Boeing has struggled since two fatal 737 MAX crashes in late 2018 and early 2019 led to a 20-month grounding, and a fuselage panel blew off another 737 MAX mid-flight in early 2024.
They aren't struggling because of that. They're struggling because the MBAs got rid of all the experienced engineers, gutted QA, and cut corners everywhere possible. They're now realizing that when you cut a corner you just make more corners.
Yup, this is the rinse/repeat playbook of the Airlines for the past 40 years.
"Oh, we are so poor, we cant afford anything. This will justify our raising prices again, putting money locks on bathrooms, and charging you for each peanut in the bag while we ignore our safety and maintenance needs on the planes"
Airlines don't make money flying passengers. At least, not if they are competing. They make money through branded credit card / miles programs.
The airplanes are a loss leader that gets you to be loyal to them and use their credit card as much as possible, and they get paid by BofA / American Express / Chase for each dollar of spend on your branded card.
Airlines that don't have branded credit cards and such are now losing money, because they drove down the costs an
Is it just me or does it seem like the article consistently used the word "profit" when they mean "revenue"? They're confusing the whole subject by talking about how record profits are ruined by expenses, but profit is what you get after you take expenses out of revenue. Bad AI article, or an author who doesn't really understand how P&L works?
What makes you think they're using the wrong term? All of the numbers look reasonable for the labels given. $1T in global revenues, $40B in global profits. That's a crazy low profit number, for that revenue number; it means airlines are basically just breaking even. They flew 5B+ passengers, so that's a profit of $7.90 per passenger.
So what makes you think they're saying "profit" when they mean "revenue?
But the industry is flying older planes because Boeing and Airbus can't deliver enough new ones.
I'm sure with the liberal application of glue, Boeing can keep the doors on.
Boeing has struggled since two fatal 737 MAX crashes in late 2018 and early 2019 led to a 20-month grounding, and a fuselage panel blew off another 737 MAX mid-flight in early 2024.
They aren't struggling because of that. They're struggling because the MBAs got rid of all the experienced engineers, gutted QA, and cut corners everywhere possible. They're now realizing that when you cut a corner you just make more corners.
"Oh, we are so poor, we cant afford anything. This will justify our raising prices again, putting money locks on bathrooms, and charging you for each peanut in the bag while we ignore our safety and maintenance needs on the planes"
Here's what the article author is missing:
Airlines don't make money flying passengers. At least, not if they are competing. They make money through branded credit card / miles programs.
The airplanes are a loss leader that gets you to be loyal to them and use their credit card as much as possible, and they get paid by BofA / American Express / Chase for each dollar of spend on your branded card.
Airlines that don't have branded credit cards and such are now losing money, because they drove down the costs an
Is it just me or does it seem like the article consistently used the word "profit" when they mean "revenue"? They're confusing the whole subject by talking about how record profits are ruined by expenses, but profit is what you get after you take expenses out of revenue. Bad AI article, or an author who doesn't really understand how P&L works?
What makes you think they're using the wrong term? All of the numbers look reasonable for the labels given. $1T in global revenues, $40B in global profits. That's a crazy low profit number, for that revenue number; it means airlines are basically just breaking even. They flew 5B+ passengers, so that's a profit of $7.90 per passenger.
So what makes you think they're saying "profit" when they mean "revenue?