scbriml wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Being cash positive is one thing, but Boeing continues to throw money down the toilet.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/ ... c5bbc3520e

Another $500ish million charge on the way.

This is not "throwing money down the toilet". It's investing in an airframe product with a very long future ahead of it.

The current KC-46 contract is worth an estimated $55B over it's lifetime. Further it's likely the USAF will forgo KC-Y competition and double the KC-46 order. Which will bring the total KC-46 aircraft contract value into the $100B range, over a service life of 50 years.

If Boeing invests an extra $7B in delivering what the USAF wants, against that value and that lifetime, that's quite wise. And the fixed cost contract that necessitated that investment, is a thing of the past, a mistake that won't be repeated on either side, according to both Boeing & USAF comments.

It’s not “investing”, it’s paying cash to fix stuff that should never have been broken in the first place.

LAX772LR wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

I don’t think the MAX 7 and 10 are without a foreseeable delivery date.

....the obvious followup being: well, then when is it?

Not to be flippant, but I don't even think it's safe to try to predict which quarter it'll be in, let alone a foreseeable date.
For Boeing's sake, one would hope that it'll be this year (which contrary to common belief, has never been stated nor assured).

sxf24 wrote:

There was an interesting column from Scott Hamilton a few days ago about Airbus is shifting into that mindset

That's some pretty sloppy work, if we're being honest.

1) he points to Boeing getting a massive order in India, while omitting that Airbus got an even larger one, despite being production slot limited--- so, um, how's that an example of Airbus arrogance/complacency?

2) he points to supplier delays, long known, and uses that as an example of Airbus somehow being in the wrong?

3) he outright points to sold-out production slots, as if that were somehow an undesirable thing, while ignoring that Airbus has done everything from open additional lines, to converting others.

.....almost nothing in that article makes sense. Very shoddy work by Hamilton.

Cxtl1na wrote:

When Boeing stops re-releasing EPs and comes out with an LP, it's been ages, things will be turning around.

tlecam wrote:

They have some time, but they're going to need to provide investors with more data about the next gen product portfolio at some point.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

Cxtl1na wrote:

When Boeing stops re-releasing EPs and comes out with an LP, it's been ages, things will be turning around.

tlecam wrote:

They have some time, but they're going to need to provide investors with more data about the next gen product portfolio at some point.

Could not have said it more succinctly. What is the future after they've climbed out of this hole?

DartHerald wrote:

I don't think that, as outsiders, we really have much insight. On the face of it they are currently doing well with sales, but how much of that (particularly with the 737-Max) might be down to fire-sale discounts, and the fact that Airbus is sold out for most of the rest of this decade? As we move through the decade and slots begin to open up at AB, will be able to continue to compete so effectively? BA clearly have a lead in the widebody market, but I think there's a case to be made that they effectively secured this when the 787 was launched, with extremely aggressive pricing and overpromising on performance, tie-ing in early customers down the road. The 777-X and 767 have sold but not in startling numbers. What will be interesting to outside impartial observers is how well BA succeeds in dealing with its financial woes whilst rebuilding its product line.

RJMAZ wrote:

B787oftheworld wrote:

We saw Boeing win big aircraft orders recently, both narrowbodies and widebodies. Certification processes look better then before.

Is Boeing management really turning things around ?

It is interesting that no one has mentioned Boeing's defense division. Any discussion on Boeing management should include the military side.

Boeing Apache AH-64 attack helicopter
Boeing CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter
Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft
Boeing KC-46 inflight refueling tanker
Boeing F-15EX fighter jets
Boeing T-7 advanced jet trainers
Boeing MQ-25 US Navy drone tanker
Boeing MQ-28 loyal wingman drone
Boeing E-7 wedgetail airborne radar aircraft.

An amazing list of products, all in production with big order books from many different militaries. The defense division had $23 billion in revenue in 2022 and it has been steadily rising. This is more than double of Airbus and with the above list of products that shouldn't be a surprise.

Three upcoming big contracts have Boeing in the box seat.

FA-XX US Navy 6th gen fighter.
It is rumoured that Boeing will build the Navy fighter and Lockheed will built the USAF fighters.
https://eurasiantimes.com/us-navy-seeks ... x-fighter/

NGAS USAF stealthy refueling tanker.
Boeing already makes the USAF KC-46 tanker and the US Navy unmanned tanker.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/hunte ... th-future/

USAF MR-F cheap lightweight F-16 replacement after 2030.
The T-7 as a single seat armed version is in the box seat to replace the F-16.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-f ... 7-for-now/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_ ... _and_Space
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_ ... 6_Security

AtlasRise wrote:

It is interesting that no one has mentioned Boeing's defense division. Any discussion on Boeing management should include the military side.

Boeing Apache AH-64 attack helicopter
Boeing CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter
Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft
Boeing KC-46 inflight refueling tanker
Boeing F-15EX fighter jets
Boeing T-7 advanced jet trainers
Boeing MQ-25 US Navy drone tanker
Boeing MQ-28 loyal wingman drone
Boeing E-7 wedgetail airborne radar aircraft.

An amazing list of products, all in production with big order books from many different militaries. The defense division had $23 billion in revenue in 2022 and it has been steadily rising. This is more than double of Airbus and with the above list of products that shouldn't be a surprise.


Why is it interesting? This is a CIVIL aviation forum.

Avatar2go wrote:

So much misinformation involved here, as usual. That regularly defines the debate about Boeing. In other threads as well.

morrisond wrote:

Show me any commercial airplane or military program that does not need changes or safety updates after introduction to service.

AtlasRise wrote:

Why is it interesting? This is a CIVIL aviation forum.

enzo011 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Show me any commercial airplane or military program that does not need changes or safety updates after introduction to service.

Are those costs usually taken as a charge against the program though? I admire the effort to shine here, but it is still a turd that you are trying to shine. I don't get the reticence to acknowledge that they had to take a charge as a negative and the effort to make it sound positive is just plain weird.

enzo011 wrote:

I think it is called putting the other side of the argument on the table. You should be well versed as you did it so well in the Qatar-Airbus disputes. I have to say it is the first time I have heard a company taking a charge on a program as investment. I would have thought if you were going to call it an investment you would have charged it under R&D or somewhere else.

ikolkyo wrote:

I mean it’s not like Boeing was simply going to be shut out of the market, getting orders was never the issue at Boeing.

It’s all about seeing them improve at a management and cultural level and I think slowly they are starting to show improvement and find their way.

strfyr51 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I mean it’s not like Boeing was simply going to be shut out of the market, getting orders was never the issue at Boeing.

It’s all about seeing them improve at a management and cultural level and I think slowly they are starting to show improvement and find their way.

I think Boeing has paid the price to the FAA for taking short cuts in their system engineering and have learned their lesson. They will not make this mistake again. We will now see their true capabilities and quality and when they introduce new models? they'll truly be winners right off the drawing board. Of that I have no doubt.

strfyr51 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I mean it’s not like Boeing was simply going to be shut out of the market, getting orders was never the issue at Boeing.

It’s all about seeing them improve at a management and cultural level and I think slowly they are starting to show improvement and find their way.

I think Boeing has paid the price to the FAA for taking short cuts in their system engineering and have learned their lesson. They will not make this mistake again. We will now see their true capabilities and quality and when they introduce new models? they'll truly be winners right off the drawing board. Of that I have no doubt.

BA777FO wrote:

Where else are they going to send it?

tlecam wrote:

It reads as an article that started with an agenda and looked for a story to fit it.

strfyr51 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I mean it’s not like Boeing was simply going to be shut out of the market, getting orders was never the issue at Boeing.

It’s all about seeing them improve at a management and cultural level and I think slowly they are starting to show improvement and find their way.

I think Boeing has paid the price to the FAA for taking short cuts in their system engineering and have learned their lesson. They will not make this mistake again. We will now see their true capabilities and quality and when they introduce new models? they'll truly be winners right off the drawing board. Of that I have no doubt.

enzo011 wrote:

Are those costs usually taken as a charge against the program though?

DartHerald wrote:

On the face of it they are currently doing well with sales, but how much of that (particularly with the 737-Max) might be down to fire-sale discounts

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

On the face of it they are currently doing well with sales, but how much of that (particularly with the 737-Max) might be down to fire-sale discounts

ah, the favorite a.net narrative....

777luver wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I mean it’s not like Boeing was simply going to be shut out of the market, getting orders was never the issue at Boeing.

It’s all about seeing them improve at a management and cultural level and I think slowly they are starting to show improvement and find their way.

I think Boeing has paid the price to the FAA for taking short cuts in their system engineering and have learned their lesson. They will not make this mistake again. We will now see their true capabilities and quality and when they introduce new models? they'll truly be winners right off the drawing board. Of that I have no doubt.

They have not paid the price. They allowed this to happen not once, but twice. TWICE.

They blamed everyone else but Boeing and themselves

They continue to blame everyone else but themselves

They covered stuff up, blamed the pilots

Pure corporate greed

They didn’t want to compensate victims families

777luver wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I mean it’s not like Boeing was simply going to be shut out of the market, getting orders was never the issue at Boeing.

It’s all about seeing them improve at a management and cultural level and I think slowly they are starting to show improvement and find their way.

I think Boeing has paid the price to the FAA for taking short cuts in their system engineering and have learned their lesson. They will not make this mistake again. We will now see their true capabilities and quality and when they introduce new models? they'll truly be winners right off the drawing board. Of that I have no doubt.

They have not paid the price. They allowed this to happen not once, but twice. TWICE.

They blamed everyone else but Boeing and themselves

They continue to blame everyone else but themselves

They covered stuff up, blamed the pilots

Pure corporate greed

They didn’t want to compensate victims families

JohanTally wrote:

777luver wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

I think Boeing has paid the price to the FAA for taking short cuts in their system engineering and have learned their lesson. They will not make this mistake again. We will now see their true capabilities and quality and when they introduce new models? they'll truly be winners right off the drawing board. Of that I have no doubt.

They have not paid the price. They allowed this to happen not once, but twice. TWICE.

They blamed everyone else but Boeing and themselves

They continue to blame everyone else but themselves

They covered stuff up, blamed the pilots

Pure corporate greed

They didn’t want to compensate victims families

Unfortunately Boeing did try to pass blame on to others but that is what corporations do to stay viable. Whether it's right or wrong if Boeing accepted full responsibility for killing 346 people the litigation may sink the company. Going forward all aircraft from all manufacturers will be safer because of Boeings complacency.

Avatar2go wrote:

Boeing tried to apportion blame for the MAX accidents, and their apportionment has been vindicated by the responses from the NTSB and BEA. But not accepted by the media or those who are influenced by them, rather than by the actual available facts & data.

Avatar2go wrote:

The key differentiator has been the airlines themselves, who did understand the facts & data, and thus did not react as if Boeing was the evil empire. Nor did they believe that the general public would avoid Boeing or their products. Both have proven to be correct. It's that which has allowed Boeing to continue to build their order books and recover.

enzo011 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Boeing tried to apportion blame for the MAX accidents, and their apportionment has been vindicated by the responses from the NTSB and BEA. But not accepted by the media or those who are influenced by them, rather than by the actual available facts & data.

Scraping the barrel here looking at the media for the idea that Boeing is to blame in accidents they themselves have admitted they are responsible for. How dare the media do that. The problem has always been not that the media was looking for a scapegoat, it was that while Boeing was accepting blame in their public statements, internally they were looking everywhere else for where the blame lay.

If Boeing really is of the opinion that foreign pilots are too inexperienced and not up to scratch to deal with issues they may face, then maybe they should not be selling aircraft to those airlines. But sales have to be made and bonuses need to be paid so they will happily take the dollars from the very same companies they seem to hold in such low regard in terms of operating their products.

Avatar2go wrote:

The key differentiator has been the airlines themselves, who did understand the facts & data, and thus did not react as if Boeing was the evil empire. Nor did they believe that the general public would avoid Boeing or their products. Both have proven to be correct. It's that which has allowed Boeing to continue to build their order books and recover.

Airbus cannot supply all the Boeing customers with aircraft, so while you are correct that they still have a robust order book this is not always a realistic reflection of airline confidence. If you have an all Boeing fleet of 200 737's, you cannot just decide to replace all those aircraft in a couple of years. So it seems a bit disingenuous to try and argue that Boeing still has the confidence of airlines when most of them don't have any other option other than to stick with what they have.

777luver wrote:

To clarify do you think that Boeing should be held responsible for not telling airlines about MCAS?

SEPilot wrote:

As I see it Boeing got off track badly when they allowed McDonnell-Douglas to buy them out with their money. They went from having engineers run the company to accountants running it. And the MAX debacle was the culmination. I sincerely hope that they are turning back to focusing on engineering as the top priority; if so, they will eventually regain the trust that they once had. Let’s hope so, because a world with only one supplier of large airliners is not a good one. And the obstacles to another manufacturer to break into the market are pretty close to insurmountable. Lockheed is about the only one who would have a ghost of a chance to pull it off, and the only realistic way they could do it would be to buy the wreckage of Boeing from bankruptcy. But they got chased out of the airliner business 40 years ago, and have shown no desire whatsoever to get back into it.

As to Boeing’s products, I think they have a good lineup. They clearly dominate in the widebody segment; the combination of the 787 and 779 definitely outclasses the A330NEO-A350 lineup that Airbus is offering. The 787 seems to sell rings around the A350; I am not sure why. Maybe it is price. From what I have read I don’t think it is performance; the A350 certainly seems to have better range, and I don’t believe that either one has a clear advantage in operating costs. The fact that the 787 is smaller gives it an advantage; airlines seem to prefer the smallest plane that will do the job. The A350 can do routes like JFK-MNL, which the 787 cannot, but those routes are pretty few. Perhaps the A350 is too long ranged and is carrying extra structural weight because of it? If so, it would show up in comparative operating costs, which I have not heard is the case.

As to the A330NEO, from what I have read it has no advantage over the 787 except availability. As I understand it not even the price of the A330NEO is better. So the only ones who will buy it are those that really hate Boeing, or need them in a hurry, or have a large Airbus fleet and don’t want to add a lonely Boeing type (certainly a valid consideration). As to the 779, it’s future depends on its performance, of which we know little at present. There have been trickles of information that indicates that it is at least meeting expectations, and the fact that so far all the airlines that ordered it are sticking with it (without making noise about being disappointed with its performance) is significant IMHO. It is unlikely that it will beat expectations in dramatic fashion the way the 77W did, but even without that if it meets performance goals it should be a decent success.

In the narrowbody field Airbus has a significant advantage that is likely to remain for the foreseeable future. The hard economic fact is that there is not enough improvement from known technology to justify a clean sheet design. Most of the improvement that is likely to come will be in engines, and unless a completely different mode of propulsion emerges new engines can be adapted to the existing airframes without redesigning them completely. And since the A320 can accommodate larger diameter engines than the 737 it is likely to always have the edge. But since Airbus cannot meet the entire narrowbody demand alone (and is not likely to in the future) the 737 will still have its place, probably at about 40% of the market.

LAX772LR wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

A330neo is coming up for replacement.
They should be targeting this space and the potential for an Airbus made 787 sized aircraft should cause Boeing concern.

Unless you meant "CEO" then this makes almost no sense.

