← Back to Squawk list
  • 56

A never ending nightmare for Boeing, losses soar as it faces issues with all its new passenger jets

Submitted
The bad news keeps piling up for Boeing as the 777X gets delayed to 2025, the 787 faces a multitude of issues, and the company struggles to meet the 737 MAX 10’s certification deadline of end of year 2022... (www.aviationweekly.org) More...

hf633626
TrendsetterNews junkieTrusted friendAmateur PhotographerPromoter

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


RWSlater
Ron Slater 28
If they would stop making sections all over the world and go back to making the airplane themselves it might help. I watched the documentary on the beginning of their downfall and how it started right after the buyout of McDouglas and they got rid of the top Boeing people. I think they are in for a rough time
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 22
Other manufacturers have successfully adopted an internationally sourced components business model (Airbus and Bombardier prior to the buyout come to mind) so I believe the issue is deeper than what you suggest. Three words , , , - Bad Management Greed
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
chuckchern
Charles Chernicky 16
The outsourcing is certainly part of it. You only need to look at the current political situation to understand this, and then there's the QC component that's just as important. Look at the history of the 747 and you'll see that the plane went from drawing board to the sky in about 2 years. That's a truly incredible achievement that now seems impossible for Boeing to accomplish for anything they build. Boeing can't even decide what new plane to build, let alone complete what's on the market now. A perfect example of what corporate greed does to an excellent company. Glory to the shareholders..
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mikehe
Mike Hindson-Evans 7
In fairness, the 747 was initially blowing JT9D engines faster than a stripper changes outfits. Some BOAC (now BA) drivers ran out of fingers to hold up, to show tge nunber of power units that they had needed to swap out. Boeing and P&W and the airlines simply "worked the problem". Today, the lawyers would be having a feeding frenzy.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 4
True that was long ago in an age were they could get away with their shenanigans. These days they would never get away with playing free and loose with the rules.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
fireftr
Dale Ballok 1
But, the plane itself was fine! Boeing didn’t manufacture the engines.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 3
There’s a lot more on-board computing and software now than on the 747 when it was first developed. Testing all that stuff makes the drawing-board-to-sky time much longer than back in the day.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 7
100% made and assembled in the USA would drive up costs and make the aircraft uncompetitive globally. Boeing zigged and the rest of the world zagged in terms of production and Boeing cannot in any way recoup. They are a generation behind in several segments, struggling to stay relevant with newer technology and it is not so much that Airbus won but more so that Boeing F'd up for short-term financial return for shareholders which has come back to bite them in the ass. Looking ahead with the USA in the rear-view mirror, my forecast is that the global players will be European and Chinese. Boeing may get the scraps of a global market based on political arm twisting and allegiances (ex: El Al) and will always be a viable option in the USA. BUT even at that, with the drive towards LCC, even the US market is at risk. Jetblue fleet? Spirit Fleet? etc. The USA has, IMHO, become a consumer and to some degree, a designer nation, no longer a manufacturing nation. Those days are gone and Boeing's sad state indicates such. Anyway, my 2 cents.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
chuckchern
Charles Chernicky 9
Boeing really appears to be in a death spiral. Looking at their losses pile up, try to image them having a discussion on a multi-billion dollar program to develop a new plane, with little or no cash flow. Anyway,I don't think that normal business rules really apply to commercial aviation. The most important thing that must be addressed first is making sure the plane stays in the air. I guess current Boeing management forgot that. If Boeing hadn't bought on to the MD management philosophy, I think it's reasonable to believe that Boeing would be a very healthy company now, maybe making a bit less money on each plane but far better than their current situation.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
godutch
godutch 2
Agreed
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
thomasq
Tom Zaidman 1
Airplane safety is always the most important factor in aviation. Unfortunately very often and not only in aviation, profit rules.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tompaxy
Tom Pips 9
Boeing might be just another victim of age old "everybody's replaceable" dogma.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jimjallen
Jim Allen 16
As I tell everyone - read “Flying Blind”. It’s not a “great reset”, it’s nothing but good ole’ corporate greed. Why not ask what happened to the airline bailout during COVID?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Jaime1949
Jaime Terrassa 3
well said Mr. Allen
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
banana
James Eaton 3
Corporate greed, yes.... but the bonus structure also encouraged many top individuals to take their eye off the objective (of assembling excellent aircraft) so, perhaps, we could add individual greed?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 2
Yup. Greed is like heroin to those that choose that path.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
skipper33
Murray Palmer 2
Indeed where there is greed there is poverty in all walks of life all over the world
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
geckobrah
Ga Za 27
It’s a shame to watch a formerly sterling and highly respected American tech company fall so low.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
skylab72
skylab72 2
"formerly sterling"? I guess those of us old enough to have heard the "Bill Boeing" stories firsthand have mostly all died off. Ever wonder how only one of the AVN company survivors in the Military-Industrial-Complex carries a single founder's name? Sorry folks, but Boeing's chickens are coming home to roost. That may or may not improve the industry...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jimjallen
Jim Allen 5
It really is. I feel for the Bill Allen legacy employees. In just a quick check, Boeing is losing money on the 2 new planes to be flown as Air Force One. On the other hand, we really do need to acknowledge that it’s not a level playing field with Airbus. How to address it… I have no clue.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
GraemeSmith
GraemeSmith 7
Airbus - How so?

And remember - Boeing and other US builders got their leg up by tilting the playing field heavily in their favor after WWII.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jimjallen
Jim Allen -3
Agreed, but Airbus is sponsored by the governments. They’re not providing a service (except jobs) in return. Boeing and others at least produced aircraft.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mikehe
Mike Hindson-Evans 11
Jim, for a whole host of reasons, I am simply going to disagree with you (respectfully) over your assertions regarding Airbus.

Imagine how Canada would feel now, if Bullying Boeing had managed to get its claws into Bombardier. At least Boeing's problems remain (largely) within the territorial CONUS.

I do, however, continue to wish Boeing well. After all, "competition improves the breed" - and Airbus needs a competent opposition (as well as Embraer, Sukhoi, China etc.

Tongue firmly in both cheeks, of course. Happy Friday!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

[This poster has been suspended.]

cordery
Alan Cordery 12
Boeing is especially and egregiously “sponsored” through their share of military spending.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
godutch
godutch 4
I call BS on your comment. It doesn't seem like the FAA is doing much 'sponsoring' the last three years. It seems just the opposite, the FAA appears to be 'out to get' Boeing at this point.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
godutch
godutch 4
...the tax breaks thing takes place in every state and most countries for any large corporate entity that opens up shop in the specific locale. But Airbus is actually kept afloat by the government consortium (and the EU???).
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 1
Boeing is a big part of the USA defense industrial base, or as Eisenhower called it, the military-industrial complex. Our Federal government will not let Boeing’s defense and military operations go down the chute. The commercial side will likely limp along until better management fixes it, supported by revenue from the defense side.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Carioca
Tomer Ariav 1
Or goes as Lockheed did with the 1011: abandon the commercial and work only for military-industrial complex.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
wmmoseley
mike moseley 7
With this kind of catastrophic decline it would appear that Boeing is run by "Bean Counters" not engineers. The management's loyalties seem to lie with the mega share holders and not with the customers, employees or in making great airplanes, as they once did when it was an engineering company. It's appears to be all about quarterly profits that drive the stock price and if it weren't for Government/Defense industry tax-payer subsidies(e.g. F-15x) they would likely go under. Same thing happened to GE.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jbsimms
James Simms 2
Same thing is happening in the rail industry. Rail has cut to & into the bone to keep the shareholders happy such they can’t deliver goods such as fertilizer for the agricultural industry nor can they deliver the finished product afterwards.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
tompaxy
Tom Pips 13
Maybe it's time to get back to basics and toss some of the bullshit technology and unnecessary features. How about that?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 10
IMHO, won't happen as consumers want more for less, not less for less. Ever consider buying a cellphone without a camera or a color screen? Aviation is just another commodity at this point. Also, the competition seems quite capable of developing the "bullshit technology" you refer to. However, it may be "bullshit management" that put Boeing where it is today. Playing catch-up and not doing so well at that let alone leading. Anyway, my cents worth.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TorontoJeff
Jeff Phipps 11
Given how they screwed over Bombardier on the C-Series, then screwed over Embraer in a different way, I've had zero sympathy for Boeing.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 7
Agree fully. But I would like to add that if all that you have is aggression/bullying as your main corporate asset, well, says volumes about your technology, doesn't it? Well, at least Canada did not select the Super Hornet as its next gen fighter.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
I am surprised we didn’t get the Super Hornet here in Canada. Trudeau had canceled the F35s purchased by previous governments and bought second hand flying coffins the Aussies were sending to the scrapyard. Then the Ukraine erupted and he realized why we need a fighter that can protect our northern border. The Super Hornet is a good aircraft but we need something better then just good. We need the best air superiority fighter available but since the Americans won’t share their F22 we had to take the second best fighter jet in the western world.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 1
We are approaching the point in time when pilotless technologies of all types are in the foreseeable future with prototypes out there. I suspect/hope that this purchase will be the last that will put humans in tubes for military purposes.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
Considering how Bombardier screwed the Canadian taxpayers on the C series I have no sympathy for what happens to them.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jimjallen
Jim Allen 11
They’re blaming the delays on lack of self-certification. Well… don’t build that into your delivery timelines then or pressure the government to allow you to self-certify. Earn the trust back.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
tchartman
tchartman 13
Self-certification IS meant for speeding up new product design and lowering development costs. But self-certification is a PRIVILEGE! Self-cert is meant for use by ethically strong and responsible companies. Having been a chief engineer for a company that was allowed to certify our own products according to applicable standards, self-cert lead to many internal arguments and sleepless nights when things went wrong during test. I can only imagine what goes on in a huge system design and test like the 737.

On the other hand, my team also developed FAA certified aircraft components (the Boeing 707 comes to mind) and the effort to satisfy the FAA was no small task. Considering the amount of work we had to do for our simple parts I am deeply offended by Boeing's behaviour. If Boeing can dust off the FAA, why can't the vendors?? That is a nasty rat hole to go down.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
DennisSee
Dennis See 5
Is anyone running this company!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
williamableman
William Ableman 5
I have never seen a big company buy another company and then turn it over to them and let them run it.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
AlanBDahl
Alan Dahl 2
Apple bought much smaller NeXT Computer in 1996 and within months several NeXT executives were on the Apple board of directors, Chairman/CEO Steve Jobs was appointed interim CEO and most of the Apple management was ousted. Famously that worked out incredibly well for Apple as they had success after success and became the largest company in the world. This more the exception rather than the rule though but it's at least one example of that occurring and working out well.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
skylab72
skylab72 1
WA you have not been watching long enough. Douglas, Northrop, Republic, and Grumman were the "engineer run" companies with McDonnell an honorable mention while Ol' man Mac was still running the place. After the DC-9 fiasco, Sandy Mac re-engineered the company "to ensure 'that' NEVER happened (to McD-D) again, and in the process gave the bean-counters enough sway that the most clever-powerful in that group engineered the trojan-horse deal with Boeing. Bill's heirs were trapped by their own arrogance...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 1
Skylab please post some background on “the DC9 fiasco”, of which I am admittedly ignorant.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
skylab72
skylab72 1
Shortly before inking the 120th purchase contract for the purchase of a DC-9, the bean counters at Douglas discovered that the actual manufacturing cost of creating each one exceeded the price for which it had been sold by a figure between 17,000 and 175,000. In that era, Douglas had expected all development costs would have been paid for (amortized) with the profit from the first 25 "or so" aircraft. Now suddenly they were in a hole almost a third of a billion dollars deep from losses on each sale and approaching a half-billion when counting the actual development cost of the aircraft.

Mc Donnell at the time had just inked the contract that would in a very few years build the 5000th F4 Phantom, of which 100% of its development cost+ a contractual profit was already in the bank. Thus McDonnell bought Douglas... I refer to that as "the DC-9 fiasco".
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 1
Thank you sir!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
mikehe
Mike Hindson-Evans 5
Sad to see. What is the problem with the 737max10? Surely it is just a stretch with no particular risks? Oh, hang on..
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Carioca
Tomer Ariav 5
Boeing lacks engineers as those that worked for Douglas and a poor QC that is not capable of keeping the highest quality for the outsourced parts.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
djjamar
Jamar Jackson 4
Snitches get stitches and karma is a biccch. Didn’t Boeing snitch on bombardier accusing them of dumping the CS series?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 9
The CS series represented a leapfrog in technology that clearly indicated Boeing's misdirection and lost ways. No denying that as Airbus was quick to pick them up and is succeeding greatly with it. Boeing's approach of "Can't beat them in the market? Pull bullying tactics" is actually sad. IMHO, what we are seeing is a result of, yes poor corporate governance and greed, but also the results of having a monopoly in the world's largest economy. Complacency and greed took over with no counter-balance in that market. My 2 cents.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ianedge
Ian Edge 7
What a shame for Boeings unionised workforce, let down by some bad management decisions 😕 and unskilled labour in other factories than Seattle.
Build cheap, build twice it seems
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
godutch
godutch 6
BS...there's shitty work coming out of all the locations. The Unions suck just as much South Carolina's production.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jimjallen
Jim Allen -9
Move to South Carolina where Niki Haley and her Union kicking boots are in charge. They moved HQ to Chicago to get far from Seattle. No sympathy for Boeing here.,
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
godutch
godutch 14
Some of best U.S. made cars are from Toyota, Honda, and Nissan non-unionized workers. This problem has nothing to do with the union/non-union argument. It's poor management, poor design and quality from each Boeing location. Try again. Get off your unionized horse...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ianedge
Ian Edge 0
Just a thought, EVERY airbus worker is in the union in every country, says something doesn't it 🤔 when you see beautifully made wiring looms for example installed in an Airbus and not just thrown in with a pitchfork like you see on another maker's aircraft .
So off your ultra right wing horse 🐎 👌
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ianedge
Ian Edge 0
Non unionised Labour nearly always means semi skilled or low skilled workers, and these are the same type of workers that build cars, but the car workers turn out their products in tightly controlled processes, and also, your three Japrnese car makers have a good Paternal relationship with their employees, unlike it seems, Boeing.
Unions are only organised to collectively fight bad and aggressive management.
For example, look at the ex GM Ontario loco plant, progress rail wanted the workforce to accept less than half wages.
When they refused, production was moved to Muncie In the USA.
Those non Unionised workers are doing the Canadian workers jobs for less than half pay .
No Union.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
kinoworks
Michael Sheridan 0
Airbus is all union you stupid shi* So why are they so safe, reliable, and profitable?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
pjshield
pjshield 9
Haley hasn't been "in charge" in many years. Find another puppy to beat!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
briansfreeman
Brian Freeman 3
Is it not hilarious that Boeing is taking a huge hit on the new Air Force One project??

Just another reason why nothing much is manufactured in this country anymore - total incompetence and misplaced priorities.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ianedge
Ian Edge 2
Too true, all that seems to matter is Profit , money , and greed.
to companies now , well most of them anyway , and not just in the USA, its widespread all over the world now .
Asia can't get their way militarily so they are doing it economically and the "Free Market" government's are letting it happen
as I see things .
Most shareholders don't care about the workers losing their jobs and once proud companies going into bankruptcy. Very sad.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
robtartre
Rob Tartre 5
Agree with all the points. I'd add this. Jack Welch and the "GE way" really tanked this company. We are talking a multi million dollar aircraft, not washing machines and lightbulbs. Welch and his ilk (Calhoun current CEO is one of them) should be painted as corporate morons when describing how they trashed Boeing. The idea to keep an airframe like the 737 flying after 70 years makes no sense. They needed a new plane to compete with the A321 NEO and they didn't have the cash or talent to do it after the debacle with the 787. All on the former Welch GE idiots who tanked this company.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 10
When the shareholder is the primary customer and the airlines and pax a distant second, , , well as we see, , , sh*t happens.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
chuckchern
Charles Chernicky 8
All in the name of instant gratification for the shareholders. Nobody in Boeing management really suffered from the MAX crashes. They all should have been criminally charged.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
stofer
Pat Barry 3
Rob, the issue of modifying an existing airframe (737) versus an entirely new design was discussed decades ago --- Boeing lacked the resources to do a totally different design, so the market niche could be satisfied by stretching the 737 platform at a manageable cost. The argument seemed to make sense.
Another aspect is/was the forecast of demand. Back when the Boeing 737 debate was ongoing the forecast of air travel demand was way less than the actual that we see today, so the analysis of new versus stretch an existing platform had a different view. Had the demand picture been accurate the choice of new versus stretch might have been different.
In the end the accountants and capital risk always seem to rule.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
M20ExecDriver
M20ExecDriver 2
Old saying "Never have enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it twice". Seems to be the mantra at Boeing.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
cnyflyboy
Stephen Donnelly 3
For all of the various issues: no MOM airplane, 737MAX, 787, & 777X, all Boeing has to do is look at itself in a mirror!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Wingrat
Wingrat 1
Holy cow I guess billing has forgot how to build airplanes that fly without incredible errors of some kind or another it’s baffling.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
cscs3
cscs3 1
Since merger with McD. Boeing is no longer a trusted company.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
skylab72
skylab72 2
All this "single point of failure" finger-pointing is pure BS. There are both horrors and heroes all over the Aviation industry. In the "roaring 20s" there were a hundred plus companies that made flying machines for profit, with a "normal distribution" to both quality and ethics among them. Competitive & external forces have pared down the field after the last hundred years to a handful of megacorporations, designing and building via a mashed-up quagmire of contracts and sub-contractors that in no way reflect either the genius nor the villainy of their founders. These modern corporations are poorly programmed robots, loosely guided by narcissistic managers wearing spectacles that "correct" their vision to 20-200 near-sighted, lumbering toward "goals" that do not comprehend either the real-world impact of actually accomplishing them nor which real-world feedback loops will return the most energy. They seem a bit like a John Maynard Keynes nightmare. Perhaps hinted at by an unconfirmed quote once attributed to Trotsky, "If the capitalists actually do fail one day, it will most assuredly not be due to the efforts of my comrades. It will be due to their own excesses."

If you trust any of them, Verify.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Carioca
Tomer Ariav 1
I believe that Douglas was a trusted company. I gave us the DC-3, DC-7, A-4 Phantom. I would say that the F-15 and F-18 were also born at Douglas.
McDonell seems to be the problem.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
skylab72
skylab72 1
Yes, the "DC" in the DC Series is "Douglas Commercial". The A-4 is a Skyhawk, "Heinemann's Hot-Rod" and yes, defiantly Douglas. The Phantom was the F-4, and originated in St. Louis with McDonnell, as did the F-15. F-18 is not really a thing, but more on that in a minute. But, the FA-18 certainly did not originate at Douglas, it is based on a design that competed with F-16 Falcon for contracts under the "Light Fighter" RFP the Air Force let in the late sixties. Northrup was the bidder and the Air Force named their entry the F-17. Yeah, they lost because the AF preferred a single-engine because that gave the F-16 a bit better range. But the Navy had long preferred twins (reliability over water) and anyway they had also already started carrier quals on hardware to provide peer-to-peer mid-air refueling, so the range issue was no issue for them. BUT... the Navy did not think Northrup had the physical resources to build as many planes as they knew they would need, nor did they think they had the Navel Engineering expertise to convert the design to a "NAVY plane" in a timely fashion. SO the NAVY arranged a deal where Northrop sold the whole project with all design work done so far to the newly formed McDonnell-Douglas, and they converted it into an FA-18 Hornet.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Carioca
Tomer Ariav 1
Thanks for the clarification.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
cscs3
cscs3 1
Well, you forget about the problematic DC10.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
bdjam
Brian James 1
Sad to see such an iconic and important company go down the toilet because of corporate greed. William Boeing is rolling in his grave.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Carioca
Tomer Ariav 1
From Financial Times:
Boeing ditches Chicago headquarters for Washington, DC area
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
msetera
msetera 1
What's more important, diversity and inclusion or performance and quality?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
williamableman
William Ableman 0
I wonder if Boeing will do something to make the Union go on strike for a month or two and then blame the multi-year delay on them, just like they did with the 787.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
cordery
Alan Cordery -3
Good thing they are saving with all those non union jobs, yuck yuck. Probably enough left to pay off bonuses though.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ashokuku
Ramaswami Kumar 0
See for the latest news on the Boeing 737 crash which shows that it is the work of World Dam Dynamics, a common antecedent and the root cause in many accidents:
https://livingnormally.blogspot.com/2022/04/an-earth-resident-analyses-boeing-737.html
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
kinoworks
Michael Sheridan 0
It’s interesting that the lowest quality Boeing planes come out of a non-union plant.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
propman46
Michael Mitchell -5
Isn't their biggest single loss item the new Air Force One; as result of doing business with Donald Trump? Also, with the rapid success of the A220, we can now see why they were wise to pull out of the deal with Embraer, which could never have matched Airbus.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

WillyRoss
Bill Ross 8
It does not look like, walk like or quack like a duck. Shitty management is at fault
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
21voyageur
21voyageur 10
Agree. Believing in grandiose hidden government agendas is just an easy way to explain everything one cannot comprehend.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
briansfreeman
Brian Freeman 2
Imp - Who will build all those black helicopters your government flies over your house??
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
kiwigtp
Gerald Pringle -1
I am sorry to say this, but I think that the world no longer trusts Boeing.

So it doesnt really matter how or.where the aircraft are made.

Lawyers and accountants were trained to count beans and look after the traffic fines.- not to run companies
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
kinoworks
Michael Sheridan -1
Face it. This is a rotten-to-the-core company. Run by an inept and incompetent CEO who doesn’t have a clue about how to fix it.

Meanwhile Qantas just officially bought a load of ultra long haul A350s today.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss