Ortberg sees path with FAA for returning to full rate 737 production

By Karl Sinclair

Jan. 28, 2025, © Leeham News: Boeing’s CEO Kelly Ortberg, now five months into his job, painted an encouraging picture of the company’s path to recovery in an appearance on the financial news network CNBC before the 2024 full-year earnings call.

Kelly Ortberg, CEO of Boeing. Credit: Boeing.

Ortberg said there is a path for Boeing Commercial Airplanes to win approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to return this year to a production rate of 38/mo for the 737 MAX. This is the rate before the Jan. 5, 2024, accident involving an Alaska Airlines 10-week-old MAX 9 in which a door plug blew off the airplane at 14,000 ft after take off from Portland (OR). The accident was traced to a production failure by Boeing. Nobody died, and the injuries were minor. The plane safely returned to Portland for an emergency landing.

Since then, production has trickled along at 20 or less per month. Returning to a rate of 38 and growing beyond is critical to Boeing’s financial recovery.

Ortberg told CNBC this path appears to be on track finally.

Deliveries climbing as inventory clears

Ortberg predicted a delivery rate in the upper 30s on the 737 MAX program for January. Most of this will be “flushing through inventory,” as he put it.

He also expects FAA approval to move beyond the rate of 38/mo by the second half of 2025.

Boeing is planning to be at 38/mo for the balance of the year, with an incremental increase of 5/mo, every six months thereafter.

As noted by Avalon, this is against historical trends and is highly optimistic. Especially given the current state of the supply chain.

He reiterated that the balance sheet was solid for 2025. Yet he expected the first half to be a cash-burn period, which would be reversed in the second half.

RBC Capital Markets estimates a burn-off of ($3.5bn) for 2025.

Boeing has a debt repayment schedule of $4.581bn for 2025. Combined with ~$3bn in debt servicing costs, financial activities will cost the company at least ($7.5bn) in cash.

Ortberg once again echoed comments concerning fixed-price defense contracts made by CEOs Jim McNerney and Dennis Muilenburg. He re-affirmed Boeing’s position that they would not enter into any further contracts of that nature, a position announced by former CEO David Calhoun, which was at the forefront of BDS losses.

Remaining inventory

On the earnings call, CFO Brian West detailed that BCA’s inventory of 737 and 787 aircraft were as follows:

  • 55 737 MAX 8 aircraft, the majority for customers in China and India, built before 2023;
  • 35 737 MAX 7 and 10 aircraft, testing ongoing with certification expected later in the year; and
  • 25 787 Dreamliners, built before 2023 that still require re-work.

Much of the blame for the poor financial performance was laid at the feet of the IAM strike.

The current MAX production is in the mid-20s, while the 787 program produces at 5/mo.

Ortberg and West underlined the “half-trillion dollar backlog” in their opening comments.

Boeing is also in the advanced stages of trimming some subsidiaries. While not termed a structural re-design of the corporation, that would infer a sell-off of BDS or BGS, Ortberg has completed his portfolio review and expects any changes to happen in the next six months to a year.

A more in-depth financial analysis of the Boeing 2024 FY and 10-K filing will follow. An LNA annual update on the Boeing Deferred Production costs will follow on January 30.

98 Comments on “Ortberg sees path with FAA for returning to full rate 737 production

  1. UHHHH- faster and cheaper didn’t work before-except for stock buybacks. While some supplier costs MAY go down by end of year, Assembly costs with mostly hand labor and ‘ increased oversight ‘ not likely to change much from current.

    Just my .00003 worth given for free .

    • Consideration for the stockholders is the #1 concern of management. If business considerations don’t allow for a dividend and the company has the cash to do a buy back that will raise the share price, and will still leave sufficient liquidity to meat projected requirements, that is precisely what the company should do.

      The stockholders make it possible for the company to exist, so as to provide product for the customer and jobs for the workers.

      If the stockholders chose to take their money elsewhere by selling their stock, depressing the price, and putting the company in a debt death spiral, then no one wins.

      Capital is harder to come buy that labor because it is consummately mobile.

