I believe Boeing's orders of the 787 have increased a lot, so they are probably covered pretty good.

General Aviation itself had a terrible recession due to safety concerns and insurability issues.  Airbus also had some growing pains with its fly by wire tech.  Stock price is also just part of it, hard assets, of which Boeing and other such big companies have, are also a tremendous value.  Plus Boeing is a military contractor.  Finally, modern airline aircraft today are a sum of their parts, and parts are made all over the world.  Parts that went into the A380, for instance, were made right here in Arizona.  I am not too worried about Boeing, more concerned about Russian aviation, especially their airline mfrs, whether they can help fill a void with such growing demand for airliners. 

Same holds true for Chinese aviation.  Both countries aircraft use engines made abroad now, some of them anyway.  We live in a more and more interdependent world economy--there was a "New World Order" long before the term was coined.  I am sad about the problems with the most current 737 and amazed they have not been resolved thru software yet.  But I cannot think of many aircraft that have not have had equipment losses since they came into service.  I believe the A380 had a good record, as well as the 787 and other recent Airbus equipment, as well as the Embrair E-Jets.

Remember even Tesla, an automotive startup, is still in business despite losses.  However if the new battery tech does work, which it may, does Tesla's investment in Lithium batteries cause them a loss they cannot surmount?

John

21 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

https://komonews.com/news/local/boeing-may-halt-737-max-production-if-grounding-continues-reports-say

No big news here really. It was obvious from the point when the estimated date of the plane's return to service began to shift farther and farther away. I mean, continue to produce something which at the same time can't be delivered and you'll find yourself in capacity problems to store the excess of products sooner or later. Plus, you're investing into production so it becomes risky when there's uncertainty over whether you'll actually be able to sell your product or when. Hardly surprising.

21 minutes ago, threegreen said:

....Plus, you're investing into production so it becomes risky when there's uncertainty over whether you'll actually be able to sell your product or when. Hardly surprising.

If they resolve their issues soon, with emphasis on soon, they will sell it--goes from a movie phrase "If you build it, they will come"

11 minutes ago, John_Cillis said:

If they resolve their issues soon, with emphasis on soon, they will sell it--goes from a movie phrase "If you build it, they will come"

What I said with regards to whether you'll actually be able to sell your products was generally speaking. I have no doubt that it will be back in the air and that it will sell.

5 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Southwest just announced yesterday that they are cancelling all their 737 Max flights until January, 2020. 

In agriculture there is an old saying "Don't put all your peas in one pot". Modern: Don't rely on one Hybrid variety or Provider!

Edited July 25, 20196 yr by Adrian123

1 hour ago, Adrian123 said:

In agriculture there is an old saying "Don't put all your peas in one pot". Modern: Don't rely on one Hybrid variety or Provider!

But the economics have worked for Southwest, I used to work for American during their US Airways merger on a short term contract, helping them with their crew scheduling software upgrade.  I understood their inside challenges with the merger of two big fleets and all the various equipment, and IT systems too that they had to merge.  But American and the US Air management, which was really held over from America West and its Phoenix HQ where I worked my contract, did their due diligence and the system works. 

On Southwurst I was never late on a flight due to scheduling or equipment problems, only weather delayed once going home from SFO, an airport Southwest did not like because of weather delays.  On America West, our outbound Airbus from Puerto Vallarta had a problem once.  We did not know if we'd make it home that day, the problem made it appear like the flight would be cancelled. 

But an Airbus engineer from another airline, who wanted to dead head on the full flight, walked up to the counter and I overheard him say "I can help you".  They asked him if he was certified for maint. on the aircraft, and the young guy was.  My wife, who was about to make other arrangements home, who spoke Spanish and was going to try another airline thru Dallas, I told her to wait because of what I overheard, and I shared that with just a few other antsy pax.  The young man fixed the problem in a jiffy, got his seat home, and we got home that day!

Of all the aircraft I have ever flown, I had one 737-300 equipment problem (our port engine blew with a bang and some flames on startup), but several Airbus equipment problems, mostly outbound on America West from Phoenix, including one flight where I had to go home, and fly out the next day late for a client teaching project.  But having said that, I know there are travelers who have had the opposite, and I should mention I had an inflight gear warning issue flying home as a pax on an Air Canada 767, in 1990.  Oddly, my business colleague also had a problem on his flight six weeks earlier on the Toronto-SFO return in the 767 and he mentioned it to me in passing before I left to complete his project with my business partner. 

He almost jinxed us, but the issue just turned out to be a faulty gear warning light.  But just in case, when we landed we were greeted by the entire SF Airport Fire Department and escorted to our gate.  I was the only pax it seemed who knew what was really going on, the pilot deceived us by saying we were going around due to a runway incursion, but as he went over 28R he flew only 100 ft. AGL, full flaps, as lights were shown on our underbelly by the fire crews.  There was no runway incursion or any other aircraft at that time, departures were held until we safely landed.

John

2 hours ago, threegreen said:

What I said with regards to whether you'll actually be able to sell your products was generally speaking. I have no doubt that it will be back in the air and that it will sell.

I'm not so sure about that. It doesn't matter what Boeing, the regulators, and the airlines want. If pax won't fly on a 737 Max then it won't be back in the air.

That's going to be a historically difficult marketing job. People might trust Boeing here in the USA where national pride is a factor, but it's going to be a very hard sell in all the overseas markets where trust in the USA can't be taken for granted, for various reasons.

Boeing will have to overcome the "Would you let your spouse or child fly on one?" stigma in a world that's now driven by social media. At this point I wouldn't bet on it happening, at least not for overseas sales. Maybe the model can survive as a USA-based plane with Southwest and whoever else can manage the PR effectively.

25 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

 If pax won't fly on a 737 Max then it won't be back in the air....

 

While a simmer or aviation participant might look at equipment when booking a flight, pax rarely do or care.  They look for the cheapest, most direct flight and do not normally know what the equipment codes even mean.  And a travel agent would not say (and TA's are not used as much with web booking now) "Oh by the way, the aircraft is a (fill in the blank, because a lot of equipment has had failures), you might not want to fly it".... 

I flew right after the Gulf War to and from Europe as threats soared against European and US airlines and did not even give it thought.  I flew on a DC10 after the Chicago disaster and did not give thought to it happening again.  I have never been injured in an airline incident, and I was in one bad in flight clear air turbulence incident, and one bad ground incident.  But I have been run over and run into by out of control vehicles, whether the driver's fault or not.  I still get in those vehicle types. 

We cannot be ostriches or suggest people be ostriches and bury their heads in the sand when airline equipment has teething problems.  If that were the case, the Comet, with its pressurization issues, would have ended the jet age.  Or the Tenerife disaster, which happened right before I went to Europe for the first time, would have scared us from going to airports.

Which by the way, I am getting ready to go to Sky Harbor tonight, my cuz, she is flying in with a stopover in Phoenix on a flight from Dallas to Sacramento, on a 737 of course since she is on Southwest.  I have not seen her in almost thirty years, but I have every bit of confidence her 737 (of which the equipment has had in flight issues before) will get here safely.

JOhn

5 hours ago, John_Cillis said:

While a simmer or aviation participant might look at equipment when booking a flight, pax rarely do or care.  They look for the cheapest, most direct flight and do not normally know what the equipment codes even mean.  And a travel agent would not say (and TA's are not used as much with web booking now) "Oh by the way, the aircraft is a (fill in the blank, because a lot of equipment has had failures), you might not want to fly it"...

Who uses travel agents these days, unless it's booked by your company? This is a social media-driven world now, and that's going to determine whether there is enough passenger confidence to book a 737 Max flight when Boeing says it's "safe."

Not just here in the USA, but in the rest of the world where paranoia in social media is impossible to control. 

 

4 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Who uses travel agents these days, unless it's booked by your company? This is a social media-driven world now, and that's going to determine whether there is enough passenger confidence to book a 737 Max flight when Boeing says it's "safe."

Not just here in the USA, but in the rest of the world where paranoia in social media is impossible to control. 

I should think most people will at least be aware of the MAX and its problems, and almost certainly will be if social media has anything to say about it. I suspect many people will put about the message not to get on board a 737 MAX, if and when it gets cleared to fly again regardless of any edicts from either Boeing or any civil aviation organisation. When you book flights these days, you usually get an online seating arrangement display where you can choose your seats (sometimes at an additional cost) and this is where you learn what type you'll be boarding. Last couple of times I did that, it was on an EasyJet aeroplane, so I knew it would be an A320, Ryanair, so I knew it would be an NG, and most recently on Jet2, so I knew it would either be a 737-300 or a 737-700 and most likely the 700. If it had said it was going to be a MAX on any of those flights, I would definitely not have booked it and I suspect I would not be alone in that choice, so ultimately, the MAX may become something of a pariah with people and could  well be forced into the cargo role, as was the case with the MD-11, albeit for other, but no less intractable reasons of economy.

When the deHavilland Comet was grounded following a couple of crashes, and then they subsequently declared it safe and it started flying again but suffered a third crash almost immediately, nothing on Earth would have persuaded me to board a Comet at that time. Years later when the type was subsequently proven to be okay and had been flying for years without incident, I did actually fly on Comets a couple of times and it was a fun experience, but there is no way I'd have gone on that third fatal flight which crashed back in 1954 having known that an investigation at that point had not yet determined with any certainty what the real cause of the crashes was, and I still find it difficult to believe that the people who did board it were inclined to do so given that was the situation at the time.

