[korginator]

Boeing's dismal track record has been years in the making and the problems we're seeing were inevitable. However, I'm not holding my breath here hoping for a real change. Boeing is a huge defence contractor with deep connections. I hope I'm mistaken but I doubt we'll see any real systemic change.

[mnau]

Their defense and space contracts are not going well.

KC-46 tanker replacement was a fixed-price contract and Boeing lost $7 billion on that.

Starliner is a similar story, $1.5 billion down the hole.

EDIT:

T-7A Red Hawk trainer: $1 billion in losses. Air force one VC-25B program: Its losses are now at about $2.4 billion. T-38 Talon trainer, MQ-25...

Yea, it's not going well for them. Other programs are still fine, e.g. F-35, but fixed price contracts are in a dump.

[epolanski]

They also losing gargantuan amounts on the new air force one.

[mcv]

Maybe Air Force One should switch to Airbus too.

[mnau]

Airbus wisely decided to forgo AF1 sham of a competition.

The experience of mrtt a330 it bid for tanker replacement was enough. It of course went to Being KC-46.

[hef19898]

Two things: Boeing doesn't have just to worry about the FAA and US prosecution, depending on the outcome their civil aircraft business might face a ton of EASA scrutiny as well. And that actually is a big deal in the industry.

And public pressure, Boeings reputation is not great at the moment. If that pressure is kept up, it can lead to change as well.

[jjk166]

The US needs Boeing, it doesn't need the current C-suite of Boeing. Cleaning house would be an opportunity for the powers that be to put their guys in charge and make an asset work better for them. Boeing's lobbyists aren't on the chopping block, nor are the shareholders; if change is good for the institution they have no reason to invest substantial resources in resisting it.

[epolanski]

Eventually they are accountable first and foremost to their shareholders.

And the reputation and incidents is poking a hole in shareholders pockets.