Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?)

Date:         06 Aug 98 11:26:10 
From:         kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California
References:   1 2
Followups:    1
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

>The fact that Boeing filed suit against US (one of the most ignorant
>tricks I've heard of), couldn't have helped relations either.

USAir had a binding contract with Boeing to accept and pay for a number
of aircraft.  Boeing bent over backwards to renegotiate the deal but
USAir simply said "screw you," refusing to negotiate in good faith.
Under the circumstances, had Boeing *not* filed suit, I as a stockholder
would have expected a good explanation from Boeing executives as to why
they were not protecting the interests of myself and other stockholders.
It would be "ignorant" to expect them to take no action.

>the absurdly conceived 757-300 and 737-900

What do you think is so absurd about them?  Do you think all stretches
are absurd?  The 757-200 had "excess range" for charter operators, and
the 757-300 allows them to use the aircraft's capabilities where they
need it -- payload (passengers), not range.  The 737-900 was launched
because airlines wanted 737-800 capacity in a mixed-class configuration.
If Boeing can build such derivatives and make a greater profit at doing
so than could be made by otherwise deploying the resources, it is absurd
to not build them.  (I'm assuming that Boeing management acted rationally
in terms of profit maximization.)

>plus they are still making -300/400/500s

Because they had commitments to do so.  Should they unilaterally cancel
their commitments the way USAir did?  In any case, 737 Classic production
will end soon -- I think 2000 is the date I heard.

>the never-ending parade of hairbrained 777 schemes

This is supposed to be new?!  Airframe manufacturers are always coming
up with ideas to try to meet their customers' needs.  One could argue
that the NLA (Boeing), VLCT (partnership of Boeing, Aerospatiale, DASA,
etc.), A3XX (Airbus), and MD-12 (the four-engined superjumbo, with MD
and the Taiwanese acting in partnership) are equally hairbrained schemes.
And what of the A340-8000, which as recently as a few weeks ago still
was on the Airbus web pages as if it were likely to be build.  Even more
bizarre were the 1970s proposals for a three-engined 747 to compete with
the DC-10 and L-1011.

>The 717 could potentially be a blockbuster but they seem to be doing
>little to push it to airlines like Northwest, TWA, AA, and even US that
>could very potentially be interested in buying it.

How do you know they're doing little to push it?  Given the recent bugs
in NW's DC-9 life extension program, I'd be very surprised if Boeing
were not aggressively pursuing a 717 order, possibly tied to a deal on
more 747s which NW is considering.  TWA might be a good opportunity,
but AA is probably fine with the F100s for a while.  I know that UA
briefly considered the 717 (it might still have been the MD-95 at that
point) but it didn't have the range.

>I think a management change is in order.

Perhaps, but your arguments aren't convincing.

Karl Swartz	|Home
"The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney