Select Boeing performance under David Calhoun

David Calhoun, president and CEO of The Boeing Co.

March 26, 2024, (c) Leeham News: For more than a quarter of a century, Boeing’s Board of Directors focused on stock price and shareholder value as the top priority for the company’s performance.

Jim McNerney was CEO from 2005-2015. The stock price peaked at about $149 during his tenure, never reaching the $200 per share goal allegedly set by the Board.

Dennis Muilenburg followed McNerney. The stock price peaked at about $422 under his leadership. Even after the second 737 MAX accident on March 10, 2019, and its global grounding three days later, the stock price remained about $320. Muilenburg was fired in December 2019 and David Calhoun assumed office the next month. Three months later, the COVID-19 pandemic erupted. Boeing’s stock price plummeted, along with the rest of the stock market for the next two years.

By Nov. 2, 2022, market recovery–and Boeing’s–was such that the company held its first analyst-investors day since 2018. During the event, Calhoun announced that Boeing would not “introduce” a new airplane until the middle of the next decade (ie, around 2035). Analysts loved it–stock shot up in the following week.

But Calhoun failed to right Boeing’s ship. Production, delivery delays, big write-offs, losses at the commercial and defense units, and finally safety concerns at commercial dominated his tenure to date.

On March 25, Boeing announced Calhoun will retire by the end of 2024. Chairman Larry Kellner will not stand for reelection to the Board. The CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Stan Deal, retired effective immediately. Investors initially boosted Boeing’s stock price on the news, before falling back to the pre-announcement level.

How did Calhoun do during his tenure to date? Below are two charts: one reviews the stock price; the other reviews the write-offs and charges.




279 Comments on “Select Boeing performance under David Calhoun

  1. Thank you. Your fashion insights on the king’s wardrobe are excellent.

  2. Either Calhoun did not lead or was let down by management around him, he trusted to do their job.

    Either way, the responsibility stops with him.

  3. Amazing the program write-offs (so far)

    Will the 777X ever make money?
    AF-1? wow..

    Quick question..I see costs for the kiev office..
    I do not see any costs for the Moscow Design Center?

    • I know right. As much as we focus on the Max problems, the 777X is just as bad as a writeoff.

      Problem is nobody wants it. A lot of old 777s are never getting directly replaced. The -9 is too big. There is a reason the 747 went out of business.

      Let alone the development problems

      • Concur!

        I find it a bit humorous that the “new” 777X main selling point is the folding wingtips!

        Boeing has offered folding wingtips since the beginning of the program!
        Never sold one…now its “new”?!?! (and suddenly desired?)
        What could go wrong with folding wingtips? hahahaha

        Sorry but even the running light/taxi light issue just cracks me up!

        • The folding is to fit the wingspan into the current sized airport gates – hence an ‘advantage’ the A380 didnt have
          The other side of that is the extra wing span reduces drag and provides much better fuel efficiency for long range cruise.
          So thats makes TWO advantages
          Its also no longer optional.
          The previous folding was for specific reasons, again for airport gates.
          “The 777–200 initially had a folding wingtip option because American Airlines wanted it to fit in 767 gates at the NYC-area airports. In the end, American didn’t order the folding option. The option was eliminated early in production.”

          • To add in it was a seriously complex mod as it involved flight control surfaces.

            The 777X simply folds the outer sections with no flight control surfaces involved.

            Carrier fighters have had folding wings since the start of WWII (might have been a bit before)

            And those were a lot more complex, you want to see amazing, a Greyhound Carrier delivery plane wing unfold from back aft.

            Smart move. No downside.

    • The write-down is for all the ‘Ukraine war’ impairments, mostly the Moscow office. Doesnt mention Kyiv/Kiev

      You will never see this sort of detail their writeoffs for any of Airbus programs. The costs of the A220, A350 A400 etc ….smoke and more smoke
      This is Airbus style goobleygook from their financial reports

      “Adjustments” …yes they do call them that
      ‘€ -1,030 million related to the dollar working capital mismatch and balance sheet revaluation, of which € -224 million were in Q4. This mainly reflects the phasing impact arising from the difference between transaction date and delivery date”

      A comparison is the ‘Gross cash’ position at end of 2023
      Boeing is $16 bill
      Airbus is € 25.3 billion at the end of 2023

      • Proof that you don’t know accounting/finance without saying so. 🙂

        • Hows your chinese chip fabs going , struggling to build 7nm, 40% rejects, when multiple western fabs are already mass producing at 5nm( current iphones) and 3nm.
          Is suppose the A320 copy will be occasionally seen as well

          • How’s INTC? Only took *two CEO switches* and a few years delay for it to figure out its 10-nm process?

            Mar 29: Huawei’s profit more than doubled last year. Thanks Gina!

            “Huawei is one of the world’s biggest spenders in research and development. In 2023, it invested 164.7 billion yuan ($22.8 billion) into R&D, accounting for almost a quarter of its annual revenue. Just over half of Huawei’s 207,000 employees work in R&D.”

          • Bloomberg:
            Huawei Profit Surges as It Takes Share From Apple and Alibaba

          • Apr 2022
            In a Brookings interview, TSMC founder Morris Chang: the Arizona fab is an expensive exercise in futility with costs 50% higher than Taiwan. Cherry on the cake!

          • Perhaps “Dukeofurl” can enlighten us as to which “multiple western fabs are already mass producing at 5nm( current iphones) and 3nm”…?

            All 5nm and 3nm production is currently being done in Taiwan and South Korea…

          • @abalone

            In an upside down world, east is west?? 😂

  4. My problem with Calhoun is the annual ethics recommitment video. He gets up there and forces the entire workforce to sign a pledge that we will be ethical in our daily work, and does nothing beyond that. There is a workplace where this exercise is ccpmpletely useless. The airplane has to move and you are a pariah if you slow down for a problem. You dont want to be the guy stopping your boss from meeting his ptoduction goals, which are more important than making it right. Calhouns words are just there to fulfill the requìrements the air force placed on Boeing after the Druyan incident….. its never meant anything, because mere words do not uh ing. It takes action that Calhoun never mandated

    • Worked for several US companies – had to sign similar useless pledges once or twice every year. It’s the standard practice there, I guess.

      • In the UK we have the seemingly compulsory “modern slavery”declaration that every company has signed up for.Not in favour of slavery,murder,genocide,etc. Really?
        Just shows how moral much guidance corporations actually require

      • I refused to sign the Key deceleration the insane company who I worked for came up with.

        I had something like 30 keys to all sorts of rooms, equipment cabinets, access hatches and they wanted me to take complete responsibility for all cost and violation if someone got my keys.

        They backed off when I told them I would take it to the top.

        But yea, you were forced to sign other stuff or get fired.

        Not all that far from slavery or indentured labor as they liked to call it back in the day.

      • My Son is in the US NAvy..
        As Work Center Supervisor, he told me the train more on what to call each other than on the weapons systems….

  5. I suggest that Leeham add a third chart, detailing Mr. Calhoun’s cumulative remuneration/benefits in the same period.

    That way, we can calculate what his “rate” was per billion-dollar charge.

  6. What a surprise, investors don’t like risk! Like new clean-sheet designs that take tremendous risk and massive amounts of up front R&D costs. This version of Boeing will never design another revolutionary aircraft. Taking the low-risk path they will watch what the other guy’s do then tweak an existing design to be just marginally better.

    • Why do you think Airbus is not even playing the PR game and stating it will need Government aid for the next NB program?

      • Not need, has to have.

        Like a heroin addict they can’t do without it even when they do share buy back.

        The next Boeing?

        • Probably depends a lot on what the next NB actually is, and how it’s powered.

          If it’s to be a CF H2 powered NB in service by 2035 and built in numbers sufficient to supply the whole world, they’re going to need government(s) to lend a hand with things like land, energy infrastructure, permission / oversight needed to be a world-wide monopoly, etc. No one single company can possibly swing whole economies in that direciton by themselves.

          For example, a H2 burning airliner operating in the UK is presently a none starter. The aviation fuel distribution pipeline network carries kerosene. A new one would have to be built to supply H2 to airports. Here, you can’t just go digging up the countryside and laying pipes, you need a lot of government support to do that. And the cost! If one converted the existing methane distribution pipeline network to H2 – well, it’s not certain that that can be done (H2 leaks through holes that CH4 cannot). Same goes for most of Europe.

          If it’s to be another Aluminium or CF kerosene burner that slowly replaces A320 production when that backlog finally clears, well they’re quite capable of knocking one of those up in a few years with minimal external support.

    • They might be forced to design a new airliner after a new UAW contract because they cannot afford to pay that many. A new aircraft family built by robots in AerCap Holdings N.V. configuration might be the result.

      • They can’t even build a standard aluminum aircraft.

        The MOF failed (MOV? forget what it was). Fixture of the 777X. Ungh.

        Yes they need a new aircraft but its not going to be out of some robot factory.

  7. Not to defend Calhoun, but …. Boeing takes writedowns every year. I stopped tracking around 2011, but some big numbers for write-downs were taken for Douglas goodwill after the merger, Connexions at Boeing, 717, 757 closeout, 747, 787, Onex [whatever that was], a DOJ settlement, Sea Launch, various penalties, Global Aeronautica and Vought, Hughes acquisition, Delta IV, and many more.

    Granted, $31 B in write-downs for Calhoun is quite an accomplishment, if that’s the right word, and arguably more indicative of mismanagement. Still, a fair comparison would subtract off the trend line from earlier.

    • @Stan: We’re going to have further analysis next week. Calhoun’s announcement yesterday prompted today’s post.



      Onex Corporation is a Canadian investment management firm founded by Gerry Schwartz in 1984. In December 2023, it had $49.6 billion Canadian dollars under management.


      Spirit was formed when Boeing Commercial Airplanes sold its Wichita division to investment firm Onex Corporation in 2005.

      After planning to take Spirit public,[12] at initial public offering on November 21, 2006, the firm’s stock rose 10% on the first day.[13] In November 2006, Onex owned 58% of Spirit, which resulted in 92% of voting power, as its shares conferred “supervoting” power.[13] The chief architect of the Onex purchase of Spirit was Nigel S. Wright, who was later Chief of Staff for the Canadian Prime Minister until his resignation as part of an expense scandal. In August 2014 the Onex Group sold all of its remaining shares of Spirit. Over the course of the nine-year investment, the Onex Group received aggregate proceeds of approximately $3.2 billion on its initial $375 million investment.[14]


      That’s who Onex is…

      • @Frank P –

        Quite so. I was being facetious. I welcome your correction.

        I guess my real point was that, by its nature, the aerospace business is risky. Managing risk requires thought, insight, and judgment. As many times as financial people tell me aircraft are commodities, and we should rely on the global supply chain, I think about the mischief caused by misunderstanding an industry making complex heavily-engineered products subject to a wide range of risks.

      • Interesting how BA sold it to Onex for $350M
        and charged it off as a loss…

        Onex then made $3.5Billion selling its shares!

        and used the proceeds to buy WestJet!

    • This one??

      “Boeing to recognize $350M pre-tax loss on Onex sale

      Boeing Co. will recognize a pre-tax loss of $350 million from the recently completed sale of its commercial airplanes operations in Kansas and Oklahoma to Onex Corp. , according to a Wednesday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The aerospace company will recognize $100 million of the loss in the second quarter, with the remaining loss relating to estimated pension and post-retirement curtailments and settlement expected to be recognized in the third quarter.

  8. Im guessing that the $billion 2020 severance costs were when they got rid of the engineers and QC inspectors that was then a reason for a lot of the charges in subsequent years?

  9. These losses make 11,8 ct loss on very Buck earned and 27% market capitalisation. Airlines loose their AOC when under financed.

    • Another Air Force One write down is coming soon.

  10. Some other data. Jan 13, 2020 is just 13 days into a new year, so we could reasonably use the 12/31/19 financials as a starting point:

    December 31

    Long-term debt 19,962

    December 31

    Long-term debt 47,103


    Total liabilities 141,925

    Total liabilities 154,240


    • Oof (those current numbers)!

      Wonder how the 737MAX-10 and 777-X are coming along.

      • The program accounting approach also seems very fishy to me. A case can be made when the future costs and revenue are going to be very predictable. But as history has shown they were anything but that. And it lets you move money around in time, so the temptation will be great to bump the short term share price.

        • LNA has written about the ins-and-outs of program accounting several times. Search the archives for these posts.

          • Then why does Airbus use program accounting – secretively not openly like Boeing does- for its launch orders for new programs ?

            So their books are a mix of the two systems, while Boeing at FY accounts provides the overall unit and program accounts numbers and has done so for years.

            ‘Fishy’ is a small Airbus building in Leiden Netherlands its actual corporate HQ

          • @DoU

            For the nth time, AB doesn’t use BCA’s program accounting as explained previously. Stop your propaganda.

          • Yes its does.
            As explained a while back by Bjorn on LNA. Its mixes the two in a non transparent way.

            You are using PR terms by saying ‘ not BCA way ‘.
            I never said it was doing it the same way – its much more sneaky by mixing the two in an ‘Airbus way’

            Hows things in Leiden ?

          • Lol. Totally two different animals. BA uses program accounting as its “emperor’s new clothes”. Sigh.

            Tell me what are the deferred production costs of A320neo/A330/A350 carried on AB’s B/S at y.e. 2023. Thanks.

          • Conclusion is you can’t find what I asked from AB’s B/S at y.e. 2023? I see.

            You built a fallacy on a house of cards and it’s exposed.

      • Considering many major customers are swapping MAX 10 slots for MAX 9 slots…
        and 787 slots for 777X…

        tale of the tape.

        MAX 7…really? SW can only bleed BA sooo many times.

        I was there when SW had to add the right side avionics for RNP approval…SW had been ordering the 700s with only left side avionics! Noting but a blank side!
        Drivers were faking VNAV with a bent paperclip!

        Actually, I am working on Stingray…I had NO idea that program was so Fkd

  11. You fire a shell from an artillery piece and all the action is over when it leaves the barrel (pure kinetic not guided)

    After that its on a given trajectory. The barrel can let go, it can drop into a pit under the gun, it can get hit by enemy fire, but that shell is going to carry on.

    I keep seeing the statement leadership, and that is pure garbage. It was not leadership. They might as well and in fact were sabotaging Boeing future.

    You put too many powder bags in the chamber, the shell is on its way and the gun is wrecked.

    That is exactly what McNerny, Muilenberg , Calhoun did. It was a company foundation set by Allen that carried it through all those subsequent years.

    Those carpetbaggers reaped the benefits. They got fired and they got paid into the 100s of millions.

    Yep, Corporate America at its best, you get paid huge bucks to sabotage your company.

    There are a lot of words to describe those pillagers, but pillagers they were and are.

    • @TW

      Well said. Many of us former Boeing employees feel like all this is intentional. I liked what PNWgeek said earlier, we all had to sign an ethics recommitment each January. We screw up and out the door we go, but the executives screw up and they walk with millions….. end up sitting on the beach drinking mai tai’s laughing all the way to the bank.

      Let’s see how this DOJ criminal probe goes?
      It’s unbelievable that Calhoun stays until the end of this year… stunning actually.

      • Will be curious if DOJ reopens the differed settlement case on the MAX

        • Yes, if the Deferred Prosection Agreement were reopened
          it would truly signal “no more business as usual”. That’s very unlikely, though.

          • Depends on the status of the 4 missing bolts..

            BA was very, very lucky that seat was not occupied, and that it blew at 16000 instead of FL30

            That hull was just ramping up pressure

            About 3 pounds instead of 8!!
            decomp vs explosive decomp

      • Airdoc:

        A bit of a rant here, not at you, but at the situation.

        My background was starting as a mechanic, I was decent at it, but where I was best was system analysis. A Fan system was not just a fan, it was the damper system for outside or return air, heating, sometimes humidification, pressure control in the duct system, mechanical cooling and it all interacted with a building that got pressurized so you had a relief system of some kind.

        There is no way I can look at the Boeing execs and the board and not come to a conclusion that its not only deliberate, its blatantly so. They try to hide behind the lies but that is the classic bait and switch and throw anything out and keep saying it no matter how fake it is.

        I am far from the first to see it, Jon Ostowoer reports on it, Leeham does.
        Where I have disagreed with Leeham is the solution. A lot like the door plug lanyard. If you have a system that works its not needed and back to, how many items on an aircraft do you lanyard when that is not the problem?

        Leeham brings a set of credentials to the table, but so do all of us who have worked on a shop floor, for a corporation and the rank stupidity of all the buzz word garbage that is meaningless.

        But in all this, everything that the Boeing top has done is deliberate and they chaff and flare and anyone with a brain can see it. They know it. Lawmakers and regulators know it.

        But until something like the MAX crashes happen, nothing gets done and then nothing gets done because the problem has been lanyarded not corrected.

        The FAA has stated they were just doing paper audits. Crimininy , in my work lying on your paperwork was an art.

        It was not criminal intent for us, it was to keep management happy. The paperwork d did not reflected the job and they pounded square pegs into rounds holes.

        It started at the very top, companies lied about what they could do and customer(s) knew it was a lie, but it looked like they were saving money (faking the paperwork).

        You could either loose money and supply the specified capacity or you could supply people who had not a clue and that was the MO. Then the sub contractor got fired and they brought in a new group of liars.

        My brother had a saying, you lie and I will swear to it.

        At the core of it all is greed, total lack of integrity and in the case of aircraft, willing to kill people so you can get your money.

        So yea, they know. Yes its deliberate.

        As I stated before, you get a feeling for a situation that gets slothed over (the MAX crashed, it did not happen here) and then if there ever was a miraculous even, the exit door blowout.

        No one died, indescribably amazing, stunning. And it happened here and it tore off the blind wrap over the Justice ladies eyes.

        They are still lying of course, but they are firing now as well.

        What we won’t know for some times (years now) is if they are going to do what is needed to correct the top and then remove all the sycophants managers that have worshiped the ground of lies.

        No one has to be a manager. You can work for a living.

        Ergo, they have kept the people that buy into the con game and you then have to clean out the whole organization of the con men and women or whatever the gender ID is.

        You never get them all but once you get enough of them, then you can change the culture.

        But a culture based on lies is a rotten foundation and we have seen the tragedy (MCAS and the two crashes ) and the miraculous failure. You don’t get a lot of miracles.

        I lost my dad and his and my best friend when I was a kid. You see how many lives are impacted and sometimes shattered by a person who has died. People like Calhoun and the two Ms are pretty close to Psychos. They ignore the lethality of what they set loose for money.

        A true Psychopath has no empathy. I don’t know what you call the greedy but they are in that in between world. Narcissists is another part of it. They may cry if its them or their family and everyone else is fair game, their family can be fair game and its all crocodile tears..

        In recent years I have dealt with two narcissists. I quit work and got away from that one. The other was family. Short version was I was asked why I would not engage with one part that had a narcissist. I told them, I do not have to put up with it, they use Social Norms and turn it into Social abuse. I do not have to accept that and you are asking me to put myself in that mix and I am going to blow it up because I won’t tolerate it and I don’t have to tolerate it. You are in the middle of it but you have choices to. You don’t want to make the decision that deals with it nor do the rest of the immediates. But unless you do deal with it, then its going to keep on for as long as you live.

        So, Calhoun and his ilk use our social norms against us. Polite is not just a word, its has a need use in groups of people getting along. You don’t have to like them, you just need to be polite. Calhoun and his abuser comrades exploit that.

        Back to, yea, its deliberate. If it flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, has duck feet, duck beak, duck feathers and duck DNA, its a duck.

        • Great rant! However I have worked in Aerospace my entire career and pretty much nobody lies. One, the consequences are too tragic and there are systems in place to verify and validate the work that is done. If you lie in this business you cannot get away with it for long before you get your orange jump suit and a long-term gig in Las Vegas…….in the Federal Penitentiary!

          • Paul:

            Thank you, I got carried away, we need a balance of polite but calling people like Calhoun what they are.

            I believe the vast majority of the workers do their jobs as best they can.

            Its the managers that become the Liars.

            I call it corrupted by the system (or the culture) they work in.

            They want to be managers, and they sell their souls in those mini version of Calhoun.

            Edicts are handed down from up above. This metric and that metric but in this case its the wrong metric and they bend and twist the safety system to past the breaking point to get that metric.

            Then you have to decide if you want your integrity or you want the glory (often managers don’t even get a bonus for selling their souls).

            As a worker all you can do is your best. There is safety in a Union and or the intense safety background of aerospace. Step outside of a duty and they smack you down with the proverbial 4 x 4.

            Are those people corrupt to start with? Probably not, but they have a corruptible nature and the system when setup the way Boeing has been, uses that, deliberately.

            I had an odd freedom to do my job right. But, my company also employed the other side of that, they would pencil whip their work.

            Easy to see when a large fan belts is squealing on startup and it just had a PM (preventative maint) inspection by X.

            so yea, I turned them in and the manager did nothing. So now you have a crew cancer (culture) that allows a slime ball to sit on their butt and falsify the paperwork and no consequences.

            My area of work was different in that people were usually alone in the PM work (or other work). That is the nature of Maint (though Maint is euphemistic, 90% of what I did was fix things).

            Maintenance itself was a small part of that, inspect a belt, tighten it if needed, grease bearings on the fan and a 40,000 cfm output fan was Maintained. I could so 8 of those in a couple of hours.

            The point is I was by myself. No supervision and no surrounding workers, and then the manager refused to fire the people who faked the paperwork.

            In one case it was his friend, others no , just useless or worse.

            On a crew that was working in the same area, you can’t get away from people seeing it and then commenting and if you have inspections (aviation) then you get caught and removed.

            But as we saw with the door plug blowout, nada. Because it was a manager level aspect and they knew there was a gap, but they did not care. They had a sure fire way to deal with Spirit and left a gaping hole (figuratively and literally) in the system and any worker who said anything wold get smacked down so hard their head would spin.

            And, it was not just that one incident. The Door Plugs were allowed to be shoddy and nothing was done. Other rivets and brackets the same and only got caught due to an indivual seeing it, knowing what was going on and willing to get whacked.

            The blowout was the eye catcher but you saw the 787 systems massive shim failures that extended over the entire aircraft.

            And the FAA did not do its job either. They are doing paperwork audits and clearly the paperwork was a pile of lies.

            If you have the eye for it, you can see lies in paperwork but you have to know the equipment to see it. If you had not worked on the floor it could look good.

            The FAA knows better, but they to succumbed to the lie because it was easier. Now they got exposed and they actually have inspectors on the shop floors.

    • The die was cast about 25 years ago. No moonshots! was their mantra. And now the “chickens have come home to roost.”

      Whoever comes in, they have got to say to heck with the stock price. “We have to create safe, new, efficient airplanes.” It may be years before the stock reaches new highs. MBA schools can use this Boeing story as a teaching point of when out-sourcing and share price manipulation can get so out of hand it can bring down a company. I actually think these last CEOs back to McNerney go to sleep at night believing they did nothing wrong running this company. That’s how inculcated they are to these false business principles. And maybe they are right because they got just what they wanted: more compensation then they could have ever imagined in their wildest dreams.

      • samw:

        Mantra is not the word.

        Its slathering over the gross incompetence of management and the fake reason to hide behind.

        The 787 was not a moonshot. Gross management failure was the cause.

  12. Well documented !

    Just recently, the Boeing CFO Mr. West commented at the BoA Conference (March 20, 2024) the following about traveled work: „ For years, we prioritized the movement of the airplane through the factory over getting it done right and that‘s got to change“.
    This sentence summarizes a culture where quality was clearly Nr. 2.
    Boeing deserves better!

    • I would just have one question for Mr West:

      “Does that mean Sir, that even subsequently to the 2 Max crashes, the deferred prosecution agreement and a promise by Boeing to put safety as your first priority – you still, as you put it;

      ‘prioritized the movement of the airplane through the factory over getting it done right ‘

      instead of producing safe aircraft?

      • It is pretty “funny” how that outfit has kept re-running the same trope for going on five years now: “we now see the errors of our ways, and really have changed (honest)- and this latest time we really, really mean it!”

        • Never run your own business making things have you ?