  2. The 38 a month prediction is for the 2nd part of the end of year. I don’t see it at that rate but 30 seems doable. But more at the end of the end of the year.

    It will be interesting to see if they continue on the Everett path and put that line into low rate production. Not that they need it but the investment is there and its going to take time to get it going.

    The big aspect is how much the current US Administration interferes in the FAA. That would scare the airlines big time. Of course and executive order would solve all the quality control issues.

    Funny how its the workers fault once again, blank blow outs, MCAS 1.0, 777X delays, 787 repeated issues.

    Mentour pilot did a great Video on the DC-6, history I was not aware of, no idea how I missed it. Bad design, cover up, knee jerk re-design. Its like seeing MCAS 1.0 all over again.

    So far Ortberg seems competent but not more than that. Maybe its enough but I have not been impressed.

    • @TW
      Will have to be from their new line…Boeing is almost out of old stock to pull on for deliveries. Max8 “old backlog” will be substantially depeleted by end of Q1.

      Also not sure that rate is predicated on Max7 or Max10 delivering this year. That would be extremely optimistic.

      • You have to figure that they blend the 55 parked 737s into the mix. We will have an idea as the quarter progresses as the stock pull down should be obvious.

        The Renton plant could deliver 50 some 737s a month. I don’t see Boeing going full bore at Everett while they can increase at Renton. Long term Everett is important but not short term.

        Assembly is just an open hall. The real issue is not a line or lines but the supply chain.

        To make a pun, that chain has been jerked around so much I doubt even Boeing knows what it can deliver. Ramping up, then a complete cessation and then ramping up again is the impediment. People move on, sources can’t supply and you have to figure core materials are going to Airbus suppliers.

        The parts don’t intermix of course but metal is metal and if Boeing stops its lines then there is spare metal to be had and you sell it to who is buying.

        The most efficient use of your supplies is the Renton lines as those can ramp up the fastest.

        I tend to doubt any mfg of -7/-10s. Not certified and no money in it vs selling -8/9s.

        Then there is the program to get the synthetic AOA/Speed system installed in the -8s and 9s and the cowl heating issue resolved as well as the built -7s/10s and out of storage.

        • Agreed. The supply chain is Boeing’s biggest problem. Not quality control at Renton.

          Things have been pretty quiet at Spirit lately.

        • @TW

          Some of the other reports have it that the B737 and B787 shadow factories will be done by end of first half.

        • “The Renton plant could deliver 50 some 737s a month.”

          LMAO I’m old enough to remember IRL the last time BA tried, there’s a logjam “of unfinished jets [piling] up around the factory and on the taxiway at the adjacent airfield”.

          If today’s Renton is able to deliver “50 some 737s a month”, why the hell BA is spending big money to open up the fourth line? Are they silly??

          • @Pedro: You are mixing up your numbers.

            At its peak pre-grounding production, Renton was producing 52/mo going to 57 by the end of 2019 and studying going to 63 (the maximum RTN could do). All these could be delivered from RTN.

            When the 747 line closed, Boeing planned to open a 4th line (the North Line) dedicated to the MAX 8200 (the high density MAX 8) and the MAX 10. It didn’t announce what this line’s capacity would be. These aircraft would be delivered at Everett.

            RTN has the capacity to do 63, or 21 per line; Let’s say KPAE could do up to 10 for planning. This gave Boeing the ability to produce 73 a month–a rate I know Boeing was studying to keep up with Airbus which at the time was talking about 75 (it still is–it’s not there yet).

            All this was before the grounding, of course.

            Boeing has a backlog of around 4,800 MAXes. It probably could sell more if it had the capacity. Given the uniqueness of the 8200 and the differences of the MAX 10 (articulating gear among them), segregating to its own line makes production sense.

            Hamilton

          • @Scott

            The rush to push up 737 production rate in 2018 caused a logjam. That’s a reality. BCA could have great plans, before the covid.
            Many experienced workers have since left!
            It takes time to train new workers to get them up to speed. This is not something you can squeeze it into six months or a year, is it??
            Any so-called plan by BCA is no better than Airbus’s target to build 75/mth in 2025. Not reality.

          • Let me put it this way, I’m not going to dispute one day BCA may put out 50 737/mth from Renton, the (key) question is what year, 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029 or 2030? And how much uncertainty should be accounted for in such “plans”?

          • IIRC BA exec are talking about like reaching 42/m before this year-end if there’sno objection from the FAA, then adding 5/m each six min. So it’ll be 52/m before y.e. 2026. Does it sound plausible?

          • I look on the split line situation as being able to reduce the complexity of Renton.

            They not only have the 3 lines there, they continue to produce the 737 NG hull for the P-8 and E-7 Projects.

            One hiccup in Renton and you have a scramble.

            So now they have options with Everett. I had not given thought to the 8200, its such a weird bird, but yea the -10 is going to be different.

            The -10 is going to take its own ramp up, so a good place to do it.

            There is going to be a trade off as you will have to take people from Renton to do so and probably train up more people if you are going to reach build levels they need to deliver.

            I got back to 30 a month true build by the end of the year. They might hit 38, but the sure are not going to increase 6 a month after that.

          • @All
            This brings up a good question of backlog. How long of a backlog (at max time) do you want to have? Simplistically, even at rate-50…it would take 8 years to burn off the existing backlog. I would think 4 – 5 years is a more desirable delivery horizon.

            I remember the days in the late teens when fantasy – large sale leaseback orders were coming in just to grab a place in line.

          • I would think 5 years should be the MAX, pretty much nuts to have Airbus with orders into the 2030s.

            Keep in mind that if you continue to get orders the delivery keeps moving to the right.

            Usually the aircraft is replaced and the orders shift to the new one, but we sure are not seeing any new aircraft for 10 years.

            The 787 is trying for rate 10 in 2026. I had to laugh at filling wetlands, Charleston is nothing but wetlands. Called the low country for a reason! Shermans march through the swamp comes to mine.

            https://simpleflying.com/boeing-permits-south-carolina-double-787-production/

          • @Casey

            From BCA

            737 MAX
            Unfilled orders 4,778
            ASC 606 adj (475)
            Backlog 4,303

            From the way those exec talk, it doesn’t look like BCA would stop at 50/m atm.

            The problem is BCA has oversold its production slots to its customers that not even production at 50/m is going to meet scheduled delivery before the incident on Jan 5, 2024.

            See Leehamnew’s data plot I linked above.

  3. Much ado about nothing?

    “The new Machinists contract will add some pressure on Boeing’s finances. But West pointed out that this labor cost remains less than 5% of the cost of building the airplanes.”

  4. Charming that Ortberg *sees* a path forward…but it would be better if he’d actually *show* the world what that path looks like…

    • Well, I guess we’ll have to wait and see. The *real* showing of such a pathway would be to get to the other end of it without major mishap and everyone happy to be there.

      Unfortunately, the pathway probably critically depends on Ortberg’s own personality. I think that he (of all recent Boeing CEOs) is more minded to go tell the shareholders to back off and take a haircut, pretty much against the norms of business in the USA. The danger is that as soon as Ortberg’s path starts looking solid, he’ll get retired again and someone more “conventional” might be appointed, someone more likely to pay a dividend. That could push the company completely off the pathway for good.

        • And I for one sincerely hope that the future justifies Ortberg’s optimism.

          As an ardent engineer myself, it’s most distressing to see what was once a large and great engineering concern as Boeing once was brought low by monetary avarice. Engineering needs Boeing to recover, and to serve as an example to all why engineering sense is the pathway to sustained profit. Whilst a complete failure of Boeing would be a lesson in how a lack of engineering sense is a sure pathway to failure, it would not be anything like as potent a lesson as an engineering-driven recovery would be.

          Of course, getting future generations of execs to read, study and learn from such examples is the tricky bit.

          • I see Ortberg as conventional, the priors were a sub class of not just greed but megalomania in not caring what they wrought as long as they got their lucre.

            I don’t see Boieng as some kind of shining engineering icon. I see where they fit in the economy and its a huge presence that are good paying jobs in the high tech sector. If we loose that we drop a notch in where we can go in the world.

            Boeing drives a huge spin off in the economy and in its spin offs (people quitting to other areas that pay better) is a great training ground.

