4 ms·

> The lawsuits that are surely incoming are going to pile-drive this company into the ground. Boeing is one of the most heavily subsidized companies in the wor

> The lawsuits that are surely incoming are going to pile-drive this company into the ground. Boeing is one of the most heavily subsidized companies in the world -- right alongside Airbus. They are a strategic asset to the United States far beyond their market value. The market knows this, hence why their stock is not being hammered.

allovernow 7y ago
Indeed. Though personally I feel perhaps Boeing should be left to fail, I'm considering going long if the stock slides further in the short term because I anticipate some form of bailout/buyout.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Indeed. Though personally I feel perhaps Boeing should be left to fail, I'm considering going long if the stock slides further in the short term because I anticipate some form of bailout/buyout. I don't want to see it wind down as a going concern, but I wouldn't mind a bankruptcy and seeing the executives and board of directors fired with their compensation clawed back.
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    It's unbelievable that the CEO still has his job.
    - kn0where 7y ago
      The shitstorm is far from over; who would want this on their plate? Better to let the current guy ride it out and then replace him once things can’t get any worse.
    - RomanBob 7y ago
      Instead of being fired with $50 mil severance package?
  - rswail 7y ago
    The only people that would suffer in a Chapter 11 would be the pensioners of Boeing. If anything, the executives would get bonuses to keep them in place during the restructuring. The already perilous union jobs, with good benefits etc, in Seattle would be lost and there would be a race to the bottom by other states to claim the production facilities.
    - RomanBob 7y ago
      >a race to the bottom by other states to claim the production facilities. Instead of a race to the top where people can just say five infinity dollars?
ismail 7y ago
I am not from the states. both of the comments below indicate that Boeing is a strategic asset. Other comments also express similar sentiments. What is the logic for this? why is this the case? “They are a strategic asset to the United States far beyond their market value.” ”the airlines know that Boeing will never go under because the US government would (justifiably) never let that happen for strategic reasons“
- __jal 7y ago
  They are are the equivalent of Airbus - a national champion for both commercial and military contracting. Imagine the US military going to another country hat-in-hand to buy aircraft. That's why.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    Imagine the US military going to another country hat-in-hand to buy aircraft. You mean like with the Harrier or Eurocopter? Or more like the KC-30 where Boeing protested until Airbus dropped out?
    - argonaut 7y ago
      The US military didn't have to buy those hat-in-hand.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  Boeing is not just a commercial aircraft manufacturer, it is a commercial and military equipment & services giant. Commercial aircraft account for 60% of its revenue, but the other 40% is military aircraft (including fighters and drones), satellites, missiles, and all kinds of defense department contracts. You cannot sink the company without significantly impacting US intelligence and military capabilities fairly quickly.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  Boeing is a defense contractor that has well-developed supply chains. If we got into a shooty war and needed more airplanes, Boeing can build them. You don't want to be caught going into a shooty war without the ability to reinforce your equipment. And if you do, you can convert the commercial manufacturing capacity to military to much greater effect if the commercial side is already at super-scale. The capability is worth the subsidies IMO. Boeing also ensures American interests dominate the skies around the world. There just aren't that many manufacturers of aircraft, and Boeing spreads American influence / values across the globe as an essential part of infrastructure. Airbus does the same for the EU.
apatters 7y ago
Isn't it bad government policy to be strategically dependent on a single company? Boeing enjoys its dominant position in large part due to US government policy and the US military's procurement policies (in the 80s there were over 20 major defense contractors, now there are only six). It seems to me like the government has been shortsighted in letting things get to this point.
- _trampeltier 7y ago
  There was once a story here one HN (1 or 2 years ago) about this. There is often just one or so company who can prduce some special parts. So a large company started to buy a lot of these small but important companys. After that, they raise the prize by factor of ten or so.

allovernow 7y ago

Indeed. Though personally I feel perhaps Boeing should be left to fail, I'm considering going long if the stock slides further in the short term because I anticipate some form of bailout/buyout.

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Indeed. Though personally I feel perhaps Boeing should be left to fail, I'm considering going long if the stock slides further in the short term because I anticipate some form of bailout/buyout. I don't want to see it wind down as a going concern, but I wouldn't mind a bankruptcy and seeing the executives and board of directors fired with their compensation clawed back.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  It's unbelievable that the CEO still has his job.
  - kn0where 7y ago
    The shitstorm is far from over; who would want this on their plate? Better to let the current guy ride it out and then replace him once things can’t get any worse.
  - RomanBob 7y ago
    Instead of being fired with $50 mil severance package?
- rswail 7y ago
  The only people that would suffer in a Chapter 11 would be the pensioners of Boeing. If anything, the executives would get bonuses to keep them in place during the restructuring. The already perilous union jobs, with good benefits etc, in Seattle would be lost and there would be a race to the bottom by other states to claim the production facilities.
  - RomanBob 7y ago
    >a race to the bottom by other states to claim the production facilities. Instead of a race to the top where people can just say five infinity dollars?

ismail 7y ago

I am not from the states. both of the comments below indicate that Boeing is a strategic asset. Other comments also express similar sentiments. What is the logic for this? why is this the case? “They are a strategic asset to the United States far beyond their market value.” ”the airlines know that Boeing will never go under because the US government would (justifiably) never let that happen for strategic reasons“

__jal 7y ago
They are are the equivalent of Airbus - a national champion for both commercial and military contracting. Imagine the US military going to another country hat-in-hand to buy aircraft. That's why.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  Imagine the US military going to another country hat-in-hand to buy aircraft. You mean like with the Harrier or Eurocopter? Or more like the KC-30 where Boeing protested until Airbus dropped out?
  - argonaut 7y ago
    The US military didn't have to buy those hat-in-hand.
mdorazio 7y ago
Boeing is not just a commercial aircraft manufacturer, it is a commercial and military equipment & services giant. Commercial aircraft account for 60% of its revenue, but the other 40% is military aircraft (including fighters and drones), satellites, missiles, and all kinds of defense department contracts. You cannot sink the company without significantly impacting US intelligence and military capabilities fairly quickly.
wayoutthere 7y ago
Boeing is a defense contractor that has well-developed supply chains. If we got into a shooty war and needed more airplanes, Boeing can build them. You don't want to be caught going into a shooty war without the ability to reinforce your equipment. And if you do, you can convert the commercial manufacturing capacity to military to much greater effect if the commercial side is already at super-scale. The capability is worth the subsidies IMO. Boeing also ensures American interests dominate the skies around the world. There just aren't that many manufacturers of aircraft, and Boeing spreads American influence / values across the globe as an essential part of infrastructure. Airbus does the same for the EU.

apatters 7y ago

Isn't it bad government policy to be strategically dependent on a single company? Boeing enjoys its dominant position in large part due to US government policy and the US military's procurement policies (in the 80s there were over 20 major defense contractors, now there are only six). It seems to me like the government has been shortsighted in letting things get to this point.

_trampeltier 7y ago
There was once a story here one HN (1 or 2 years ago) about this. There is often just one or so company who can prduce some special parts. So a large company started to buy a lot of these small but important companys. After that, they raise the prize by factor of ten or so.