          Good luck trying to find Airbus cumulative writeoffs for the A340 , A400 and A380 programs
          ‘Estimated’ for the A380 – a great plane- is $15 bill, but its secret

          Estimated for the A400, again a great plane, is EU7 bill, again estimated as its secret

          • I’m trying to find a logical connection between what
            I wrote and what you did, and so far cannot find one.

          • So no answer. So its fine for you to answer in any way you wish but others must be specific to your claims
            Do you ever study Airbus published accounts to compare.
            Ever made mistakes in your accounting work- asking for a friend , but I think I know how that will be addressed

          • It is in plain words in the annual financial statements.

            For example in 2022 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/

          • If Safety was your first Priority , you have achieved true incompetence (worse).

  13. While it is true that Calhoun was on the board when many of these issues came about, and therefore he has plenty of culpability, a case can also be made that all these write-offs represent him ‘cleaning house’, and I’m sure it will be. Now as to whether I believe that … check back with me in a year or three.

    • Next week we look at write offs for every CEO since 1996. The comparisons are very interesting.

      • That should be a good one, pretty much know how its going to go, the great GE leadership has been a bloody disaster. The Jack Welch disciples did what they do cut costs, sell properties (Boeing Wichita), I mean its been one bad decision after another starting with Stonecipher. Even extends over to the defense side where they under bid competition after competition and that ALL comes from leadership (T-7 Redhawk etc.) Pretty sure that we will see the loses have been accelerated under all the great GE leadership while doing everything they can to cut costs by all means.

      • The write offs need to be put into perspective.

        They can and often does occur during a new administration because the previous one robbed the accounts.

        So, timing of the write offs and who caused them is important as well.

        In this case, the ship was allowed to rust and then it had sudden failures but its always a downward trend.

        McNerney was fired , Muilenburg was fired, Calhoun is being fired.

        The constant is the failure of the Board to manage Boeing and when you make a failure the Chairman and CEO? Yea, back to the board.

          • Pedro:

            If it quacks like a duck, has a duck bill, duck feet, duck body, duct feathers and duck DNA its a duck.

          • 😲 OMG!!!

            Who else agree that McNerney was fired?? 🤔

          • McNerney was not fired. He served 10 years and retired accordingly.

        • “The write offs need to be put into perspective.

          They can and often does occur during a new administration because the previous one robbed the accounts.”

          Can you explain why write offs continue into 2021, 2022 and 2023 (of $6.9b, $6.6b and $3.1b resp)?

  14. It does not make any sense to keep Calhoun in place during the ongoing crisis. Hopefully CFO Brian West leaves with Calhoun. I cannot imagine he has much credibility left with Wall Street. Stephanie Pope should take the CFO role. That would be a better fit than Chief Operating Officer.

    • I see Smith being floated as a CEO candidate.

      That is downright depressing.

      Just when you think things could not get any worse, sure enough, they got worse.

    • Read this link if you want insight to why Calhoun is out.

      This link comes from Fortune. Here a graph from it to give you a taste:

      “From there, Calhoun’s detractors argue that he consolidated control by methodically pushing out dissenters, replacing Boeing veterans with decades of service with loyalists who had followed him from GE to Nielsen to Boeing, and layering over holdover senior executives with surprise internal promotions, plucking favored mid-level executives out of obscurity and plopping them directly into some of the company’s most senior positions while hollowing out Boeing’s ranks of veteran executives. No wonder one former Boeing executive described Calhoun’s brain trust to me as a “good ‘ole boys club” of GE castaways.”

      • Well other than the Brain part, spot on.

        Those people have 4 brain cells. One is for breathing, one is for a heart beat, one is to mouth off stupid stuff and the last one is to sell out the company for greed.

        • What Calhoun did at Boeing, I (maybe a number of us) have seen first-hand at other American corporations in the last few decades. At one of the top ten suppliers to Boeing, I saw a VP come in from outside the company and do many of the same things that Calhoun did. He fired or passed over long-time qualified engineers and engineering managers, and replaced them with guys from his club, new hires right out of MBA programs and other loyalist from outside aerospace. The carnage was amazing to watch as great, strong employees left and were immediately snatched up by General Dynamics, Lockheed and the growing med-tech firms in the Twin Cities. From my experience, I thought ethical considerations were important in these situations, but something happened as globalization was being foisted upon us, and anything and anybody became fair game…

      • Per the article- why not Ray Conner as CEO? I remember
        him from Scott H’s book..

  15. Bloomberg: “Boeing At Risk of Moody’s Downgrade on Cash Flow Concerns”

    “The ratings provider placed Boeing’s Baa2 senior unsecured rating on review for downgrade from stable, according to a statement on Tuesday, citing the potential for Boeing to fail to deliver 737 aircraft at the volumes needed to materially expand free cash flow and “retire debt in a reasonable timeframe.””

    “Boeing entered 2024 with almost $16 billion in cash plus short-term investments and managed to retire $4.4 billion worth of debt through early March, according to Moody’s. Still, cash will fall “well below” $10 billion by the end of this month, according to Moody’s Senior Vice President Jonathan Root.”

    • I’m going to praise BA here (which may be a surprise to some) for sticking to the plan and retiring the $4.4 billion on schedule.

      It must have been quite enticing to continue kicking the can down the road and re-jig the debt (as Duke pointed out, they still have an untapped line of credit).

      Kudo’s to them for reducing debt to ~$48 billion (LT & STD), during tough times and further reducing Interest Expense.

      • Still not sustainable until 737 production actually increases. 787 too

        • That is correct. Boeing is way too big to shrink it’s expenses to profitability. Cutting out excess work – yes.

          They need some 600 annual deliveries.

          • How do you arrive at the figure of 600?
            Is that based on legacy financial results?
            If it is, it’s not making allowances for the increased dent in (nominal) earnings made by much higher debt servicing costs. It’s also assuming that discounts on recent sales are not much higher than on legacy sales…which is far from certain.

          • Renton alone was gearing up towards 600 x 737 a month on the 3 lines in that facility.

          • What is the rationale for sitting on $16 billion in cash if it’s not really yours; i.e. you’re paying interest on that money?

            Interest rates, maybe.

          • @Vincent

            Well – BA is going to use $5 billion of it up, apparently. That’s why you have it on hand….just in case.

      • Frank P:

        Or is that to try to pull the wool over the situation and as soon as the stock starts up you go back to what you were doing.

        Did not Boeing borrow 13 billion to pay a dividend when the drop began?

        And correct me if I am wrong, the board approves those.

        They refused a good loan from the US because there were strings attached it had to be spent right.

        • Surely not you TW now become a peddler of financial misinformation- even the dividend amount was wrong.

          “Epstein started with Boeing’s $10 billion in cash at the end of December[2019], and added $13 billion from Boeing’s drawing down its term loans. He then subtracted $3 billion for the dividends Boeing paid and $6 billion more in cash burned by operations.”

          Note the $10 bill in cash to start with .
          Just because you have longer term loans ( say home mortgage) and cash at hand doesnt mean you pay down your outstandings first, when you want to spend say $5k on a family holiday

  16. I don’t see these 2 charts as analytical of Calhoun. No way to eek out whether they would have been better or worse or identical under anyone else.

    To me, the important metrics for judging Calhoun are business viability (ok, stock price is a derivative of this but muddied by too much else), and investor and customer opinion. The latter two both longitudinally across tenure where each can move at different times and rates, and cross sectional in the immediate aftermath of negative events, pronouncements (eg n new plane) etc.

    • Write offs are directly linked to profitability, especially since BA uses Program Accounting.

      Under the system, you hold back expenses and pull them out against future deliveries. When you write them off, you are admitting that those funds will not be covered by revenues and the program is in a loss position.

      • I understand program accounting and write-offs. My issue, as I wrote, is in using this data as a metric for Calhoun.

        • Yea my issue as well.

          I see it as a history of Board Failure and the CEO reflects that, is not the actual complicate party (guilty but not complicit as contradictory as that may sound)

          The best metric is stock buy back. And how many billions went into that.

          That is a pure throw the money away. You get nothing for it, other than jacking up the stock and the stock owners (managers included) reap the benefit but you get NOTHING.

          So, when you need product you are 50 billion in debt and need to buy back what you sold off to reap ill gotten gutting the company.

          • Lol. Are you trying to give Calhoun a free pass? How about losses from BDS as a result of mismanagement?

    • From Jon Ostrower:
      “Their [Boeing’s biggest customers] frustration runs deep. Even with a full-throated public embrace of responsibility for the Alaska Airlines 1282 accident, *years of Boeing over-promising and under-delivering on timelines, plans and initiatives that never materialized only deepened the mistrust. Senior airline leaders lamented unrealistic schedules for airplane development, production and delivery repeatedly put in front of them with the knowledge they can neither be achieved nor disproven as inaccurate today*.

      Doesn’t reflect well on Calhoun.

      • Pedro:

        Really? What does reflect well on Calhoun? Anything?

        And the full throated embrace is just a standard strategy to try to wait out the story so they can go back to enabling the cancer more.

        Nothing more than a variation of Crying wolf. Except the cry was, all is wonderful, there are no wolves around as the wolf pack rips the heard into bloody bits.

        • When Calhoun was forced out by a coalition of BA’s best and biggest customers, what more is there to say.

  17. Sigh….Program Accounting (PA).

    I try to be fair and even-handed in my analysis and I will play the devil’s advocate here.

    1) Amounts spent under PA can be accrued and held in Inventory, as detailed here in various Leeham articles. Those monies can be spent years ago – hoping to be pulled out against future revenues.

    2) The ~$10 billion written off on the 777X & 787 programs in 2020/21 were there long before Calhoun took over.

    3) Due to the long development times of programs, decisions made years before someone is in the hot seat, will effect what gets done today.

    Anyone who steps into the breech today, will have to eat negative margins and write offs, until the ship is righted.


    Let’s say Shanahan get’s made CEO, after a Spirit purchase and spinoff of the Airbus manufacturing centres.

    The Max 7 will not be certified by then. Neither will the Max 10. Neither will the 777X. Revenues will not be pouring in for deliveries of those three airframes, only expenses being incurred. Spirit will need a clean up.

    All of these things are problems he’s got to solve, which happened before he got there.

    Margins of the future, will have to bear expenses in Inventory incurred yesterday.


    Retired Tech Fellow has talked about cleaning things up, accounting wise.

    If Calhoun retires at the end of 2024 and a prospective CEO is brought in for an interview, I would be highly tempted to insist on Calhoun zeroing all deferred production balances, expensing the whole shebang in 2024 and starting fresh.


    Side note: Calhoun has been there since 2009 on the BoD & was Chairman as well, for a time. There is also a point to be made that he was directing things from behind the curtain, over the years, to stockpile expenses…

    …we just don’t know.

    • Nah. Zeroing out deferred production cost would tell the world BA is BK. We need to pretend the emperor is not naked as long as he’s still on the throne.

      • Not necessarily.

        As long as they have cash to pay the bills and keep the lights on, they can stay out of Ch 11.

        There are a few things sitting in Inventory, that really isn’t inventory. Here’s a list of what they claim is in there:

        -deferred production costs
        -unamortized tooling (should be another asset class)
        -non-recurring costs
        -work in process (which could be Inventory related)
        -supplier advances (which could be broken out into it’s own asset account)
        -amounts credited in cash or other consideration (early issue sales consideration) to airline customers

        Anyone interested in reading about it, here it is, page 74 of their latest financials:


        Some notes:

        For each of the 3 commercial programs, Boeing uses this wording:

        ‘unamortized tooling and other non-recurring costs’

        $792 – 737
        $4,063 – 777X
        $1,480 – 787

        So what’s tooling and what are the other ‘non-recurring costs’? I know it’s only some $6.5 billion, but still…


        Boeing has about $25 billion in deferred production costs (along with customer compensation) sitting in Inventory. All of these amounts have already been paid out, the dollars already spent.

        What would be the effect of expensing all the fluff out of Inventory, at the end of the year?

        In 2023, BA had a $2 billion loss. If they expensed everything it would have been a $27 billion loss.

        Cash wouldn’t have changed. Sure – it would drive down the share price, but 2024 would have been a fresh start. There would have been no expenses other than the ones incurred to build an aircraft, attached to it.


        Program accounting is supposed to smooth out the more expensive early deliveries against the more profitable later ones.

        737 Max isn’t in it’s early delivery stages. Some 1,500 are in service.

        787 isn’t in it’s early delivery stages. 1,100 are flying.

        Amounts are still being added to those two balances, like they are delivering the first 100 aircraft.

        Doesn’t make sense, does it?


        The only reasoning that makes sense is that the DPB’s are a place to hide things, which you can find – if you care to look. Problem is, many people either:

        1) Can’t be bothered to look


        2) Downplay the significance, attacking those who do bring this to light.

        • Analysts from sell side to credit rating still propagate BA’s numbers from program accounting and mgmt’s so called FCF. It’s like analysts Blodget and Meeker from the dot com bubble era, no one wants to rock the boat before they got off. It’s about the “incentives”.

        • @Frank P

          Without “the emperor’s new clothes” i.e. program accounting, BA can’t mask the *secret sauce* it used to cook up the FCF. Everyone can see how detached BA’s massaged “FCF” is from the reality using unit cost accounting. Ultimately,
          it would force credit rating agencies to revise their “view”, which BA today cannot afford.

    • Frank P:

      Now you are taking a play from what I said about the Credit Union.

      You could at least give me credit here! (grin)

      I do agree (and not I had nothing to do with that concept, as I read the plan when they presented it, initially it was you are out of your minds – then I saw the reasoning and it was, you know, I think they are onto something.

      We are in doom and gloom every quarter, clear the books and we can look ahead.

      It only works if you DO NOT repeat what got you there.

      Credit Union did not and avoided the Prime Mortgage debacle, Alaska avoided it. All the bank had been through it and saw a rotten fish for what it was when they smelled it.

    • There is a better solution. It does include first getting to GAAP on the balance sheet, but that is a lot more than getting fake assets like deferred costs off the books. It also involves pointing out that there is no equity section, or pointing out that total liabilities exceed total assets. Of course that would highlight a serious legal quandary with respect to American business law (or lack thereof). When you have a national asset, which I would argue that many of our large corporations are, and they happen to be bankrupt (liabilities exceed assets), and are rapidly approaching insolvency (insufficient cash to meet near term obligations), why would the holders of the worthless stock have a voice in the governance going forward? That makes no sense at all, and yet that is the way we currently allow things to be under our truly screwy corporate chartering structure.

      I would suggest that the Boeing bailout, which must be done, presents a fantastic opportunity to rethink the chartering and governance of a company that congress might decide is a critical asset to the country. Yes Boeing needs to be recapitalized, but not under a charter issued by the state of Delaware, or governed by our current frat boy board selection process. We shouldn’t give Boeing a dime under the current charter and governance approach.

    • Any new CEO will likely want to clear the deck of skeletons in the closet. Wall street isnt stupid; they know there is a healthy amount of BS in the expectations for accounting blocks and certfication timelines. New CEOs get one chance to start with a clean slate.

  18. I lost track reading the following link on what “Rory” Calhoun’s compensation will be when he joins the ranks of the unemployed.

    The story said “Muley” Muilenburg got away with a clean $80,000,000. Looks like private schools for the grand-kids. Muley was the guy who did not want to ground the B737 MAX 8 after 346 died. Do you think these CEOs have bamboozled shareholders…

    • No, the shareholders reaped the gain and enabled this.

      I believe 70% of Boeing is held by institutions , not individuals.

      What I do believe is the CEO and the Board are willing to see people die to they can reap the gains.

      And when people die in plane crashes it tends to be in large numbers.

      • The shareholders did reap the gains, but not necessarily the small, long term investors, or the long-term retirement funds that count on dividends to meet their pension responsibilities. It has been years since Boeing has paid dividends, Those huge funds, like CALPERS, don’t appear to be activist types. The large shareholders whether retail or groups appear to be passive. It would be noteworthy to see some of them to demand to be on the new board of directors.

        • So why are they still holding Boeing stock?

          There are few long term investors.

          Its all about short term gain.

          I canned my financial group when the stock market was going up like a rocket and my accounts were breaking even.

          Really? Well, we are in the business for wealth management. Yea, for yourselves.

          All you can say is institutions are making money regardless of what the stock does.

          Otherwise Boeing stock would be down to $50 a share. Greedy and or lazy.

          • I think the main reason people hold on to Boeing stock is because commercial aerospace is a duopoly and we/they/us all believe that they can’t mess up the benefit of a duopoly. But Calhoun may just have completed that tasked before he turned in his notice.

  19. Let me add some data points to this discussion. If you get on Google Maps, switch to satellite view and check the sites where Boeing has new planes stored, all with engines, the total is 360, not counting what must be inside the paint hangars in Everett, Renton, and Boeing Field, but counting what must be inside the flight line hangars, temporary shelters, and in the Portland paint hangars, the total is 360 planes. Now just think about the value of those engines alone.

    All of the satellite views are dated 2024 (nothing more specific), but they haven’t changed since I started watching them about three weeks ago. So there has to be a few more now. Here is a breakdown by site:
    Moses Lake 154, all appear to be 737s; Everett 63, a mix of all four platforms, but mostly wide bodies, and not counting what’s inside the 40-26/36 line (roughly seven 787s in rework); Boeing Field, 66 (mostly 737s); Renton, 37; Portland, 5 (737s); San Antonio 12, a mix and not counting the older normal C and D check planes that should be there; North Charleston, 23.

    Also note that at Moses Lake they are no longer storing planes on 32R, but instead have built a massive amount of new paved storage lots (2) similar to the situation at Plant II, which I can never keep straight (Isaacson v. Jorgensen). There were two small specialty steel mills there originally, one of which became the Thompson site, and the other is now the massive paved aircraft parking/storage lot.

    Next week I’ll review these in one of my coming YouTube videos.

    • Good Call!

      The Boeing Renton MAX parking lot is full!

      Moses Lake…ooof!


      According to the stats, they still have 190 undelivered from the original grounding that were built and not delivered.

      I think it would be interesting is to look at how many 777X they have built and stored!

      The guys that build the blocks to hang on the wings in lieu of engines are one of the busiest groups at Everett right now!
      Well, other than the permanent “travelled work” mob!


      • Brain:

        I believe the 777X is between 20-30 and I think they are moving some 777X through the line again on very low rate production

        • Production is irrelevant at this point. What matters are deliveries and squawks on B-1 and C-1 flights. Production on all lines should be shut down. The mess cleaned up. Travelers outlawed (i.e. stop the line and fix the balance issue whenever a traveler seems to be indicated).

      • As of December 31, 2023, we had approximately 140 737-8 aircraft in inventory that were produced prior to 2023, including 85 aircraft for
        customers in China

        787 Program

        At December 31, 2023 and 2022, we had approximately 50 and 90 aircraft in inventory that require rework which we expect to complete by the end of 2024.


        190 with the 787’s

        or so they say

      • Victorville? I didn’t know about that. Are any of those new planes? I thought that was mostly a FedEx boneyard.

          • Well that aerial and what you can see from the street view certainly suggests that there are at least a few new production planes mixed in with the junk. I see at least one of the “terrible teens” 787s in there and a couple others that look like they might be. It’s hard to tell from the liveries, since some planes got painted and then were rejected as unacceptable by the customers. That ANA 787 I suspect is one of those. I would really like to be able to walk around that “flight” line and make a note of the registration numbers painted on them. Of course this raises another accounting question, in terms of how those might be reflected on the books, if at all.

  20. @abalone

    Commercial Airplanes Deliveries 480
    Loss from Operations ($2,370)

    Deliveries 528
    Earnings/(loss) from operations ($1,635)

    They also had about $1.6 billion in abnormal production costs in 2023. If they can keep that down, it should be better.


    As well:

    Deliveries 157

    Earnings/(loss) from operations $41

    I’d say 600 is a good ballpark figure.


    Mind you… there is also this (just to be balanced):

    Commercial Airplanes Unit Cost vs. Program
    Segment Information – Earnings from Operations
    Boeing Commercial Airplanes
    (Dollars in millions)

    ………………………………………2023 1Q23 2Q23 3Q23 4Q23
    Comm Airplanes – Program Accounting (615) (383) (678) 41
    CommAirplanes – Unit Cost Accounting * (1,871) (919) (1,148) (521)

    Program Accounting(1,635)
    Unit Cost Accounting (4,459)


    What the Boeing provided tables above show, is that while on their financials in Q4, they did indeed declare a $41 million profit, had they been using Unit Cost Accounting, it would have been a $521 million dollar loss instead.

    This means they jammed some $562 million into Inventory in Q4 (and almost $3 billion for the year) using program accounting, with those amounts to be expensed against future deliveries.


    IMO – the goals should be:

    1) Keep abnormal production costs to the minimum
    2) Keep the Deferred Production Balances at their current levels
    3) Deliver 600 problem free aircraft

    If they do that, they should be in the black

    • They *might* be in the black with 600 — but only barely, from the figures you present.
      And if earnings are meager:
      – It will take forever to pay back debt;
      – There’ll be a very small pot to fund any new programs.

      I don’t see a realistic way out here. 800 a year might offer some hope, but that appears to be out of their reach for quite some time.

      • And if earnings are meager:
        – It will take forever to pay back debt;


        Yes and no. Earnings vs Cash.

        Boeing has already spent a boatload of cash on expenses it hoards in Inventory – to be pulled out over time, to be expensed slowly against future deliveries. Some $25 billion. Which means that they could essentially pull out enough expenses to show zero earnings, until that amount is used up.

        But those expenses are still visible on their balance sheet. It’s just called something different; Long Term Debt, which is where they got the money from.

        Which will be reduced when Cash is given back to the debtors.


        Where Earning really hurts Boeing, is here:

        Advances and progress billings 56,328

        This sits right about Short Term Debt, on the balance sheet. It must also be returned. To customers, in the form of aircraft.

        If those aircraft cost them more to deliver than they have received, it’s as if they are paying an added interest expense to the customers.

        Which is why:

        Program Accounting(1,635)
        Unit Cost Accounting (4,459)

        is a sneaky important figure.


        Boeing declared in 2023 that they delivered 528 aircraft and received $33.901 billion in Revenue and had earning of (1,635) – a loss of $3.09 million per aircraft.

        Page 10.

        But they actually spent $4.459 billion.

        So it cost them an average of $8.44 million per delivery. Cash.

        $5+ million per plane put into Inventory.

      • @Abalone

        I guess what I’m saying is that yes, you are correct – positive margins are important.

        However, with Program Accounting, the margin numbers are Fugaze…they can be whatever Boeing wants them to be, by simply increasing or decreasing the amounts in the deferred production balances. (or what they’re auditors are willing to go along with…)

        It also make Inventory look really impressive.

        • Frank P

          It’s precisely because of the manipulation that goes on with the DPB that I referred to “nominal” earnings above. By “nominal” I mean the earnings that one obtains in a given year when the DPB does not change in that year (i.e. expenses are booked in the year to which they pertain rather than being deferred to a later date). By that measure, I don’t think 600 deliveries have generated / will generate meaningfully positive “nominal” earnings, bearing the huge debt servicing costs in mind. For 600 deliveries, debt servicing costs are $4M per plane!

          As regards actually paying off debt (rather than just servicing it), perhaps we should look at “operational” cashflow — by which I mean “real” cashflow resulting from revenue as opposed to “fake” cashflow resulting from receipt of customer deposits (which are effectively just a loan, and should not be tapped into in the reckless manner practiced by Boeing). Looking at the books for the past 5 years, I don’t see any (meaningfully) positive “operational” cash flow at all…which means there’s nothing with which to (structurally) pay back debt.

          The financial dire straits in which this company is languishing are far worse than most observers realize.

          • @Abalone

            ‘By “nominal” I mean the earnings that one obtains in a given year when the DPB does not change in that year ‘

            Did you read what I put down as my 3 keys?

            1) Keep abnormal production costs to the minimum
            2) Keep the Deferred Production Balances at their current levels
            3) Deliver 600 problem free aircraft


            ‘By that measure, I don’t think 600 deliveries have generated / will generate meaningfully positive “nominal” earnings, bearing the huge debt servicing costs in mind. For 600 deliveries, debt servicing costs are $4M per plane!’

            Debt servicing is a post operations calculation:


            pg 7

            Twelve months ended
            December 31
            (Dollars in millions, except per share data) 2023

            Total revenues 77,794

            Total costs and expenses (70,070)

            Loss/(earnings) from operations (773)

            Other income, net 1,227
            Interest and debt expense (2,459)

            Loss before income taxes (2,005)


            On Pg 10 it’s broken down by segment:

            Loss from operations:
            Commercial Airplanes ($1,635)
            Defense, Space & Security (1,764)
            Global Services 3,329

            Segment operating (loss)/earnings (70)
            Unallocated items, eliminations and other (1,759)
            FAS/CAS service cost adjustment 1,056

            (Loss)/earnings from operations (773)

            Other income, net 1,227
            Interest and debt expense (2,459)

            Loss before income taxes (2,005)


            They need to have the Unit Cost numbers match or better the Program Accounting numbers (which means nothing was added to the DPB), deliver 600 aircraft, keep Abnormal Costs down…and Operations should be in the black.

            That being said:

            IMO – Q1 is going to be a bloodbath of red ink. No way around it.

            The Customer Compensation number of $4 billion is going to go up, more expenses are going into the DPB and APC’s will be all over the place.

            It’s not going to be pretty.

    • Frank P:

      Again you are stating what I said previously.

      Prior to that you insisted larger rate produion equaled higher losses.

      So if you have changed your mind at least give me credit for presenting that.

      Danged accountants, they rip off other people good ideas (grin) – sounds like a former manager I knew, of course I just kept my ideas to myself until it was a meeting with the client.

      So I am calling you out, go for your abacus or surrender!

      Being serious for a minute, Boeing has a lot going for it, a good board and CEO can get that production. Yea they will be Number 2 but a good number 2.

      All the big strategy garbage said, we want to be in the top 5.

      Well a strong number 2 works.

    • @Frank P

      @15 MAX/month Q1 would look horrendous.

      • Yah, they need to deliver ~40 Max’s a month.

        Twelve months ended
        December 31
        Commercial Airplanes 2023

        737 396
        747 1
        767 32
        777 26
        787 73
        Total 528

    • First they would have to demonstrate an ability to deliver just one problem free aircraft. Also, the MAX flight control computer needs to be scrapped, and broken up into at least three separate LRUs. It may be time to recognize the advances that have been made in electronics miniaturization, and define some smaller standard rack and “U” sizes. Of course, shrinking the boxes is constrained by the connectors, but there are some redesign opportunities there as well. Retrofits could be done with short jumper bundles, so that the legacy wire bundles don’t have to be replaced. For planes already built, the weight change should be close to null. For new planes with redesigned bundles, there should be a trivial weight reduction opportunity.

      On the inventory stuff, whatever the numbers are, the point is that there is enough already assembled planes (albeit in a sorry state) that shutting down the lines should have zero impact on the ability to finish planes for delivery.

      The one thing not discussed yet, is the tanker mess, but that is a whole ‘nuther topic.

    • Great!! Is this the new continent?
      How soon can BA recover over $1 billion written off? How many T-7 has to be sold and over how many years?? 😂

      “The Air Force laid out plans to buy fewer T-7 trainer jets next year and push back Initial Operational Capability (IOC) to 2028”.

      • Just a budget fudge , as they can be re ordered under a different budget process. The US Congress budget process is a complete cluster$#@

        The T-38 has to be replaced , plus the USN and others -Japan , Australia- will order the type

        • Sound like what we used to call “fraud”, back in the day.
          That was before thought-stopping euphemistic speech became de rigeur.

        • You mean like the certification of MAX 7 that is supposed to be “on track” and “may be certified as soon as *next* month” but in reality slips into the future??

          • No he means the Whataboutism King is back.

            Are you related to Bryce?

          • Whom are you asking?? You know me well enough.

            The key is: like the certification of the MAX 7, orders of the T-7 “slips into the future”.

  21. Did you see that one crashed due to FOD in the fuel tank?

    Filter intake blocked by a nitrile glove….

    • No T-7s have crashed …maybe you have been conned by the ‘ large model’ that crashed . LOL

      • ..if only we could say the same for the 737 MAX.

        • Seen the list of A320/A330 crashes because the pilots didnt understand the FBW.

          Imagine them thinking ‘ it’ could fly the plane out of sticky situations or normal conditions , as they were trained
          So many but my favourite is this one: a normal landing in VG conditions
          “The final report was released in May 2017, and showed no mechanical faults contributing to the accident, but identified multiple contributing factors for the accident. Investigators determined that the airline’s standard operating procedure in regard to the selected landing mode (Flight Path Angle Guidance) was over-reliant on the Airbus’ automation and led to excessive loss of altitude”

          ” Per the SOP, the crew need not have monitored the aircraft’s altitude or relation to the runway to make any subsequent adjustments to the flight path angle after the final approach fix”
          but one thing they missed – must have been on that digital display thingy thats so wonderful

          Even the Air Canadas flight safety and procedures people who wrote the SOP didnt understand Airbus’s own electro-mechanical wonder boy.
          Blame the pilots and close the case , yet Boeing got serious sthtick for doing that

          • You conveniently overlook “deficiencies in Boeing’s documentation of complex flight control systems” contributed to OZ214 crash??

            AC’s incorrect SOP is Airbus’s fault? Lol.

          • “Although the Air Canada FCOM identifies the requirement to monitor and adjust the position and flight path, pilots do not have access to this document as a reference. Pilots refer to Air Canada’s SOPs; however, these do not provide direction on monitoring the vertical flight path when the FPA guidance mode is engaged, nor is such monitoring taught in training (Table 4).

            In accordance with CARs 705.09 and TC’s Air Carrier Inspector Manual,Footnote74 TC reviewed and approved both Air Canada’s AOM and SOPs. During this process, TC did not identify the discrepancy between the Air Canada documents and the Airbus documents.”


            Did you misstate what’s important and relevant here to try to shift blame?? Oops.

          • Yes it is Airbus ‘fault’ why else would the AC flight safety SOP tell them to land that way

            When everybody is doing it by the book- apart from minor errors- then there is something wrong with the Airbus FBW and its operations manual. In fact the Airbus FCOM is faulted not the AC version – pilots of course dont use this document just the SOPs

            Its spelt out the full TSB final report
            The Airbus FCOM does not offer guidance on how to make adjustments to the FPA; for
            example, it does not indicate how large the adjustment should be or for how long the
            adjustment should be made in order to return an aircraft to the selected flight path. For a
            flight in FPA guidance mode, Air Canada’s practice was that, once the aircraft was past the
            FAF, the flight crews were not required to monitor the aircraft’s altitude and distance from
            the threshold, nor to make any adjustments to the FPA.

            Its exactly like Boeings gross error in not providing information about MCAS. These errors with Airbus FBW are not to excuse Boeings fault over MCAS , as the usual suspects will try diversions on

          • Are you now moving the goalposts, shifting from “crashes because the pilots didnt understand the FBW”?? Where is your proof? ALL your imagination or misunderstanding? Lol.

            What I see is, AC developed its FCOM and SOP but there were discrepancies even though the SOP was reviewed by TC.

            “Air Canada’s standard operating procedure and historical practice when flying in flight path angle (FPA) guidance mode was that once the aircraft was past the final approach fix (FAF), the flight crews were not required to monitor the aircraft’s altitude and distance from the threshold or to make any adjustments to the FPA. This practice was not in accordance with Air Canada’s and Airbus’s flight crew operating manuals (FCOM).

            Although TC reviewed and approved Air Canada’s AOM and the SOPs, it had not identified the discrepancy between the Air Canada SOPs and the Airbus FCOM regarding the requirement to monitor the aircraft’s vertical flight path beyond the final approach fix when the FPA guidance mode is engaged.”

          • “A normal landing in VG conditions” is what you call that Air Canada crash, only.

            From your link: “..during heavy snow and poor visibility, the A320xxx landed short of the runway..”

            Nice try, though.

          • Yes, when the A320 debuted there were some “issues”. There were some teething problems as with all new tech.

            Can one imagine if social and clickbait media were around when the “new” A320 crashed at an airshow demonstrating ( Airbus states it was pilot error………….LOL) the FBW safety measures.


            There was the Austrian airline incident, when the system acted wonky but the Pilot

            One imagine the Tik Tok and Twitter uproar.

          • @Vincent

            Thanks for pointing out the falsehood.

            From TSB final report I linked:
            “At 0009, the terminal controller contacted AC624 and provided the latest METAR, which indicated visibility of *⅛ sm*, winds of 360°M at 20 knots, gusting to 25 knots, in *heavy snow and drifting snow*, and vertical visibility of 300 feet (Appendix C).”

          • In order to avoid the possibility of any misstatements or falsehoods, it’s time for @DoU to quote exact para. from TSB final report I linked to prove:
            – it is Airbus ‘fault’ why else would the AC flight safety SOP tell them to land that way;
            – there is something wrong with the Airbus FBW
            – In fact the Airbus FCOM is faulted not the AC version

            From my reading of the final report, there’s no blame on AB or its FBW. Welcome any feedback with quotes of full para. from the final report if my understanding is incorrect. Thx.

            The final report blamed discrepancies between AC’s SOP and FCOM which I believe it’s responsibility of AC (and to a certain extent TC).

          • They crashed an A319 (have to confirm the exact model) in Scandinavia that was doing Flight Checkouts.

            There was a fault in a flight computer, the PI kept resetting it.

            The Airbus gave up and switched to the backup, which then faulted. PI reset it and in his stupidity did not recognize he was on the backup computer.

            As they never got above 2000 feet, various alarms and protections did not activate.

            While not stated, the PI doing his best to get all those Flight Check outs off his back (7 I believe ) kept resetting the backup which in turn made the Computer system go insane (they never figured out why it did any of it, but by gum the sure fixed it so it would not do it again!)

            Eventually it went into direct control and as Bjorn as stated, you can’t control an aircraft in direct per landing and barely in the air.

            The whole system is so complex Airbus does not understand it fully. They guess and hope.

          • @TW What year you’re talking about?? 🙄

  22. JP wants the perennially over-budget, behind schedule Boing T-7 because they’re *told* to want them by you-know-who.

    “Always be Closing.”

  23. Wow, those are staggering write-offs during Calhoun and West’s tenure.

    Do you suppose if Jack Welch were still around he would put those two in the bottom 10% on GE’s famous forced ranking system?

    Scary to think the corporate credit rating might be lowered. No CFO wants that to happen on his watch.

  24. Are you the beneficiay of typically shoddy journalism Scott, or is there genuinely a Lee Hamilton?

    BTW, I disagree. Clearly there is a technical problem but there is also a financial problem. Maybe Boeing believe Pope can do team work better than others, delegate and trust technical issues to others and be the one to marry the technical and financial needs, BOTH of which need to be met.

  25. “First Emirates A350 spotted in Toulouse, France”

    Tim Clark will soon be receiving the first of the A350s that he ordered in 2019, whereas his 777Xs still haven’t even secured a TIA. That’s bad news for Boeing: once Tim starts to fly his shiny new toy, and generate revenue with it, he may finally walk away from the endless waiting game over at Boeing. Availability of slots is a non-argument: an actual delivery always trumps an endlessly-deferred one.

    • I wonder when Emirates is going to take delivery of their 787?

  26. Walk away from a product seemingly designed just for him. Sure.

    • Walk away from a paper/prototype airplane that’s taking forever to certify (if it ever gets certified at all).

      Just look at AA’s/UA’s soured interest in the MAX-10.

      • The fact you have not heard anything about the 777X is actually a good sign.

        • Any idea how much compensation credit 777X customers have “earned” from BA/BCA’s costly delay? Like a couple free aircraft?? 😁

        • yes and no. nobody wants it.

          Of the 453 on order, only 22 of those order were placed since 2020.

          • I think you’re right- and it’s possible that its seemingly interminable certification process is a result of that.

            Sometimes you can’t afford to call a spade a spade..

          • Why place an order for something not certified? Its not even in TIA yet.

            Get an A350 at least as an interim, those are acualy being built. Even if the engine don’t work so good.

          • Interesting that Qatar Airways has expressed no overt dissatisfaction with the Trent XWB 97 engine on the A350-1000…and Qatar has the same climate as Dubai.
            Also, Tim Clark has no real-world data at all on the performance of the GE90 engine…so isn’t that an even bigger risk?
            Looks like some sort of game is being played with RR.

          • “Why place an order for something not certified? Its not even in TIA yet.”

            Oh like those who ordered 777-9F? Are they fools?

          • “Why place an order for something not certified?”

            Said about every new program.

  27. For the sake of variety

    “Japan Allocates $33B To Develop Hydrogen-Powered, Next-Gen Airliner; Looks To Challenge China’s COMAC”

    “With an investment totaling 5 trillion yen ($33 billion) from both the public and private sectors, the goal is to introduce the innovative airliner by around 2035.”

    1st question, isn’t that illegal aircraft subsidy?
    2nd question, hasn’t Japan learned its lesson from the failed MHI Spacejet Program (aka no one wants your aircraft built in Japan)

    • Regarding your points:

      (1) Free trade / the WTO are effectively dead since the Trump administration. The recent US Chips Act was another slap in the face. Subsidies are now the Plat du Jour.

      (2) The SpaceJet tried to enter an existing market met established names. On the other hand, the hydrogen market is new, and is therefore a chance for new names to get in on the game. The Chinese pulled off the same trick with EVs: though they never made any dent in the established ICE car market, they’ve carved out a very big slice of the EV market in just a few years.

      Europe and Asia seem to be taking hydrogen more seriously than certain other regions.

      • Free trade was dead before free trade became a mantra. It had nothign to do with Trump.

        EU hides behind its fig leaves. The US hides behind theirs. China rips the world off.

        I needed a laugh this morning, good one.

        Kind of like world norms. Yea, the people with the power to impose a system on the world, like it or lump it.

        • I look at the calendar and have a good laugh. 😂

    • It will be a niche market. There aren’t many competitors.

      • It will interesting to see how Comac counters with a hydrogen commercial aircraft……….money will not be an issue Maybe start with ARJ 21 as a test bed and then move to C919

        In either case, this would require all new airport infrastructure?

        • Lets see, is this the Commac that build an occasional aircraft a month?

          • How many MAX-7/10 did Boeing build this month?

            What’s the current line rate for the 777-9?

            At least the C919 is in commercial service…

            How’s Boeing’s hydrogen program coming along?
            Oh, sorry: it doesn’t have one.
            Doesn’t have the money for one, either.

            Glass houses…

    • from another aviation article
      “While the HIA is optimistic about the potential for hydrogen flight, it acknowledges that it has a multitude of technical challenges to overcome to achieve its aim.

      Hydrogen is still extremely difficult to store and transport. High levels of investment will be needed to develop the infrastructure required to produce, store and transport hydrogen before it can be considered for use in aviation.

      Further, at present, only around one percent of the world’s hydrogen is considered “green”, with most of it still being derived from fossil fuels.

      Greater investment will be needed not only in hydrogen-powered flight but in the expansion of the green hydrogen industry as a whole. “

  28. a 9 month firing?

    Your (March 2024)

    F (April)
    I (June)
    R (August)
    E (October)
    D (December)

    • Some reports have stated his compensation has been negotiated… Hopefully, he’ll leave early and take his gang with him. He’s probably working at home now. Who’d listen to his lame duck orders now…

    • Brian:

      You clearly do not understand Corporatese.

      Its funny how many managers I worked for decided to change jobs just before they got fired!

      Its the good old boy network in its glory, 10s of millions on pay and a pat on the back for a job badly done. You da best man.

      So yea, fired. And he will be gone as soon as they find a CEO.

      Its not like he actually did anything anyway, you know, things like being in the office and keeping an eye on what was going on.

      Nope, gone most of the time and in more ways than one.

      • I do agree the end of the year is but a placeholder, and when someone new is anointed, he will be gone.

        I see Pope as a 30 year Boeing accountant.
        Just as much part of the ongoing issues as the rest of the mob.

  29. What happened to the fake Admiral who actual was the CEO of Ingalls Huntington Industry (build big ships for the US Navy.

    You know, they guy that leave the Navy and gets a cushy job?

    Sadly Leeham was complicit here as well.

    They kept talking up his Admiral end but not his CEO of IHI, and that is both what counts and you know he was their buddy when he was supposed to be making sure they did the job right.

    Admiral my foot. Few are anything more than political creatures and he was just another one of those.

    • What are you talking about Leeham being complicit in?

      • Scott:

        One of my issues is just repeating what others put out. The press is really bad at that and I believe Leeham just went along with it. A bit of a rant here as well but its valid.

        In response to the question I am offering up constructive criticism that is also blunt. I never was one to beat around the bushes.

        I know you guys are good at calling it as you see it, so I don’t understand the move of accepting the Admiral part and ignoring the COB part. Wrapped up in the tree and not seeing the forest?

        In regards to listing Kirkland as an Admiral when he is in fact currently the Chairman of IHI which is the relevant aspect. Its an a critial distinction and its wrapped up in why Boeing got to where it is which is corruption both of the soul and money (maybe they go together).

        His past history is not relevant. We have all seen the revolving door of Admirals and Generals being hired by industry. Those people are for the most part political creatures. They go to work for industry and if they had any integrity to start with, they are easily corrupted.

        Admirals get really good retirement pay, to want more and work for Industry is greed and they don’t get hired for their integrity.

        The relevant part of the pick was another good old boy COB helping out another good old Boy COB and or CEO who got themselves up to their necks.

        Industry does not hire them because they have integrity. They hire them to get the inside track, their contacts and ability to glad hand with their former types.

        I know you have a bit of a temper, I am good with that and I know I have taken the posting privilege to the breaking point. I worked for a VP of a company much like you I believe. He would snap at you, some of it was the sort of thing that should have been turned into the personnel department. But he also did not take fools lightly and supported decisions I had made that were in the interest of the company.

        I do put my money where my mouth is. I did that with managers who tried to forced me to agree with them. My response was, you can tell me what to do, what you can’t do is force me to agree with you.

        I recently did that over a viscous family dispute. My response to the person who asked me was, if you don’t want to hear what I saw and feel, then don’t ask the question (and it was an extremely important person in my wife’s life and had come to be so in mine as well)

        I don’t give myself a pass and I don’t give Kirkland a pass. Vastly too much is made of those higher ups the same honor for those who serve. The rank and file deserve that honor and respect, Admirals or General do not get any benefit of the doubt.

        We saw Miley get swept up in it during that cross over moment. In his case I think it was swept up and he made sure it was not repeated by himself and equally important, any other member of the military.

        In my experience a rare case of someone who did and does care about the country and his service.

        As a COB I would not trust Kirkland any further than I can throw an aircraft carrier. I have seen nothing of his service history and what he was like in that capacity.

        We see people getting replaced in the military who got to advanced positions when they did something so grossly bad they could not cover it up.

        Most they sweep under the rug and retire them, early.

        So yea, you can get to a high position and often the highest positions and not have any integrity.

        • Lol. Before you grind an axe here, read BA’s press release first:
          “Boeing [NYSE: BA] today named *Admiral Kirkland H. Donald, U.S. Navy (Ret.)* as special advisor to Boeing President and CEO Dave Calhoun. The appointment is effective immediately.

          Admiral Donald and a team of outside experts will conduct a thorough assessment of Boeing’s quality management system for commercial airplanes, including quality programs and practices in Boeing manufacturing facilities and its oversight of commercial supplier quality. His recommendations will be provided to Calhoun and to the Aerospace Safety Committee of Boeing’s Board of Directors.

          “Admiral Donald is a recognized leader in ensuring the integrity of some of the most complex and consequential safety and quality systems in the world,” said Calhoun. “I’ve asked him to provide an independent and comprehensive assessment with actionable recommendations for strengthening our oversight of quality in our own factories and throughout our extended commercial airplane production system. He and his team will have any and all support he needs from me and from across The Boeing Company.”

          Admiral Donald served as a nuclear trained submarine officer for 37 years. In his last Navy assignment, he served as Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program for eight years, ensuring the safe and effective operation of all nuclear-powered warships and supporting infrastructure. The program is recognized worldwide for excellence in reactor safety and reliability. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board for the largest military shipbuilding company in the United States …”

          Why BA/Calhoun chose Kirkland? Because he was a retired admiral who they believe to know safety from managing nuclear-warships and supporting infrastructure!

          Why pick the chairman of a MIC? No, that’s not why Kirkland was chosen. 😂

          If you go for the interview for BA’s CEO, would you pass?? 🙄

          • @Pedro

            This guy is a blasted knucklehead. I don’t even bother responding to his posts, anymore. I don’t understand how he draws his conclusions. His whole outlook is what HE has experienced and how it fits in his mind, never thinking that there is a whole wide world out there, with different folks and different experiences all over the place.

            “I had a vicious family argument”

            Who cares? What does it have to do with your statement that he’s a fake Admiral and his past history is not relevant.

            I swear, I think he might be guilty of having a few libations than firing up the PC because he believes he has some ground breaking ideas.

            “I think you (Scott) have a bit of a temper because I once worked for some guy….” blah blah blah

            Doesn’t even know Scott. Never met him (as far as we know). But he thinks he has a temper. I think the psychologists would call this the Dunning Kruger effect.


          • @Scott

            Done. You reach a point, mind you – when enough is enough. I’ve had a little too much of words/conclusions being drawn from analysis which have absolutely nothing to do with what had been presented.

            All you ever did, in connection with the appointment of the Admiral was 1) Report that it happened 2) Detail the Navy’s safety Standards (mentioning Rickover) – which brought around SubSafe.


            Side Note:

            ‘From 1915 to 1963, the United States Navy lost 16 submarines to non-combat-related causes. Since SUBSAFE began in 1963, only one submarine, the non-SUBSAFE-certified USS Scorpion (SSN-589), has been lost.’


            (sounds like a record to be admired)


            What irritates me is that all of this information is out there, easily found with a search.

            It smacks of laziness and arrogance (not to mention illogical) to call you ‘complicit’ because some Admiral from subs in the Navy, with a long service track record (once again, easily findable) is appointed to a review board.


            ‘Admiral Donald began his tenure as Director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, on 5 November 2004—a unique eight-year posting which was originally created and served in by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. The appointment as Director is both a military and civilian position as it is the head of both the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program in the Department of the Navy and the National Nuclear Security Administration in the Department of Energy.[2] See Naval Reactors for more information.’

            But he’s a fake Admiral…

          • Frank P:

            You clearly do not get it. Why Kirland was appointed had nothign to do with his background. Its just a fig leaf to try to make it look like something when the relevant aspect is he is a Chairman of the Board of a Huge Corporation. Period.

            The core issue here is Boeing’s board, but when you get into trouble you appointed another good old boy, but boy it sure looks good to have that Navy Nuke history.

            I also have in depth perspective on the USN Sub force. My brother served there. I worked with a guy who was on fast attacks.

            Just so you know, Captains are Admirals in the pipeline. All 3 of these guys could have been Kirkland. They are Rear Admirals in all but name. Sans getting caught (and or killing people) they would have advanced to that position and beyond.

            They violated every statue in the book on Nuke Boat Safety.

            And I will leave you three examples you need to look up.
            1. SSN Greeneville surface off Pearl Harbor killing 9 people including 4 high school students.

            2. SSN San Francisco runs into a Sea Mount doing not allowed for the route max cruise. 1 sailor died, many severe injuries. Boat almost lost (they do call them boats by the way).

            3. SSN Connecticut – CO, EXO and COB fired when their sub had an Allision. Cited was the horrid command climate including gross dereliction of safety process.
            Not cited was failure of the USN leadership in promoting people like that into command positions.

            You are into accounting.

            I am into what makes the world actually tick and a man who goes from an Admiral to a Chairman of the LARGEST Navy Ship Building Company board is not one I want involved in a safety culture investigation.

        • Please correct me , but this is not the first time they have brought an Admiral in?

          “In September 2019, the company turned to one of its Board of Directors members, Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, to head a new board-level safety committee to review a plethora of safety items in Boeing Commercial Airplanes”

          What were the results from this?

          • Thank you Scott for the article references.

            Were any of the reports/findings actually made public?

            I see from the articles they reports were due…but nothing on the actual finding?

          • The FAA MIT report is public ( No internal Boeing report is public.

          • Scott:

            I did read it but you did not maintain a critical outlook of that appointment the same as you very rightly do Boeing shenanigans.

            And that is another Boeing shenanigan using the fig leaf of an Admiral who in fact is a good old boy first and foremost.

            And that is my point. You have a reputation for not accepting what Boeing promotes, in fact you have been punished for it by being denied access into the PNW meetings as I recall.

            Relevant is not the fig leaf of being an Admiral, its what he is and that is the Chair of the Largest USN Ship Building corporation in the country.

            So call him what he is. A good old boy. More Boeing Chaff and Flare.

            Admirals are a dime a dozen. If it was not good old boy they would have picked an Admiral who had retired with a solid reputation of integrity and did not go into defense let alone ship building industry.

            You can disagree of course, but I have seen this over and over again in the defense industry. You buy those people to get their insider knowledge and more important, the connections to another good old boy network.

            Yes there are honorable Admirals and Generals. You won’t find them in defense industries.

            So we get a hullabaloo about a so called Admiral who no longer is one, we don’t see the report if it even exists and it won’t because to do a report you actually have to take time to do an in depth dive (pun) and get facts.

            You think the Chairman of HII is going to do that? Right.

          • TW: Perhaps you might become acquainted with this definition: reporting

            1. give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.


          • @Scott

            ‘Yes there are honorable Admirals and Generals. You won’t find them in defense industries.’

            He wants you, to take the same position as he does. That no ‘good’ ex-officers work in the defense industry (per his experience).

            If you do follow his line of thinking and offer an opinion to that effect, than you are complicit in the affair.

            And you have a temper.

            (Even though you offered no opinion in your article, either way, I guess it’s asking to much for the poster in question to just say he disagrees with the hiring of Kirkland Donald. He feels the need to ‘set you straight’)

          • Scott:

            Repeating what some said is not reporting.

            Using your knowledge and insight into what is being talked about is reporting.

            Investigated would be looking at Kirklands background, talk got people that worked with him and for him and how he got to be the Chair of HII.

            I have listed 3 major incidents of Captains of Nuke boats that got canned for their violations of regs. Those are the most regulated and scrutinized ships in the world, and they got clowns for captains (arrogance)

            I also listed where Captains stand. Ie Rear Admirals on the command track.

            Maybe you are not aware of the Military Admiral and General background, its not a nice picture.

            Hark back to the ego and arrogance of Generals in WWII, Patton, Montgomery and Bradley who tried to portray himself as a humble guy.

            You justifiably scrutinize Boeing and the performance of the CEO and the Chair and the board but then accept a statement that a guy who no longer is an admiral and is a Chair of the Largest USN Shipbuilder in the country as relevant?

            I can see what is relevant here and his background is just a fig leaf as is all Calhoun’s bull about how he has fixed Boeing.

            Proof is in the chaos on the floor. Do you really think Calhoun is going to pick someone that will be truthful?

            Now maybe Kirkland is a paragon of virtue, but the Duck is a duck and his being a Chair is what is relevant and you find a Chair who has a background that you point to not his being a Chair.

            Yeas I understand it. Like the Sports reporters. If you tell it like it is then you don’t get any interviews.

            And I picked a career where I could tell it like it was. But I also had the fallback. If you don’t want my investigations, then tell me what you want and as long as its legal, I will do it.

            But you put me into the Engineer position because you wanted grounded facts, not a cut and paste.

            So yea, you are in a tough postion.

            But you can acknowledge when its been pointed out that Kirkland being a Chair of a huge company and that is why he was picked.

            I would hope that is why you have an open forum, to get other views, step back and accept they are valid and when a good point has been made.

            No I am not always right.

            But this one? I am.

            There is a major difference between repeating things and investigate journalism and one of the reasons we have got to where we are is so called journalism does not take a stand on what they found.

            So, I will draw the conclusions needed and present them as long as you allow it. It may do no good, but I will do so.

            I will also fully admit and have when I am wrong.

          • OK TW, I’ve had enough. Knock it off. This endless debate is useless. There is a difference between reporting and commentary/analysis you obviously don’t understand. I’ve been in journalism since 1971. I don’t need a lecture from you about this profession.

            Comments are closed.


  30. From Jon Ostrower:

    “Remember March of the Penguins? Remember the scene where they’re all in Antarctica and they’re all huddled up in, like, this brutal winter, and they circle up to protect themselves. Wall Street is Antarctica, okay? And it’s trying to kill them.”
    “And that new leadership team needs to huddle up and link arms and say, we have to save this company. And that is what this is all about. And so any CEO who has anything less than that as their first priority is going to fail, and Boeing is going to continue to struggle or worse.”

  31. Brace for impact if BA is going to follow GE’s path to revival.
    In 2018, before the appointment of Culp: “GE lost nearly US$90 billion of its market value, its A-level credit rating, its place in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and any pretensions it still had of being a breeding ground for managerial excellence. The company’s executives, employees and investors were hit with one piece of bad news after another as write-downs piled up, profits in its power unit plummeted, regulators scrutinized its accounting practices and muddy messaging derailed a promised pivot to greater financial transparency. All at once, decades of attempted reinventions – from Jack Welch’s creation of a sprawling conglomerate and push for ever-higher profits, to Jeff Immelt’s post-crisis embrace of GE’s industrial core and ill-fated ramp-up in power and energy – caught up with GE, undermining a company once envied for corporate know-how, admired for best-in-class leadership and respected as a financial gold standard.”

    The fundamental difference here is the core of GE, the manufacturing business is *not* as badly corroded as BA/BCA’s. It’s easier to split out the “bad” assets and retain the good ones. What are the good assets in BA/BCA if all the bad ones are gone? BGS? Lol.

    P.S. At one point after Culp took over in late 2018, the stock price catered by over 50%.

    • P.S. 2: GE stock price at the beginning of 2018 was around $110 (after adj. for reverse split), it ended the year at below $50.

    • ‘ What are the good assets in BA/BCA if all the bad ones are gone? BGS? Lol.’

      As I recall, GE went on a shopping spree and bought all kinds of different assets – they were all over the place.

      For the most part BA is concentrated in aerospace/technology.

      Bad? Or just badly managed? LM, Grunman et al. seem to be able to get it together in the Defence sector. BGS is pretty good. Airbus has shown you can be very profitable in commercial aircraft.

      I think it has just been poorly managed.

      • GE’s good assets can shine once the bad ones were shedded. To turn around BCA’s manufacturing will take years. Would investors a.k.a. Wall Street have such patience? We live in a world that value quick bucks above all else, who cares about long-term consequences?

        Commercial aerospace is a capital intensive, cyclical industry, opposite of high growth asset light model WS loves.

        • ‘To turn around BCA’s manufacturing will take years.’

          Hmmmmm….I’m not so sure.

          To clean up the balance sheet and pay down debt (unless they do an equity offering) – yes.

          To clean up the mess that is Inventory, both physical & the paper – yes.

          To work their way through bad contracts – yes.

          But attention to detail, producing quality and making sure that every aircraft delivered is as close to flawless as it can be – is cultural.


          I talked about mgmt showing employees they care. You get the right person in there, who cares about fostering a culture of engineering not focused on getting numbers out the door and good things and happen rather quickly.

          Focusing on what investors wanted, is what got them into trouble in the first place, no?

          • You have to rebuild the culture, which has been corroded over twenty years or more.
            All the mid-level managers know how the system works, what their peers have done, how to get promotions. These are hardwired now. Worse than burn it down then rebuild from scratch.

          • @Pedro

            You’re not wrong. There are probably a ton of ‘ladder climbers’ in there, working the system.

            I can’t remember what thread it was in, but I think it was Retired Tech Fellow who said something along the lines:

            ‘Let it be known that any manager/officer, who pushes employees to circumvent safety standards or pressures them – will be fired on the spot.’

            It was worded a lot better than that, but I think you get the point.

            But yah, you are correct; a clean out is required.

          • Regarding LM, IMO, it is fortunate that it has a big captive customer and the F-35 contract was signed back in around 2001. They promised bold claims that are good ways to make profit twice from delivering a single aircraft! It’s a tree that grows $$$. 😂

          • Frank P:

            I am glad you are coming around to the validity of the view I have been presenting all along.

            Kicking and screaming and casting dispersions at time about how bad I am but then you go full on for what I have presented.

            You are welcome by the way.

      • GE stands for General Electric.

        In fact GE was the reverse. They got into a plethora of things that were electric (Jet engines are not by the way)

        They then got into jet engines as one of the sidelines.

        Their medical equipment arm was also a big success.

        As time went by, things like electric mixers became impossible to compete with Asia.

        So while GE bought stuff, they also had all sorts of stuff like electric motors, generators, Circuit Breakers etc.

        They always were diverse. Jet Engines became the big thing and in the end making electric motors vs China was a loosing proposition.

        Only one electric motor mfg left in the US, aka Baldor. They specialize in it.

        • GE was also in the lead locomotive manufacturer in the US, over taking from EMD

          GE owned NBC when it reigned as the #1 broadcaster

          The GE revisionist history would be effective if I had not lived through it.

          • William:

            The point being GE was always a diverse company.

            They went nuts at it but so has RR (hmmm)

            As I recall RR used to build fine Cars (well and some not so fine ones)

      • The problem is BCA has all good assets (other than Space, not sure how the Satellites end is doing). Certainly capsules are a bust.

        For the most part there is nothign wrong with the defense side that decent management would no fix as well.

        Add in more KC-46A, the T-7 is going to be a 40 year franchise , V-22, Chinook, AH-64, F-15, F-18 as well as various missiles and guided weapons.

        Some of the guided weapons you might want to sell off, but the Aviation side contributes to the aviation whole.

        T-7 is the all digital trial horse. It has issues and will but its the next move in aviation production.

        • Where is the Union in all of this?

          Their rank and file, right?
          Workers and their shadow/supervisors?

          they complain about speed of work, overwork, and lack of training?

          They can strike for higher pay, no problem..
          Buuut…the quality of the work and product provided?

          Doesnt part of that fall on the Union?

          If it is so well know that workers are pressured, conditions are so bad they are forced to work too fast, forward work not correctly completed,

          Isnt that what a Union is supposed to do, fight for better working conditions?

          so force a slowdown?

          Fighting for higher pay while the work product is going downhill fast?

          Who is the Union really looking out for?

          • @Brian

            Company Culture starts at the top. If the bosses are telling you to ‘just ship it’, you’re going to tell them no?

            They’re the ones with the authority and the power over how things are done.

            Secondly, every darn BA employee sees Calhoun living in his boating community in the New England area, telecommuting into work. He can’t be bothered to come to the Seattle area and oversee production – i.e. He is showing everyone else he really doesn’t care, he wants his creature comforts and wants to get paid.

            If the Boss, who is taking home $20+ million as the best paid employee in the company doesn’t care…you want the guy sweeping the floor making orders of magnitude less, to care more?

            Boeing’s revenue is 90% product based, the other 10% is service. You think the top guy would kinda want to be close to where the bulk of the revenues are generated…just to keep an eye on things, no?

            Couldn’t have that now, could we? He might get all dusty if he had to walk through the plants now and again…

          • Brian:

            Some may find it on, but Frank P has some good points and the above is very spot on (granted he like all of us has his less illustrious moments when he goes on and on about accounting stuff – grin)

            That said, the Union represents workers in wages, working conditions and benefits.

            So what you just espoused is a blame the workers point of view and that is beyond any logic other than to not blame management.

            So to clear it up for you.

            A Worker does what they are told to and they work within a system that is setup by management.

            They do not decide that its their job to run the company. They step outside of their lane (union or not) and they get fired.

            You drill a rivet to the spec you are given. You do not decide that there is a better way. That spec has been determined by the FAA and implemented (or not) by Boeing.

            So you are telling us a worker knows how to drill a Rivet right when the training they received says otherwise?

            Nothing more than another blame the workers post.

            As a worker, I can tell you I had to make decisions on life safety and supporting my family.

            The same with violations. Yea I could stop a violation, I would get fired, we would loose everything we had built up and the violations would continue.

            I did not commit those violations and they could not make me.

            I did live with a lot of them that put people at risk. Did I have nights I did not sleep? Yep.

            But it also was not my job to make the world a perfect place. At the core a workers job is not to be a criminal and do your best with the crap management hands you.

    • @Pedro

      For the record – I don’t think that BA can shed divisions, it has to be quite the opposite.

      They need to re-acquire Spirit, bringing production back in-house, where they have more control. Then they have to find someone who goes back to that engineering focused mentality and flush out those Stonecipher money managers.

      Big task, as you point out.

      Harry was appointed in 2003 and was out after his affair in 2005. Took 2 years to change the culture (with some help from his flock).

      Can the reverse be done again, in 2 years?

      ‘In a clash of corporate cultures, where Boeing’s engineers and McDonnell Douglas’s accountants went head-to-head, the smaller company won out. The result was a move away from expensive, ground-breaking engineering and toward what many called a more cut-throat culture, devoted to keeping costs down and favoring upgrading older models at the expense of wholesale innovation. It was McDonnell executives who unexpectedly ended up in charge of the combined entity, and it was McDonnell’s culture that became ascendant. “McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing’s money,” went the joke around Seattle. Then-CEO Phil Condit was quoted telling reporters to ignore the talk that somebody had “captured” him and was holding him “hostage” in his own office. But Stonecipher cut a Dick Cheney–like figure, blasting the company’s engineers as “arrogant”.’

  32. Back when Bryce was still here he wisely suggested simply
    ignoring that one. That was good advice.

    • @Vincent

      Wise words.

      Problem I have is that Hamilton takes the time and effort to create and maintain a website like this, provides us with content & insight and somehow he is ‘complicit’ when he reports that someone got appointed to a review board.

      Then the credentials and integrity of the individual are run down, by the same person. And Scott now has a temper.

      I’ll just go back to skipping right over his diatribes. I just wasn’t happy that he took potshots at Scott.

      • TransWorld says “And Scott now has a temper.”

        Actually, I think I’m pretty tolerant of the nonsense that often appears in Comments. It’s only after trying to work with people to follow the rules for an extended period, and they don’t get the message, that I lower the boom.


        • …and too that point:

          1) Yes. It’s your job in maintaining decorum here. You are quite lenient.

          2) How would he know what kind of person you are? ESP? We’ve got the Alaskan Kreskin here?

          (I know I’m dating myself – the kids won’t get the reference….)

          • Amazingly I agree, Scott tolerates a lot.

            But then I have been the focal point of his snapping.

            I made a point once and he snapped at me for using a failed Airline as a moniker.

            It had nothign to do with the point he disagree with or did not.

            I still respect him the same as I respected the VP who made comments that he should not have.

            Why? Because he was not perfect or close to it, but he had integrity in that he represented the company and our side very well.

            So yea, I can criticize and respect.

            I once had an employee tell me that I went home patting myself on the back for all I had done well that day.

            In fact I did not. I went home and criticized myself for the work I had done that was not up to my standards.

            You don’t make yourself better on your accomplishments. You make yourself better by looking at your deficiencies and doing better.

            Out of that comes success, and then you go onto the next deficiency that you will incur and do better until that is corrected.

            The highest accolade you can get in my family is, You Done Good.

            And then you work on doing more good.

        • Of course.

          They did the same thing at work. Tried to beat down anyone that told them the emperor had not cloths.

          It ain’t easy being a critical thinker.

          Go ahead and present something and have it assessed. I have no issues with that. I am wrong at times, but its not for a lack of not trying to be informed.

          • Who has no clothes? Can you be more specific?? 🤔

  33. I’m still wondering if Ray Conner might be a good choice as Boeing CEO- if he’d even accept the job, that is. That company
    has been heading in the wrong direction for a long time now.

    • On a related note:

      “2nd Airbus A320 assembly line project under construction in Tianjin”

      “The foundation construction of the largest single building of the 2nd Airbus Tianjin A320 Family Final Assembly Line Project was completed on Sunday. The project, aimed to manufacture both A320 and A321neo aircraft, is expected to enter into service by the end of 2026.”

      Have there been any recent Boeing deliveries to China…since that singular MAX delivery months ago?

      • With reports of Boeing 737 production in disarray, who said China’s additional scrutiny is without merit?

        • Can you imagine the gremlins that are going to be unearthed when (relatively) recently manufactured MAXs/787s start undergoing C/D checks in earnest?

    • And also related:

      “India’s Mahindra Aerospace is becoming a larger Airbus Atlantic supplier and will produce 2,300 metal components for the A320neo aircraft family. As Airbus has suffered from supply chain delays, signing another major supplier provides additional capacity and increases the robustness of the supply chain, with geographic and manufacturer diversity.”

      “While Boeing has been struggling with its supply chain and quality issues, Airbus has been focused on dual-sourcing and expanding its supply chain to ensure that pandemic-induced production-limiting shortfalls are eliminated as the backlog for its popular A320neo family is now more than seven years, with delivery slots not available until 2031.”

      • Well Boeing has not delivery slots either though its for a lack of production not popularity.

  34. LNA:
    “LNA has tracked Boeing’s charges and write-offs for years. We’ve also tracked Airbus’ performance since 1999 financial reporting. From then through 2023, Airbus took charges and forward losses of more than €33bn. At today’s exchange rate, this is about $35bn. During the same period, Boeing’s figure was more than $70bn, twice that of Airbus.”

    Next time someone mentions the A380 or the A340, here is your reference. 😉

  35. From a shortage to surplus.

    United Air Asks Pilots to Take Unpaid Leave Due to Boeing Delays

    “Delayed deliveries of Boeing 787 wide-body and 737 Max single-aisle aircraft …

  36. 😂

    1) “Would Boeing murder a whistleblower? Before this month I’d have said it depends. I didn’t think Boeing would kill a middle manager who never worked on the 737 Max & left in 2017. What surprised me was how many more informed observers felt Boeing…might

    2) “I don’t think one can be cynical enough when it comes to these guys,” said a longtime exec.

    He told me to open Maps & find the airport 180 miles east of the 737 factory where Boeing stores “finished” jets that are too fxxked to deliver. “The engines alone are worth billions.”

    3) “Airlines won’t accept the 737s until Boeing fixes their problems. As the dead whistleblower’s lawsuit explains, jets coming off Boeing assembly lines have a lot

    Bosses pressured workers to push 787s out with 100s of dangerous defects even after the FAA grounded 787s in 2013”

    4) “After the 737 Max crashes, the FAA realized Swampy’s 787 plant in South Carolina was perhaps even more dysfunctional than Renton. Boeing halted deliveries in 2020 for nearly 2 years after a QA found approx 40 gazillion flaws. Aviation Week heroically mapped the most significant:

    5) “So no shit: building airplanes is complicated. I feel dirty even tweeting about it, it’s so complex. But Boeing’s problem is not: it’s the same jargon-infatuated dumbshit MBAs that ru(i)n everything else in this country, like former CEO Jim McNerney, who paid himself $250 million

    6) Like most vain, narcissistic MBAs, McNerney could not stand people who didn’t pretend to not be smarter than him. He set about purging them all, on grounds of either being “assholes” or because he believed “experience” was “overvalued.”

    7) Newsflash: experience is undervalued. A Boeing mgr actually proved this in a 67-page 1997 analysis of unprofitable programs. As it turned out, the ability of a workforce to move efficiently enough to profitably build planes was almost entirely a product of the worker seniority

    8) But Boeing didn’t listen. Instead Boeing moved its 787 plant to South Carolina, where they hired fast food workers to build 787s & there were no experienced aerospace workers whatsoever to challenge bosses like the one who told Swampy that “knowledge” was holding him back.

    9) “I talked to forensic pathologist
    about Swampy’s mysterious “suicide.” He sympathized with Swampy and his coroner, saying medical examiners are under tremendous pressure not to rule police custody deaths “homicides” & outsource suicide cases to pathology assistants

    10) “I called FBI criminal profiler James Fitzgerald. “If the goal was to stop him from testifying, it sounds like they failed. But sometimes the goal is to send a message to anyone else who might be thinking of doing what he did.” He wanted to see the note

    11) “I would hope the police are interviewing [Swampy’s former boss] right now,” added @BobPfalzgraf

    As @matthewstoller pointed out here, if there’s one thing we’ve learned about Boeing, it’s that it “does not deserve the benefit of the doubt”

    12) Swampy’s coworkers don’t seem to think so. He was “high on life”, one pointed out.
    Another to whom I spoke on the phone for several hours repeatedly told me they weren’t suicidal, and that Swampy was not the first “outspoken” Boeing employee to die mysteriously in recent years

    13) ** The numbers tell the story of a company that has done everything it can to alienate loyal veterans. The avg 737 worker has been there 5 years. The % of workers with 5 years or less has doubled. 100s of long-timers with an average 23 years at Boeing retired early in 2022. **

    15) at any rate, if you want to know what happens when the guy who used to run the (improbably not defunct) nielsen television ratings company gets appointed to run the company that builds fxxking airplanes, the wholly predictable (except for the possible assassintion part) story is here


    Read the article @

    • When Mr. Hamilton states he ignores a lot of stuff in the comment section I understand him now.

      • Gosh, I feel totally different about that…I really enjoy Pedro’s comments!
        I don’t know where he manges to find his plethora of sources, but his comments are a veritable treasure trove of information. Very enlightening info, which you don’t readily see in the main stream media.

          • I go with Williams.

            Unless its really short I just ignore them. A lot like Tofu.

      • @wiliams

        R/T by an AW reporter, that’s how I noticed this. 🙂

      • I recall there’s a post (or two) that wanted the worker to be the scapegoat.

  37. Lynx Air, Boeing Strike Deal To Terminate Aircraft Agreement

    Former Canadian ULCC Lynx Air and Boeing have reached a deal to terminate the airline’s aircraft purchase agreement with the airframer. Lynx ceased operations in February after nearly two years in operations.

    17 Max 8’s
    21 Max 200’s

    9 Max 8’s will be up for sale, which they had in their fleet – according to wiki

    • Thank you Frank. Its been a bit somber in our house due to a family member passing.

      The absurdity of the pictures really got me going.

  38. While we’re concentrating on the interminable meltdown at Boeing, let’s not forget the ongoing mess at another US aerospace giant:

    “New FAA AD On Pratt & Whitney PW1100G Engines Could Cost US Airlines Over $150 Million”

    “According to the regulator, the directive applies to 12 different types of PW1100G engines, as well as six PW1400G types, affecting engine parts with certain part numbers (P/N). The FAA estimated that 430 engines in the US will be affected by the directive, 366 of which will need HPT 1-st stage hub removals, 351 will need replacements of HPT 2-nd stage hubs, 408 engines will need new HPC IBR-7s, 368 will need HPC IBR-8 replacements, and 283 engines will need to have their HPC rear hubs removed.”

  39. It just never ends:

    “Latest Boeing flightmare as Alaska Airlines plane from Hawaii to Alaska is forced to turn around due to the cabin FLOODING – as flight attendants use paper towels to desperately mop it up”

    “An Alaska Airlines plane flying from from Hawaii to Alaska was forced to turn around after a bathroom flooded filling the aisles of the Boeing 737 Max 9 jet with water.”

    “Video captured by one of the passengers onboard sees flight attendants scrambling to mop up the deluge throwing as many blankets and paper towels onto the floor as they could find.

    ‘There was probably two to four inches of standing water that swooshed out as soon as you opened that front door of the lavatory,’ Parker said to Alaska’s News Source.”

    • This has gotten truly silly but that is the press for you.

      Things happen every day. I recently watched a Mentour video and he cited 1 million flights a month.

      All sorts of things happen. While ugly odor wise as well as visual, a toilet backup is not a danger (or should not be).

      While I only did it as needed, if I was in a facility and a toilet backed up, I took care of it. I found a large key ring in one toilet. The owner had to know she had dropped it in there.

      It was like the 3rd call on that stool, hmm, time to pull it, there is something more than a temp blockage. Yep, key ring. Like a 6 inch one.

      Anyone think an airplane is more immune that a full flow flush toilet? And back in those days it was not the wimpy flow we get today.

      But any story about an aircraft is going to get headlines and if its a Boeing, better yet.

      Not that they did not bring it onto themself of course.

      If it gets Calhoun the old heave ho earlier, that would be good. I could do a better job managing Boeing than he has and I would be really terrible at it.

  40. “Airbus SE delivered about 145 aircraft in the first three months of the year as the planemaker works to ramp up output and meet its annual handover goal of 800 jets.” source Bloomberg

    • I believe AB would exceed its target this year.