Planesmart wrote:brindabella wrote:Planesmart wrote:
Boeing showed their hand during and after negotiations with Bombardier. The motivation was to neutralise competition, not to nurture a small jet family.
I always find the posts from Planesmart interesting and informative, but no, he very obviously does not love Boeing.
Many thanks.
I'm the product of the environment I've worked through. When start ups were denied access to finance, aircraft and support. Had to pay cash upfront for fuel and ground support. Look at the tactics used against Laker. And EK when they started. When anti-European/Boeing friendly engineers would ground an A300 at the gate with trivial defects (like galley, interior light and inflight video defects) but allow a 767, L1011 or DC10 to fly with the same defects.
Boeing is the most frustrating company. They were the global, dominant force in commercial aviation, and squandered it. They made extensive use of negative marketing - appropriate in those times. But the tactics didn't work, and are certainly not appropriate when you are more evenly matched.
The competition was from three European countries, communicating in three languages, building in three countries, with no track record. How hard is it not to retain your dominant position against that combination, even if only half listening to staff and customers, when you have a military safety net and sympathetic federal and state support?
But they haven't listened, reinvested or been innovative.
It's what happens when they ceased to be an aerospace company, and simply became a mega corporate. When senior management have scant regard for history, and more importantly living and recreating the history as a future vision, where innovators and engineers are placed on a pedestal.
I'm no engineer. My background is in finance and best practice.
Obviously, the new kid on the block has to be the innovator in engineering, solutions, customer responsiveness, finance, packaging....
And the old man on the street tends to be the opposite. But a point is reached, when the new rival, reaches say 30% market share, and the established business needs to re-invent themselves. Or even acquire some of the mojo from the new player.
But not at Boeing. They are still in negative marketing mode. We tried to acquire Bombardier. We missed out, so after all it's Embraer that has the superior business that fits our culture and ethics.
All Embraer needs is money, engineering assistance and marketing reach. They certainly don't need Boeing's top heavy, blinkered senior management influence. In fact it's the other way around - Boeing needs an injection of Embraer culture.
But read the posts here. Are posters saying E is brilliantly managed, running financially on the smell of an oily rag? Has a great product range, which could be even better with more technical assistance and dollars? Has brilliant people, who could re-energise Boeing? No. The old Boeing blinkered arrogance is alive and well on a.net.[/quote]
Well, all this is far too fascinating to let go, IMO.
How about you start a thread?
You will get a deluge of anti-American trolling, of course.
But that's life!
I'm hoping to get a better line on:
1) where Boeing went wrong in the past, and (*)
2) are the markets wrong where remarkable current bull-run in Boeing stock is concerned ... ? (**)
So ... a thread please!
cheers
(*) shortly before discovering a.net I read an excellent account of Boeing's strategic wobble in the 1990s. I'd like to bounce that off you for your take on it.
(**) (given your background in Finance and at Boeing).
explained once:
(I much prefer RJs.) 
)
