Boeing Lay Off Merry Christmas

Yahoo | 12/15/01 | Staff

[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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[boris]

"Airbus makes some great planes. They didn't at first, but they do now."

When you don't count the tail fins that fall off, they're the best.

--Boris

[RightOnline]

"Well, see post 33, for example."

I read the article you posted in reply #33 as you suggested, and I see ZERO evidence of "government subsidies" of any shape, form, or fashion. What I read was an interview with the head of Airbus........that's the head of Airbus (and if you know who and what Airbus is, how they were formed, and how they're funded, then you see both the irony and the hypocricy) whining about the Federal Government of the U.S. somehow, indirectly generating business for Boeing.

Not only is he whining, he's dead wrong.

The legislation he's mewling about is one involving funds for the "bailout" of the domestic airline business. Nowhere in that legislation are the airlines told to buy airplanes with those funds, let alone Boeing airplanes. That's ludicrous. In fact, as was pointed out by another poster above, the LAST thing those airlines will do with those federal bailout funds is buy more aircraft when they can't come close to filling their existing aircraft. They'll pay their people; pay their bills with those monies.

As to leasing 767's as tankers.........do you think that that's a bad idea? Do you deny that our current tanker fleet is "aging"? Think again.

I mentioned earlier that I had 1800 hours flying time in Boeing airframes. I was referring specifically to the KC-135, the Boeing Stratotanker. Those things are darned-near as old as I am (and I'm 46 years old). Hell, they were old when I flew 'em, and I left the service in '84, fer pete's sake. What about the KC-10? They were brought into service over 20 years ago. Plus.......they were a McDonnell Douglas aircraft.

You do know who owns McDonnell Douglas now, don't you?? Yep; Boeing.

So.........who has the most experience in the world building tankers? Who has been building them for nearly 50 years? That's right. Without tankers, there would have been no air war in Afghanistan.......or Desert Storm..........or anywhere else you can think of. Tankers are the linchpin of our air arm as a nation, and we need more of 'em AND newer ones. The 767 is a sensible, logical choice......and on top of that, the article specifically mentions "leasing" them, not even outright buying them.

So, my friend, sorry..........your "examples" of "Government subsidies" for Boeing don't hold up.