

As for Smith, this has all the looks of being told he's not the guy to lead Boeing right now and then his choosing to take a different path. Smith is 54 and has been CFO since 2011. I'm sure he'll land on his feet and likely be given a faster pathway to the CEO chair, if that's truly what he wants.

Mainland wrote:

Well. Kudos to the board for biting the bullet now, they didn't have to announce the age waiver today.

As for Smith, this has all the looks of being told he's not the guy to lead Boeing right now and then his choosing to take a different path. Smith is 54 and has been CFO since 2011. I'm sure he'll land on his feet and likely be given a faster pathway to the CEO chair, if that's truly what he wants.

It has all the looks to me of the Board asking why the Company didn't have a strategy to compete with the A321XLR, Boeing is losing out to SpaceX and Blue Origin, failure to get a part of the B-21 Raider, and losing out on the next generation ICBM. A lot of losing going on under Smith's watch.

Would the CFO be blamed for lost programs? You mean not enough R+D money or not enough for marketing?

Pythagoras wrote:

Mainland wrote:

Well. Kudos to the board for biting the bullet now, they didn't have to announce the age waiver today.

As for Smith, this has all the looks of being told he's not the guy to lead Boeing right now and then his choosing to take a different path. Smith is 54 and has been CFO since 2011. I'm sure he'll land on his feet and likely be given a faster pathway to the CEO chair, if that's truly what he wants.

It has all the looks to me of the Board asking why the Company didn't have a strategy to compete with the A321XLR, Boeing is losing out to SpaceX and Blue Origin, failure to get a part of the B-21 Raider, and losing out on the next generation ICBM. A lot of losing going on under Smith's watch.

That's a decent list of their recent failings, but you didn't mention several more. Very weak 777X order book, KC-46 is a financial disaster, and of course the MAX.

I question the viability of the company.

SteelChair wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:

Mainland wrote:

Well. Kudos to the board for biting the bullet now, they didn't have to announce the age waiver today.

As for Smith, this has all the looks of being told he's not the guy to lead Boeing right now and then his choosing to take a different path. Smith is 54 and has been CFO since 2011. I'm sure he'll land on his feet and likely be given a faster pathway to the CEO chair, if that's truly what he wants.

It has all the looks to me of the Board asking why the Company didn't have a strategy to compete with the A321XLR, Boeing is losing out to SpaceX and Blue Origin, failure to get a part of the B-21 Raider, and losing out on the next generation ICBM. A lot of losing going on under Smith's watch.

That's a decent list of their recent failings, but you didn't mention several more. Very weak 777X order book, KC-46 is a financial disaster, and of course the MAX.

I question the viability of the company.

This viability argument is so tired. The only issue that is new there is the MAX. Everything was there before the max yet the company was at its highest profitability. Calhoun has said he sees the company coming back into profitability soon. Boeing is sorting their problems one by one. Like I’ve said Boeing’s problems did not start overnight. So I don’t know why people they will be fixed overnight

Opus99 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Pythagoras wrote:

It has all the looks to me of the Board asking why the Company didn't have a strategy to compete with the A321XLR, Boeing is losing out to SpaceX and Blue Origin, failure to get a part of the B-21 Raider, and losing out on the next generation ICBM. A lot of losing going on under Smith's watch.

That's a decent list of their recent failings, but you didn't mention several more. Very weak 777X order book, KC-46 is a financial disaster, and of course the MAX.

I question the viability of the company.

This viability argument is so tired. The only issue that is new there is the MAX. Everything was there before the max yet the company was at its highest profitability. Calhoun has said he sees the company coming back into profitability soon. Boeing is sorting their problems one by one. Like I’ve said Boeing’s problems did not start overnight. So I don’t know why people they will be fixed overnight

Highest profitability? Imagine how much they would have made without the 748 and KC46 goat ropes.

SteelChair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

That's a decent list of their recent failings, but you didn't mention several more. Very weak 777X order book, KC-46 is a financial disaster, and of course the MAX.

I question the viability of the company.

This viability argument is so tired. The only issue that is new there is the MAX. Everything was there before the max yet the company was at its highest profitability. Calhoun has said he sees the company coming back into profitability soon. Boeing is sorting their problems one by one. Like I’ve said Boeing’s problems did not start overnight. So I don’t know why people they will be fixed overnight

Highest profitability? Imagine how much they would have made without the 748 and KC46 goat ropes.

I mean. Would’ve should’ve could’ve. Imagine how much Airbus would’ve made without A380 and bribery charges. But here we are

Opus99 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

This viability argument is so tired. The only issue that is new there is the MAX. Everything was there before the max yet the company was at its highest profitability. Calhoun has said he sees the company coming back into profitability soon. Boeing is sorting their problems one by one. Like I’ve said Boeing’s problems did not start overnight. So I don’t know why people they will be fixed overnight

Highest profitability? Imagine how much they would have made without the 748 and KC46 goat ropes.

I mean. Would’ve should’ve could’ve. Imagine how much Airbus would’ve made without A380 and bribery charges. But here we are

The bottom line is that multiple multi billion dollar failures continue to drag on the financial performance of the company.

Airbus has nothing to do with this. Strawman/red herring

SteelChair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Highest profitability? Imagine how much they would have made without the 748 and KC46 goat ropes.

I mean. Would’ve should’ve could’ve. Imagine how much Airbus would’ve made without A380 and bribery charges. But here we are

The bottom line is that multiple multi billion dollar failures continue to drag on the financial performance of the company.

Airbus has nothing to do with this. Strawman/red herring

You brought up two programs that could’ve saved the company money.

I also brought my own ideas for their competitor.

But stating the obvious doesn’t get us anywhere

Opus99 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

This viability argument is so tired. The only issue that is new there is the MAX. Everything was there before the max yet the company was at its highest profitability. Calhoun has said he sees the company coming back into profitability soon. Boeing is sorting their problems one by one. Like I’ve said Boeing’s problems did not start overnight. So I don’t know why people they will be fixed overnight

Highest profitability? Imagine how much they would have made without the 748 and KC46 goat ropes.

I mean. Would’ve should’ve could’ve. Imagine how much Airbus would’ve made without A380 and bribery charges. But here we are

Airbus lost big money on A340-500/600, A380 and A440M and no one is taking about their survival.

In the end, Airbus probably made money on the bribery even with AAX currently sticking it to them, but had to come clean at some point or risk losing US DoD business.

For what it's worth, Kellner received the support of just over 82% of shareholders, Giambastiani just over 85%, and the rest of the board all higher.