Similarly, if the MAX turns out to be an aeroplane which can eventually be operated safely and manages to achieve this for a few years, then somewhere down the line I would board one, but there is no way I'd get on one next week if and when they start flying again soon. I am not going to be an involuntary crash test dummy because of Boeing's intransigence. The MAX, in my opinion, is a bit like the MD-11, i.e. they've had to make a few too many compromises to squeeze performance out of an airframe which is not suited to it, and as a result of that, it will, like the MD-11, have to be flown with care. I'm very sure that it could be, but convincing Joe Public otherwise is another matter entirely. It's already a joke amongst people who know next to nothing about aeroplanes that MCAS stands for 'may crash any second' and it'll take more than a name change to make that kind of bad publicity go away.

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by Chock

20 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I'm not so sure about that. It doesn't matter what Boeing, the regulators, and the airlines want. If pax won't fly on a 737 Max then it won't be back in the air.

That's going to be a historically difficult marketing job. People might trust Boeing here in the USA where national pride is a factor, but it's going to be a very hard sell in all the overseas markets where trust in the USA can't be taken for granted, for various reasons.

Boeing will have to overcome the "Would you let your spouse or child fly on one?" stigma in a world that's now driven by social media. At this point I wouldn't bet on it happening, at least not for overseas sales. Maybe the model can survive as a USA-based plane with Southwest and whoever else can manage the PR effectively.

I expect some skepticism for sure, but I do think that will recede after 'the dust has settled'. You're right about the influence of social media, but, at least from what I have seen and heard, 80-90% of the general flying public really don't have a clue about aviation. Most can't even differentiate between an Airbus and a Boeing, have never even heard of Embraer and will most likely not spot whether it's an NG or a MAX. Some don't know what a 747 is. My dad recently talked about the 757 that crashed because of an elevator failure.

Also, there is a lot less coverage about the MAX in the media in Europe than in the US. Many US-based news agencies are really trying to milk this story and start to report non-news. Working at my local airport, I had to tell some co-workers what actually happened because they couldn't remember.

Lastly, the DC-10. While there was obviously no social media back then, it went on to fly safely for decades and become one of the most iconic airliners. While the MAX certainly won't become anything like an iconic airliner, I think it's perfectly possible to go the same way the DC-10 went after the mess was sorted.

Still, we'll have to see.

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by threegreen

35 minutes ago, threegreen said:

I expect some skepticism for sure, but I do think that will recede after 'the dust has settled'. You're right about the influence of social media, but, at least from what I have seen and heard, 80-90% of the general flying public really don't have a clue about aviation. Most can't even differentiate between an Airbus and a Boeing, have never even heard of Embraer and will most likely not spot whether it's an NG or a MAX. Some don't know what a 747 is. My dad recently talked about the 757 that crashed because of an elevator failure.

Also, there is a lot less coverage about the MAX in the media in Europe than in the US. Many US-based news agencies are really trying to milk this story and start to report non-news. Working at my local airport, I had to tell some co-workers what actually happened because they couldn't remember.

Lastly, the DC-10. While there was obviously no social media back then, it went on to fly safely for decades and become one of the most iconic airliners. While the MAX certainly won't become anything like an iconic airliner, I think it's perfectly possible to go the same way the DC-10 went after the mess was sorted.

Still, we'll have to see.

So your premise is the general public is totally disinterested  regarding  aviation safety so Boeing will go on as usual... Interesting. 

Edited July 26, 20196 yr by Bobsk8

I do hope Boeing will suck up the loss and move on.  I would suspect they could convert all of the aircraft to just 737's using the older technology so the loss would not be devastating and Boeing employees could continue to work.

23 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Who uses travel agents these days.....

They are still used--I used an agent when I booked my month long trip to Europe in 2017.  Booking British Airways without one, BA wanted twice the airfare I paid via the agent.  Travel Agents buy seats in bulk as well as tour slots and hotel nights as well.  They are still used extensively in the hotel business for "on stop shopping".  We also used them, my wife and I, to book Orlando packages at the high end Beach Club at Epcot, which we could not have afforded without help from our AAA agent.  Tourism was my trade, I know it better than I know how to fly in real life, and I worked in tourism until 2007, after that I went into software testing and development as I was worn out from the business travel I had to perform while working in Tourism.  So don't write off Travel Agents, not everyone has online access, or wants to spend time online when a phone call will do.