4 ms·
>Strategically, airlines are in a worse position if Boeing goes under. Not only do they lose the planes on order. They also lose their service and replacement-p
by Despegar 7y ago
>Strategically, airlines are in a worse position if Boeing goes under. Not only do they lose the planes on order. They also lose their service and replacement-parts provider. The survivors would, in the medium-term, face an Airbus monopoly and, in the long-term, a Chinese-European duopoly.
Boeing "going under" just means that shareholders will get wiped out, not that they cease operations.
- bilbo0s 7y agoThat may be what the poster meant by "well managed break up".
- marvin 7y agoThis always baffles me. It's still the free market even if regulators sometimes step in to ensure that incentives are aligned and outcomes don't become systemically catastrophic. In this case, it would be Boeing going bankrupt, and authorities stepping in to buy the assets to keep operations running if no other entity stepped in to do that. Then selling on the reformed company on the open market afterwards.
- honestoHeminway 7y agoAt what price though? This market is as distorted as agrar-markets. Prices only ever go down, before a intervention happens. (§ Forbidden by law to convert food into fuel etc.).. Same happens to management, if you cant loose it all, but can extract huge bonuses at the same time. No free market anywhere, as far as the eye can see.
- hackerbabz 7y agoI wonder if Lockheed Martin would get back into passenger jets. Or Bombardier leads a Canadian aerospace resurgence.
- nogabebop23 7y ago>> Bombardier leads a Canadian aerospace resurgence. Do we have enough tax dollars to finance such an event </s>
- numpad0 7y agoI wonder if we will be to trust Mitsubishi designed wing root components should they fly.
- SkyMarshal 7y agoBombardier is part of Airbus now.
- nate_meurer 7y agoNo they aren't; airbus has a stake in one of Bombardier's aircraft lines, that's all.