Sound Politics: Boeing's Mad Dash

May 22, 2007

Boeing's Mad Dash

The last sprint to get the 787 rolling on schedule begins. This quote sums up the pressure pretty well:

The industry is watching closely to see if Boeing can do what Airbus did not -- deliver an all-new plane on time. Wiring problems have delayed the giant A380's entry into service by nearly two years.

On a related note, looks like one of the American legacy carriers might pony up in the coming months with the first 787 order from that industry grouping. Now if we could just get one of those legacy carriers to go under in that saturated market place as is so richly deserved...

Posted by Eric Earling at May 22, 2007 07:44 AM | Email This

Comments

1. Sarkozy hints at Airbus bail-out

Airbus expresses worries on strike disruption

Taped phone call turns up in Airbus insider-trading case

Airbus drags on parent company EADS

Airbus reduces A380 seat count

Drip.....dip....drip

Posted by: JDH on May 22, 2007 09:15 AM

2. Amazing how capitalism succeeds where socialism doesn't....

Posted by: H Moul on May 22, 2007 09:58 AM

3.
We can built planes, but we can't build affordable housing.

Check out this condo in Boise --

http://boiseid.yahoo.idx.prujensen.com/details.aspx?firstrecord=9&searchtype=2&propertytype=1%2c2&searchminprice=0&searchmaxprice=150000&searchbedrooms=-1&searchbathrooms=-1&sort=5&sortacdc=asc&miles=-1&searchgeo=Boise%2c+ID

A thrifty $100,000 and brand new!

Why would anyone want to put up with Wash-In-Ton anymore !?!?

Posted by: John Bailo on May 22, 2007 12:11 PM

4. Now if we could just get one of those legacy carriers to go under

Maybe one of them would but Congress decided to bail them all out after 9/11. So much for free market policies.

Posted by: Cato on May 22, 2007 12:14 PM

5. AND the airplane orders just keep on coming!

WOW.....

Cato.... I just keep on say it (YOUR STUPID)

Congress did it because THEY impacted the airlines by grounding them after 9/11.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 22, 2007 12:20 PM

6. Sorry ( I just keep on saying it)

I can't type after reading Cato's garbage.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 22, 2007 12:26 PM

7. Congress did it because THEY impacted the airlines by grounding them after 9/11.

I see...and pigs fly. Events like 9/11 are why airlines carry massive amounts of insurance.

Oh yeah, I didn't see any airline CEO's and upper management types falling over each other to take paycuts after 9/11. That could have helped ease the pain. Nope, it was corporate pork, nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: Cato on May 22, 2007 12:40 PM

8. 9/11 was a special circumstance, and in this case, the government action to bail out the airlines was appropriate because it would have bankrupted several of the airlines and severely limited competition which would have been terrible for consumers, and the economy. But after that bailout, it's sink or swim.

Posted by: Palouse on May 22, 2007 01:08 PM

9. No, many airlines were already in trouble when 9/11 happened. The bailout it allowed the weaker airlines to get a big cash bailout for years of mismanagement. Many of these carries were destined to fail, Congress just prolonged their suffering.

There are only so many overpriced CEO's a free market can sustain.

Posted by: Cato on May 22, 2007 01:23 PM

10. That's correct - they were already in financial trouble, and 9/11 would have put several of them completely out of business. That included Delta, which as the article details, is about to purchase some 787's. The economy and consumers are better off with more airlines in business.

Posted by: Palouse on May 22, 2007 01:27 PM

11. The economy and consumers are better off with more airlines in business.

While I agree with you here, you can't bitch about Govt's subsidizing Airbus product development on one hand and not look in your own backyard and see the USA's own version of corporate welfare.

The pilot/workers unions made sacrifices, the airline CEO's and upper management did not. Corporate welfare at it's finest.

Posted by: Cato on May 22, 2007 01:40 PM

12. The pilot/workers unions made sacrifices, the airline CEO's and upper management did not.

You know this, how? How do you know if they didn't receive bonuses or stock as a result of the financial difficulties? Are you an airline insider?

A one-time airline bailout due to a catastophic event is COMPLETELY different than ongoing government sponsored loans that the company can just get written off if a plane fails. That's a government subsidy. Airbus is trying to equate that with tax incentives to build planes. To me, that's different as well, primarily because of who is taking on the risk. We'll see what the WTO decides.

Posted by: Palouse on May 22, 2007 01:58 PM

13. Hmmm, just wondering of the corporate bashers of the world are equally incensed by the massive subsidies to gov't sponsored transportation boondoggles like Sound Transit, the Max in Portland, bike lanes on I90, squirell bridges on I90, HOV lanes........

Consistency in opposing subsidies?? Heavens no.

We wouldnt miss Sound Transit for one nanosecond; versus losing choices in domestic air travel.......

Posted by: Hank on May 22, 2007 02:30 PM

14. Ron Paul would say that we have no business selling our precious airliners to foreigners, anyway. AND HE'D BE RIGHT! Let's keep 'em parked in the hangars in Everett, where we can keep an eye on them.

In fact, where in the Constitution does it say one word about air travel?

Or horseless carriages?

We need to go back to the good old days of horse manure and typhus in the schools.

Besides -- what right did our ancestors have, crossing the damn ocean and interfering with the indigenous peoples of North America? They should have stayed in the caves of Britain, eating berries, painting their faces blue, and enjoying a life expectancy of about twenty-six.

After all, that's what made life worth living: refusing to get involved in newfangled ideas and restricting the gene pool.

We need to pay less attention to protecting freedom and curing disease around the world, and pay more attention to interbreeding with our blood relatives.

That way, those annoying Geico neanderthal commercials would start to make sense!

Posted by: Rey Smith on May 22, 2007 02:36 PM

15. Easy Rey...
Take deep breaths... :-)

I don't see how Boeing is going to get the 787 out on time. If they get all the pieces they might slap something together that looks like a plane for the roll out but they are going to need a virgin and a volcano to make the announced first flight.

Posted by: M167 on May 22, 2007 06:31 PM

16. Umm Perhaps I'm stupid but I fail to see the correlation of government (pork/handout/bailout/whatever) assistance to airline operators and the continued French subsidy of that other airplane manufacturer....

Posted by: Aaron on May 23, 2007 03:31 AM

17. It's all pork...we can go back to the Chrysler bailout if you want.

Posted by: Cato on May 23, 2007 09:49 AM

18. the 787 will roll out (actually, roll by, not out) on 7/8/07. Will it be flyable? No, because it has to do some pre-cert testing.

I can personally assure you this plane will fly on time. All major pieces have been delivered, and the lazy B has stated what parts are late, and how they will be installed.

Buy stock, don't sell.

The Geezer spaketh.

Posted by: The Geezer on May 23, 2007 10:48 AM

19. #17. It's all pork...we can go back to the Chrysler bailout if you want.

Cato here you go again... have you even paid any attention to the news on Chrysler?

They have a buyer.

Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 23, 2007 11:48 AM

20. Do de do de do...the 1980 Chrysler Bailout. Granted it was Carter's pork, it's still pork.

Posted by: Cato on May 23, 2007 12:27 PM