Posted on 12/15/2001 11:32:23 AM PST by BooBoo1000
Friday December 14 4:27 PM ET Boeing Exec: Layoffs to Be at Least 25,000 SEATTLE (Reuters) -
Boeing Co. expects to lay off at least 25,000 workers by the middle of next year, the head of the aerospace giant's commercial aircraft business said on Friday, in comments that raised the minimum number of previously announced job cuts by 25 percent.
Chicago-based Boeing said in September it would cut 20,000 to 30,000 workers in its Seattle-area jetliner unit, saying the post-Sept. 11 travel slump has forced airlines to scale back orders for new jets.
Boeing's commercial jet chief, Alan Mulally, defended the cuts on a Seattle talk radio program, telling angry callers the reductions would keep the company nimble as it halves production of airliners.
``Right now, our best projection is that we are going to have to reduce our team by 25,000 to 30,000 by the middle of next year,'' Mulally said when asked how many layoffs would be made. `
`That goes right with our projection of new airplanes, going from 48 airplanes a month to 24 airplanes a month,'' Mulally said.
Boeing's top brass had no plans to take salary cuts, citing the need to make sure the company could keep talented executives in tough times, Mulally said.
Shares in Boeing rose 32 cents to $37.32 in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange. Though that is nearly 40 percent higher than the year low of $27.61 hit in late September, it is still well below the high of about $70 it traded at almost exactly one year ago. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airbus makes some great planes. They didn't at first, but they do now.
Perhaps you could share with us some business journal story that documents this.
Otherwise, it seems you're just making stuff up, especially given the new Supersonic Cruiser Boeing just announced.
Completely agree!
I don't have the source handy, but it was announced in the press conference when when Boeing moved to Chicago. Their new plane will not be "supersonic" as you suggest, but will fly close to the speed of sound. It is intended for a small payload of rich passengers. Boeing seems to be abandoning the mass air transit field to Airbus. If you were following this story, which I doubt, you would know that Boeing made a strategic decision not to make a larger plane, but to make a smaller faster, "elite" one.
Trust me when I tell you that all of the above would be a tremendous surprise to Boeing personnel, management, executives, and shareholders.
Out of curiosity..........who would "et al" be these days, in your opinion?
Why should I trust you?
That's a conclusion on your part not backed up by facts.
If, by "mass," you mean 500 passengers, you may be right.
My own opinion is that Airbus' touted "Monster Plane" is dead, given September 11.
No airline in the world can afford it, and none of them would want to take a chance with such a tempting target, to say nothing of passengers who won't fly on it.
Boeing's reading the tea leaves correctly.
That's what you are doing: reading tea leaves.
Here's a fact: Boeing has abandoned a huge manufacturing plant in Seattle, and is laying off tens of thousands of workers.
Besides........it's what's known to grown-ups as a "figure of speech". You'll learn it later in English 201.
Ah! I take it you are currently enrolled in this course? That makes you a sophomore. I could have guessed it from your posts.
RightOnline: "Trust me when I tell you that all of the above would be a tremendous surprise to Boeing personnel, management, executives, and shareholders."
RightOnline is right on line. You, codeword, have no idea what you are talking about. Boeing is not abandoning the large aircraft market, there are several derivatives in the works. The Sonic Cruiser is not going to just carry a small number of elite customers around, I believe it is being designed to carry several hundred and to have similar or only a little higher economics to today's aircraft.
Exactly what "huge manufacturing plant in Seattle" has Boeing abandoned? I don't know of any that they are even planning to abandon.
You'd best learn to educate yourself about a subject before you spout off on a forum such as this.
Friday, December 14, 2001 - 12:00 a.m. Pacific
David Bowermaster Seattle Times aerospace reporter
Airbus executive blasts post-attack help for Boeing
PARIS — The head of European aircraft manufacturer Airbus criticized recent U.S. government-aid packages issued in the aftermath of Sept. 11, saying they provided "direct help" for Airbus' rival Boeing.
Airbus president Noel Forgeard said in an interview published in yesterday's edition of Les Echos, a financial daily, that the U.S. aid was a "veritable Boeing Marshall Plan."
In September, the U.S. Congress approved a $15 billion relief package for the U.S. airline industry. The package seeks to restore vitality to a sector of the economy devastated by the Sept. 11 attacks.
Forgeard also denounced parts of a separate $20 billion anti-terrorism package for the Pentagon, which was approved by Congress last week.
The defense measure includes language that would establish a new program in which the government would lease up to 100 Boeing 767s to be used as air tankers to replace an aging fleet.
Forgeard called it "a form of direct help" for Boeing.
I'm still waiting for you to clarify this statement you made:"Here's a fact: Boeing has abandoned a huge manufacturing plant in Seattle"
Exactly which manufacturing plant have they abandoned?
"The Military Aircraft and Missiles segment is involved in the research, development, production, modification and support of military aircraft, including fighter, transport and attack aircraft; helicopters; and missiles. The Space and Communications segment is involved in the research, development, production, modification and support of space systems, missile defense systems, satellites and satellite-launching vehicles, rocket engines and information and battle management systems"
codeword: "This, in its own way, is a kind of socialism--government subsidy for Boeing."
If there is one thing that government is absolutely supposed to do, that is to provide for the national defense. If it is Socialism for them to pay Boeing to develop weapons, satellites and space equipment, then exactly whom do you want to create the weapons needed for national defense? The government itself?!!?
Well, it is socialism. All you have done has been to argue for it.
I have 1800 hours flying time in Boeing aircraft and Boeing is currently a client. Guess that means I just might know what I'm talking about, at least a little. How's by you?
You're hopeless.
Well, gee, what a relief. You see, I thought it might have something to do with outrageous State regulation or maybe even some sweet incentives provided by the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago for the corporate re-lo. Oh, but then............maybe you didn't know that they only relocated the corporate offices.....NOT the manufacturing facilities.
Hey, SW6906........thanks for the backup. Some folks such as our friend "codeword" just can't stand it when someone disagrees with a pet theory. There are a fair number of those 'round here lately, aren't there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.