            And yes, I know what kind of offers Boeing personal get because Boeing has pursued being a piker.

            For every person who quits Boeing, Boieng has to hire another one so its a jobs creating machine.

            Run right its a shoo in for success. The companies always talk about if we can’t be in the top 5 we should not be in that business.

            Boeing has always been in the top two of two. Sometimes one of one. Before Airbus the only competitor in on aircraft was Douglas. Lockeheed was a one off build on the L1011.

          • “Boeing has always been in the top two of two. Sometimes one of one.”

            There won’t be any game changer because America rn prefers status quo. My prognosis is this’s not the same America of the late 19thC or early 20thC.

            “For every person who quits Boeing, Boieng has to hire another one so its a jobs creating machine.”

            Yeah, Ortberg announced to cut 10% of work force, are you serious??

            The spinning machine keeps going non-stop.

          • Matthew: “And I for one sincerely hope…”

            What has “hope” got to do with any of this? Hope is just a subjective indulgence — a fantasy. What’s needed here is objective prognosis — not hope.

            I haven’t yet heard of any viable path through Boeing’s minefield of crippling debt, crippling braindrain, and crippling general incompetence. Something as whimsical as “hope” certainly won’t help find such a path.

        • He doesn’t have a crystal ball, does he?

          You are not trying to implicate that FAA have made their decision in advance, right?

        • And (certain) commenters are privy to a sense of reality that Ortberg doesn’t seem to possess…or, at least, display.

          Hot air isn’t going to cut it anymore — we’re now in a phase of “show me”.

          Not unlike the whole AI hype, in that regard.

  5. To be fair Boeing delivered more aircrafts so far 2025 than airbus. The major interruptions in production made time for improvements so hopefully Boeing used that time for improvements. Happened many times before, one US company where workers had complained on its production equipment for a long time and nothing happened, when on strike all the white collar staff had to go down in production and discovered the same problems, then ordered the upgrades that were installed when the blue collar staff came back after a new contract was signed.

    • Mainly because Boeing is catching up at Moses Lake after the strike.

      February would be more normalized it seems.

    • @Claes:

      To be fair, Airbus is outproducing Boeing by 3X.

      Boeing has backlog its putting into service, that is PAST production. Real Boeing monthly production is under 30 (all aircraft).

      Boeing backlog is so large, they have no limit in build right now.

      The far Horizon though is, how long does it last unless they come out with new product.

  6. given that Management’s misguided attempt at playing hardball is primarily responsible for the IAM strike, it should be noted that the strike was a management self inflicted wound that cost them, in the end, triple what just doing the deal up front would have (lost production + paying the contract anyway)

    instead, they continue the fine tradition of blaming labor for management’s greed.

    • What has me puzzled is the lack of a greed opportunity and they knee jerk the way they always did.

      Does anyone see Boieng paying a dividend at under 10 years from now? Maybe not even then.

      I think Ortberg stepped in and decided to go with the Boeing negotiating lineup and even bought into it, until it became grossly obvious it was a failure.

      That is one reason I am not impressed with Ortberg. It was the one area he should have taken charge of (and maybe did at the end).

      Maybe it was the old aspect of, it can’t be as bad as it looks and then found out it was worse. These people are really messed up.

    • Incorrect. The actual deal first agreed and final deal werent that far apart.
      Remember the union & Boeing had an agreed deal, subject to a vote.
      The ‘workers’ wanted the defined pension back which ‘workers’ voted to drop a decade ago
      The strike didnt get the old defined pension back …LoL

      What Boeing did agree was a cash balance pension bump into their personal 401K plans. Which is what the union should have asked for at the beginning !
      The claim of ‘triple cost’…. is nonsense.
      In many ways the supply chain manufacturing could catch up because final assembly was halted

    • The strike would happen regardless because the workers wanted payback for the cuts from the previous contract—they stated this themselves. As the UAW is learning, be careful what you wish for.

      • @Pedro

        Yeah that was awful…I saw the video and it looked like the Apache made a bee-line straight for the aircraft. Anecdotally, sounds like ATC was trying to reach the helicopter before collision. This is the first US accident in 12 years since Asiana in SFO.