The NEO isn't even 5yrs old, and hasn't yet targeted a replacement-cycle in earnest.

It missed the cycle for 763/A332/A340/77A replacement, that the 787/A359 capitalized upon mightily, and it likely won't see the 764/A333/77E replacement cycle that it's aimed at, until near the end of this decade.

Avatar2go wrote:

This is just plain crazy. Your argument now is that Boeing should not sell aircraft to airlines that have pilot training problems. That is yet another attempt to hold Boeing responsible for airlines actions.

Avatar2go wrote:

And you simultaneously push the theory that airlines only purchase Boeing aircraft because they are forced to, with no other choice. That again is ludicrous. The exact same could be said about Airbus, as they are part of the duopoly. But no rational person would make that claim. Airlines choose the aircraft they believe are best for their purpose, whether it be Boeing or Airbus.

enzo011 wrote:

That is my argument. There are no 100% safe airlines in the world when it comes to training and maintenance practices. Some will be worse than others but it is up to the whole industry to ensure enough safeguards for safe travel the majority of the time. If you as a company are concerned about some of the issues at airlines then it is incumbent on you to either not sell them your products or ensure your products are safe for them to use. I will point out the same airlines that have these problems had no issues with the 737NG/787/777/767. But we all know that.]

Sigh...so you are saying an airline that needs a A320/738 in the next 2-3 years will be able to choose which one they want based of what they believe is best for their airline? Availability will not play a role and it will all be down to what is best for their airline, which does not include factors like when they can get it and if there will be extra cost involved in using the aircraft. Because that is what I posted. The same is true for Airbus customers, this should not be controversial. I find it strange you are nuanced enough to understand that many factors go into what caused an accident (to ensure the facts are out there) but purchase decisions are as simple as what is best for the customer goes.

Avatar2go wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

That is my argument. There are no 100% safe airlines in the world when it comes to training and maintenance practices. Some will be worse than others but it is up to the whole industry to ensure enough safeguards for safe travel the majority of the time. If you as a company are concerned about some of the issues at airlines then it is incumbent on you to either not sell them your products or ensure your products are safe for them to use. I will point out the same airlines that have these problems had no issues with the 737NG/787/777/767. But we all know that.]

Sigh...so you are saying an airline that needs a A320/738 in the next 2-3 years will be able to choose which one they want based of what they believe is best for their airline? Availability will not play a role and it will all be down to what is best for their airline, which does not include factors like when they can get it and if there will be extra cost involved in using the aircraft. Because that is what I posted. The same is true for Airbus customers, this should not be controversial. I find it strange you are nuanced enough to understand that many factors go into what caused an accident (to ensure the facts are out there) but purchase decisions are as simple as what is best for the customer goes.

This is just doubling down on unjustified and untenable positions. The facts are entirely in opposition to them. You have no proof or evidence whatsoever that airlines are buying Boeing aircraft only because they have no choice.

But there are tons of evidence to the contrary, including statements of said airlines. None of them have ever said, gosh we really hate buying these Boeing aircraft, but whatcha gonna do? That darn elitist & stingy Airbus just won't produce enough planes for us!! Ludicrous, as I stated.

I don't think I've ever seen a press release stating that the type chosen was the second best, because the type preferred wasn't available for whatever reason - so in this case I don't think we can take absence of evidence as proof! The one possible piece of evidence we do have is the QR order for 737-10s that came after the cancellation by AB of their order for A321XLRs - but as soon as a settlement was reached in the dispute that led to the cancellation, the A321XLR order was reinstated. If QR really believed the the 737-10 was just as good for their purposes or available sooner, why did they bother with getting the XLRs reinstated? Again, it is indirect evidence but it may be substantiated to a degree when the first aircraft start to be delivered and we get to set what they do with them.

As far as your claim that these airlines don't have a problem with other aircraft, I refer you to SJ182, or to the record of Indonesian airlines in general. Or to the detail (not the conclusions) of the JT610 accident report, which documented a chain of faults that would have grounded a Western airline. Or to their banishment from Western airspace for 9 years.

Or if you want to choose Ethiopian, I refer you to the unprecedented actions of NTSB and BEA, in pointing out blatant falsifications and broad omissions of fact, in the ET302 report. What is the safety culture of a regulator and government that would condone such a thing, or the airlines that operate under them? Examples exist there as well. Aircraft hijacked by the copilot. Aircraft landing at a closed airport. Aircraft suffering fuel exhaustion. Aircraft lost through crew mismanagement.

Yet you you would have us believe, that these things are Boeing's fault, because Boeing sold them aircraft? If so, then where does their responsibility begin? According to your many posts here, they have none.

And that is the true thrust of your arguments, to deny their responsibility and role in the accidents. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But that view, as much as you may believe in it, is simply not supported by the evidence. The overwhelming evidence is, that they did play a role, in all these incidents. That is the simple truth. You can deny it as much as you wish, but it isn't altered by your denial.

DartHerald wrote:

I don't think I've ever seen a press release stating that the type chosen was the second best, because the type preferred wasn't available for whatever reason - so in this case I don't think we can take absence of evidence as proof! The one possible piece of evidence we do have is the QR order for 737-10s that came after the cancellation by AB of their order for A321XLRs - but as soon as a settlement was reached in the dispute that led to the cancellation, the A321XLR order was reinstated.

If QR really believed the the 737-10 was just as good for their purposes or available sooner, why did they bother with getting the XLRs reinstated? Again, it is indirect evidence but it may be substantiated to a degree when the first aircraft start to be delivered and we get to see what they do with them.

ewt340 wrote:

The only way we could objectively judge if they are on the right track to recovery is not to look at the new orders. Rather, it's how smooth the delivery of the new aircraft are.

LAX772LR wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

When new engines go on the 787 Airbus can't respond by putting them on the A330 it's too old and too heavy.

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

SEAorPWM wrote:

The first 77E's are from 1996. I think they will start going sooner than later (other than UA and AA who will keep these mid 90s gas hogs well past 30).

strfyr51 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Metchalus wrote:

When new engines go on the 787 Airbus can't respond by putting them on the A330 it's too old and too heavy.

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

Airbus can't even install a GE engine of the type that Boeing has on the 787. GE is committed to Boeing and unless they end that relationship? then airbus can't install the GE engine of the same type that's on the 787.

LAX772LR wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

The first 77E's are from 1996. I think they will start going sooner than later (other than UA and AA who will keep these mid 90s gas hogs well past 30).

1997, and I love how what was the world's longest ranged and most efficient airliner only 19yrs ago, is now derided as "gas hogs," lol.

LAX772LR wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

The first 77E's are from 1996. I think they will start going sooner than later (other than UA and AA who will keep these mid 90s gas hogs well past 30).

1997, and I love how what was the world's longest ranged and most efficient airliner only 19yrs ago, is now derided as "gas hogs," lol.

That said, BA can be added to that list, as well as AF, KL, and likely KE as well.

strfyr51 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Based on what?

It already has a pneumatic modification of the same engines the 787 ops with now.

Airbus can't even install a GE engine of the type that Boeing has on the 787. GE is committed to Boeing and unless they end that relationship? then airbus can't install the GE engine of the same type that's on the 787.

In a word: So?

That's a contractual restriction, not a technical one. Production contracts spanning decade-long periods can be, and often are, reviewed and negotiated with time.

ER757 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

The only way we could objectively judge if they are on the right track to recovery is not to look at the new orders. Rather, it's how smooth the delivery of the new aircraft are.

I agree with this and would add that it also will depend on how certification of the 737-7, 737-10 and 779 go. They've had delay after delay and it would be hard to trust there won't be more. Hopefully they have it sorted out and the process in fact DOES move smoothly the rest of the way, but history doesn't favor that outcome.