Boeing desperation: give it a rest, gents

This is really reaching. Is this really the best Boeing can do?

28 Comments on “Boeing desperation: give it a rest, gents

  1. Scott: I have been reading you for many years, but this is my first post. I think it is better sometimes to stay calm, and for Boeing, I think it was wiser to wait till the official decission is made. Maybe they are feeling disturbed because they fired so many people in Wichita AFTER using them to get the tanker contract, and feel ashamed that Airbus is still making business in Mobile AFTER loosing that same contract, based in their mutual WTO wrestling match!!

  2. I’m often amazed by the capability to absorb government support in many forms to the maximum, while publicly accusing others doing so at the same time. Takes moral flexibilty.

  3. I can read a little more of the WSJ on Google … but what is the purpose of a thread we cannot fully read !
    What to say more … Our appreciated Jon Ostrower, is now converting in a full time Boeing prophet ??

      • To read the article, simply copy the title “Boeing Disparages Airbus’s U.S. Plans” into a Google search page. Click on the article in the search results and read the whole thing.

  4. leehamnet :
    I can read the entire WSJ article…

    May be to morrow, the WSJ access is varying a lot from one day to another !
    And sometimes easier through Google !

  5. I can’t read the entire WSJ article, I just can read the first lines

  6. Seems that not everybody has the same status with WSJ worldwide !
    I get access through Google in English !
    But nope with the links … from Europe …

  7. I don’t think Boeing is getting value for money from its PR company!

  8. Boeing’s reaction should be rather expected.

    Some of us can recall American’s reaction to the first Japanese car assembly plant here in the US. Surely, the big-three had even more scathing comments and even more radical reaction from citizens. Was Honda essentially controlled by “golden shares” by their government? No, but EADS/Airbus is.

    So, it their governments which dictate financial strategy and long term hold-out for market share over profit margins. With that backing, the irony is predatory pricing can continue even with local political support from anti-socialist free-marketeers.

    • Boeing isn’t independent from the US government, as many love to believe. After 2000 B47s, 600 B52s and 700 KC135s within a decade ordered by the US government, Boeing was ready to dominate the passenger jet market too. Until this day a wide array of direct and indirect support is given, political, pressure, financing, massive R&D, DoD and Darpa, NASA work Keep Boeing profitable. Boeing congressmen will no doubt play the national sentiments, fear cart, like they succesfull did with the tanker (congress changed the rules of the game).

      • Have no doubt, “Wall Street” will kill off McDonald-Douglas if they don’t meet revenue & profit expectations. After thousands of A-4s, F-4 IIs, F-15s, F/A-18s, KC-10s, C-17s and AH-64s over the US government, they were to dominate the passenger jet market too. Even with a wide array of direct and indirect support was given, political, pressure, financing, massive R&D, DoD and Darap, NASA working to keep MD profitable. McDonald-Douglas congressmen played the national sentiments, fear cart, like they sucesfull did with their transport McDonald-Douglas could still fell to Wall-Street bean counters.

        Oh, but MD already fell to the bean counters expectations and are no more but a memory.

        And, with respect to, “tanker (congress changed the rules of the game),” GAO report is rather clear. Among others findings, the USAF gave Airbus the initial contract by violating their own RFP rules! In part, the GAO stated,

        ‘2. Protest is sustained, where the agency violated the solicitation’s evaluation provision that “no consideration will be provided for exceeding KPP objectives” when it recognized as a key discriminator the fact the awardee proposed to exceed a KPP objective relating to aerial refuleing to a greater degree than the protestor.’

        So, no, Congress didn’t change the rules. The USAF changed their own rules arbitrarily on the fly! It was so blatant the head of the DoD, Robert Gates, personally watched the contest re-run to ensure there was no “funny-business.” Even then, European politicians had the audacity to call the USA “protectionists!”

  9. Why did you change the title? No more free media pass at Boeing?

  10. Scott, Rensim, UKair, New, thank you for your help, I finally got to read the article.
    I am French but a big fan of Boeing and I am really disappointed by the reaction of Boeing. I do think that Public Relations for Boeing are not up to this fantastic company that has created the 707, 747, 777 & 787.
    The economic crisis has hit Europe and to a lesser extent the USA, under these conditions all the jobs created are good to take. I’m sure that American workers will be happy to work for Airbus in Mobile, Alabama.
    I hope that European workers and European governments will recognize that what is good for Airbus is good for employment in Europe, even if it involves the creation of a factory in the USA.
    On the other side, I think and I’m sure that if Boeing decides to build a factory in France, the French socialist government will find money to subsidize and fully support this implementation.
    Sorry for my bad english !!!

    • Apparently with all things being equal different labour-management realtions make it easier for Airbus to build a FAL in non-union Alabama compared to Boeing’s unions resistance to a similar
      new 787 assembly line in non-union South Carolina.

  11. RH Hastings. The beaten USAF twice lost any tanker ambitions knock-out after the congress’ GOA report and just wanted “a” tanker and get it on. Congress changed the rules after Boeing lost twice (first the scandal then the NG win). Selection criteria were changed so that advantages of the more capable KC30 had to be ignored and the cheapest deal for the minimum requirements should win. Those minimum requirements were coincidently ~the KC767 capabilities.
    NG and Airbus concluded Boeing losing to Airbus was simply unacceptable to the United States of America. NG called it a day and Airbus stayed in, not to embarrass their future prospects.

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf page 5-7

    Everyone knows it was a fix and no-one is interested to pull it up again. It could have harmed further business like an A320 line in the US, A400M, helicopters etc. Sometimes forgetting and smiling is better then fighting.

  12. I think Boeing is mad that Airbus in Mobile will be using lower cost workers than the curreint EU workers, both by lower seniority (new hires) and non-union. Meanwhile Boeing still has IAM pay scales to deal with. Also the exchange rate makes a difference.

    However, I must say it is fair game. A similar thing happened in Autos – over several decades it actually shifted the US share of content higher for the US cars, more are assembled here than before. It is odd that some Japanese models now have higher US content than from the big three.

  13. A very interesting reaction from Boeing. What can one read from this?
    Petulance? Panic? Mere blind reaction to anything Airbus does? A cleverer tactical stroke that will be to Boeings advantage some time down the road?

    Admittedly I do not believe it to be the last one.

    It really does not seem like a clever statement to release.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.