        Way to early to speculate…but it sounds like the problem originated with the Apache (possibly ATC) and could be either “human factors” or maybe a comms issue with ATC. This was a CRJ700 making an otherwise ordinary landing…though there is chatter asking them to divert to a different runway.

        • Another horrible loss.

          Its well past time that they close Reagon to commercial flights and best all flights.

          Much like Denver, it is not the least viable. Too many government ops and security zones and you could well have a Russian/Iranian type incident where a missile gets launched at a civilian aircraft.

          In the case of DC those are split second decisions. Congress, Pentagon and the White House all in tight proximity. 30 Seconds off flight path and you can hit any major US government facility.

          • @TW

            Closing Reagan was very much on the table after 9/11. I believe at one point (and maybe still so) sky marshals were specifically required on Reagan flights for security reasons. The exclusion zones around key government areas increased. The whole city is pockmarked with no-fly zones. You would never build this airport today with a clean slate. And you have to wonder whether the real estate is more valuable for non-aviation purposes.

            However, Reagan still does have a symbiotic relationship with Dulles. Both airports serve as diversion airports for each other. Dulles has its warts as far away as it is from the city.

            And just be mindful that closing Reagan does not necessarily address why this accident occurred. Anectodally, this is sounding a little more like an ATC issue. And that has had several close calls at other airports over the last few years. Staffing levels are suffering (only one on duty at the time of the crash last night). Seems like a management system ripe for innovation opportunities.

          • @Casey

            Why is there a heliport nearby? Put proper separation, or move/close one of them.

          • @Pedro
            I’m not sure it is the proximity of the heliport. Looks like this Army unit is out of Fort Belvoir and is mainly VIP transport for military. It is the flight paths these helicopters run as part of their core operations that brings the air space conflict. Moving the heliport does not change that reality.

            It really is going to come down to whether the current setup can be safe. Airport incursions happen all over the place. Reagan is a particularly tight funnel of traffic.

            There are simple decisions (hire more ATC). Medium decisions (no helicopters flights around Reagan or turning Reagan into GA only to reduce traffic). Then there are hard which is fundamentally closing an airport. The main runway is the busiest in the country. It would be sorely missed.

          • Thanks. May be i got it wrong. I read somewhere that the helo training as part of evacuation under COOP.

            What’s the minimum separation between helo and commercial flights in international best practice?

          • Best separation is out of my wheelhouse. What I will say about this specific airspace is that aircraft are supposed to be over 300 feet and helicopters under 200 feet. That is still very tight. However we are going to find out soon if one or both aircraft were out of position

          • > A Reuters review of incidents at Reagan airport involving helicopters reveals pilots had been raising alarm about near-misses back to the 1980s.

            > Out of 46 incidents flagged anonymously by pilots in the Aviation Safety Reporting System database, 26 cases involved near-misses or recklessly close contact.

            In a report about an incident in September 1989, one pilot complained that military helicopters and commercial aircraft are on different radio frequencies, cannot hear each other and rely on “very busy” traffic controllers to prevent accidents.

            The pilot complained it was his seventh near-miss with a helicopter in 4-1/2 years flying into the airport.
            https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2025-01-30/pilots-recall-problems-at-washington-airport-after-fatal-crash

          • Its simply nuts to mix this traffic up on an Approach to runways (in this case two, their first flight plan was the longer one and due to conflict of slot, they shifted them over to the shorter one)

            One chopper pilot noted he never flew over 100 feet on that route. Its not an option to refuse for military pilots, its up to the authorities to maintain safety.

            A chopper at 300 feet off course would intersect with a plane right off the end of the shorter (or longer) runway.

            Reagon should be closed down and should have been long ago, but this kind of traffic conflict should never occur anywhere regardless.

          • @casey:

            Dulles does not remotely need Reagon as a diversion.

            There are hundreds of airports in that region, its a close packed area. Baltimore is next door, Philly is close, Richmond is close etc etc.

            That does not count a large number of military bases in the area.

  7. > Investigators are gathering evidence to determine the cause of the tragic midair collision between an Army helicopter and a passenger jet in Washington, D.C., Wednesday night

    Already a key focus is whether the helicopter was flying higher than permitted

    > Other possible factors:

    the helicopter crew’s use of night vision goggles, which can restrict the field of vision.

    the use of separate radio frequencies at the airport by military and commercial flights.

    https://x.com/dominicgates/status/1885187333089284425

    > ICYMI

    Data shows the Army helicopter was flying higher than permitted

    When ATC told the helicopter pilot to watch for the passenger jet, he may have fixed on a jet flying the same approach but behind the CRJ

    + Experts discuss the safety of the CRJ’s standard approach [I believe what Gates referred to is the alternative landing track used by the passenger jet at DCA]

    https://x.com/dominicgates/status/1885299622509494377

  8. As part of my Commercial training I had to do something like 10 hours of night flying.

    I was flying out of Oakland International so you got a plethora of traffic mix, SFO, A navy field close by, San Jose and the option to go over the Oakland hills toward Livermore where it was few flights.

    Frankly, you cannot tell anything visual wise per aerial traffic. City and Highways yes, but in the air, its all dots and lights and no reference.

    Part of the night flying was to use ADF, VOR and do an ILS which I was headed for going back into Oakland from the North.

    I am 5 miles out of Oakland and I see a conflicting aircraft. I contacted ATC who I was talking to for my approach, no you have no conflicting traffic. I believe I do, its to my right, same altitude and its going to be close.

    We had some back and forth and he said, the only traffic in the direction you are saying is at 7000 feet and on X course (something around 090. Its a jet and climbing.

    So, not all aircraft paint or have a transponder but at night it was unheard of to have traffic not under control in that area. So I waited and was ready to do a hard right turn.

    A minute latter it resolved and it was exactly what ATC said, a jet climbing and no where near an intersecting course ot her than he was going to cross but at beyond safe altitude.

    The bottom line was you could not separate traffic visually at night. Helicopter is so low and so much traffic how does he identity a given aircraft?

    The Flight Crew of the CJ is focused ahead and to their left for the approach. All with the massive background of city lights.

    Back to AHJ is out of their mind to set this up that way. Sooner or latter its going to happen.

    They know you can’t visual separate at night, its hard enough in daylight and that all assumes you are all looking at the right spot and other aircraft.

    O

  9. BA is bullish because it has to send pacifiers to customers. BCA has to keep the insane amount of PDP flowing, otherwise the house of cards would collapse under its own weight!

    FG:
    > Southwest’s full-year investor guidance forecasts 38 737 Max deliveries, though its “contractual number” calls for 136 Boeing jets to be delivered in 2025. The actual number of deliveries will likely exceed Southwest’s estimate but fall well short of Boeing’s contractual obligations.

    > “We’re not going to get 136 aircraft,” chief executive Bob Jordan said during the company’s 30 January earnings call. “But we believe Boeing is on pace to *exceed 38 this year*, and over the next couple of years that there will be an opportunity to do plenty of transactions as Boeing ramps up their production.” Jordan says that he recently met with Boeing’s leadership team in Seattle and came away “encouraged by what I saw on the line processes, the procedures [and] slack time coming out of the system”.

    > “We want to get through the rate 38 approval… this year and to get to that 42 *sometime this year*,” Boeing chief executive Kelly Ortberg said during the company’s 28 January earnings call.

    • “”We want to get through the rate 38 approval…”…Boeing chief executive Kelly Ortberg said”

      There we go again: “We *want*…”
      Ortberg isn’t paid to *want* — he’s paid to *achieve*.
      Has he even tried to formulate a realistic plan to *achieve* what he *wants*?

      Miss Universe pageant entrant: “I want world peace”.

      • That is an odd statement.

        If you have a broken leg, you may want to run a Marathon, but y0u are going to have a hard time of it. All the will in the world does not overcome the impediment.

        In this case Ortberg has lots of impediments. Many he has no control over and others he may not know about (he in ref to Boeing and its people who are trying to achieve the production increases)

        No one can see the future. Expecting him to flat say, its 38 a month when he has no control over the entire situation or process? Wow.

        He has set a goal. I join those who do not think they will achieve it, but it is a goal and a metric to measure reaching it or not.

        If not, then you assess why not, correct as much as possible and set the next goal based on what you did or did not achieve.

        I am not a big Ortberg fan, pretty neutral on him (vs downright negative on Calhoun and his failed predecessors) . He has a mess on his hands and its going to take years to correct it.

        What is different is he is trying, Calhoun just kept gutting the company and did nothing (well by the nature of gutting, he was killing Boeing).

  10. A decent start to the New Year .
    Boeing January deliveries stand at 42, actually mostly new builds, with a few from storage.
    February will be a better indicator.

  11. IIRC, West said BCA has accumulated 737s that were already in the pipeline but couldn’t push thru by Dec 31, by February you’ll have a better picture of how many -37 BCA is able to make.

    • Its going to be mid year before any stability will be seen.

      And longer term when you have depleted the built up parts stock having to get new parts flowing?

  12. I don’t care what BA CEO said, Trump tariffs are going to torpedo BA’s supply chain & its hope/wish of production ramp in no time. It’s the SME & the mom & pop shops which are most vulnerable, little margin to absorb 25% tariffs. We can learn more in a few days. You heard it first here!

    AB can afford to slow or even close Alabama, how about BA?
    People of the world, Unite!

    • here is one of my favorites in the past month

      Jamie Dimon, CEO of the world’s largest bank, believes there’s perhaps too much worrying and not enough faith in Trump’s plan. (JPMorgan Chase)

      “I would put in perspective: If it’s a little inflationary, but it’s good for national security, so be it. I mean, get over it.”

      I would love ask this CEO has he actually gone grocery shopping in the 21st century? When two small bags of groceries is $150

  13. I’m waiting to see what the new Trump government is going to do on Boeing and its supply chain.

    Knowing Trumps close connection to Boeing, his MAGA agenda and “pragmatic” approach to free trade agreements, I would not be surprized to see US government launching an advanced new NB.

    Not directly of course, but sponsoring, ordering, facilitating. Musk is probably on it, a ” shake-up”.

    • Unless Musk buys Boeing, none of it is happening.

      Talk is cheap and the reality is you have to allocate money and that is congress position in the constitution .

  14. Trump says Americans could feel ‘some pain’ from tariffs

    If you lose your job or your stonk ‘investment’ went up in smoke or it cost more to fill your tank or heat your home, you know who should bear the blame!

    • Or the average car prices went up $3k even though the majority of vehicles are made in America 🤣

  15. Scott is going to get upset with us
    But I am interested to know (in as non political way possible), what is the effect of Boeings meltdown on Americas balance of payments?It must be massive.American car manufacturers are not interested in making cars suitable for the rest of the world but airlines are begging Boeing to sell them airliners

    • Scott will get upset with you, other venues if you want to pursue that.

      Me? I ain’t saying Nuthing.

  16. Sing a thousand times after me:
    > “Boeing has always been in the top two of two. Sometimes one of one.”

    ‘Another dispiriting case of aerospace decline, the Jack Welch way

    “Honeywell is among the most profitable aerospace suppliers, with a pretax margin of 27%. To get there, it gave up investment, growth, employee morale and customer satisfaction”

    AvWeek’
    https://x.com/dominicgates/status/1886435980141629863

    • This is a link trap, it won’t let you out, you have to kill the page or load a different one.

        • A lot of things work for you, calling it how it came out and up.

          You can’t back out and you have to close.

          Typical of Musk and his messed up site

  17. Boeing CEO wants…?

    Can his giddy forecast warm the hearts of the suppliers?

    AW: Don’t Hold Your Breath For Big 737 Production Rate Increases

    Suppliers polled by Jefferies in December 2024 expected the 737 program to hit an average production rate of just 26.4 a month in 2025.

    Jan 14, 2025
    > A predominance of suppliers to the Boeing 737 MAX program expects the OEM to take up to four months—or through the first quarter of 2025—just to get the narrowbody’s production back to a monthly level reached before the Seattle-area union strike stopped the narrowbody’s final assembly activity last…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *