Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday July 30 2016, @05:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the old-tech-phased-out dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Six months after slicing production of the iconic Boeing 747 to just one plane a month, the aerospace company has decided to halve the rate of production and flagged it is close to killing off the plane.

A new Form 10-Q filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission spells out the ugly situation as “Lower-than-expected demand for large commercial passenger and freighter aircraft and slower-than-expected growth of global freight traffic have continued to drive market uncertainties, pricing pressures and fewer orders than anticipated.”

Boeing has therefore “canceled previous plans to return to a production rate of 1.0 aircraft per month beginning in 2019.”

The company still has “32 undelivered aircraft” on its books, some yet to be built. But it also has “a number of completed aircraft in inventory” for which buyers cannot be found.

Production of the 747 will therefore been reduced just six planes a year as of September 2016 and the filing makes it plain that Boeing knows it may soon have a difficult decision to make.

“If we are unable to obtain sufficient orders and/or market, production and other risks cannot be mitigated,” the filing says, “we could record additional losses that may be material, and it is reasonably possible that we could decide to end production of the 747.”

The 747 remains a fine aircraft, but twin-engine planes can now match it for capacity and, crucially, for long flights over areas where airports are scarce.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30 2016, @11:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30 2016, @11:03AM (#381928)

    Probably will still be flying in another 45 years.

    No.

    Anyone caring to see the writing on the wall will realise that the 747 represented a peak in airline demand and development. The reason is right there in the summary: "Lower-than-expected demand for large commercial passenger....." , "...slower-than-expected growth of global freight...". The underlying demand, the underlying wealth and commerce needed to support this aircraft is not there. The 747 will be phased out for "newer" aircraft, which in reality are simply smaller, cheaper, aircraft suited to a declining global economy.

    When Rome declined, so did its famous roads. We are Rome, and the 747 is one of our roads. A great icon of our civilisation, whose upkeep we can no longer afford. In 20 years, the skills, support industries, and maching ability needed to maintain these aircraft will fade away. After that, some of our other "newer" aircraft will follow the same path. In 50 years, a future largely without large transcontinental aircraft is a foreseeable possibility, as global growth dies.

    This recession is permanent. We will no longer be able to live as we once did, and no about of fly by wire, computerization, or digital distraction will be able to mask that fact. When you run out of gas, you can't keep the planes up in the air.

  • (Score: 1) by nethead on Saturday July 30 2016, @06:40PM

    by nethead (4970) <joe@nethead.com> on Saturday July 30 2016, @06:40PM (#382010) Homepage

    In 20 years, the skills, support industries, and maching ability needed to maintain these aircraft will fade away.

    As an aerospace worker in Everett I can only laugh at your post. Our local schools are pumping out aerospace machinists and engineers at an astounding rate. There are jobs waiting for them.

    --
    How did my SN UID end up over 3 times my /. UID?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30 2016, @07:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 30 2016, @07:52PM (#382033)

      What you need is pumping out chemists (no pun intented) of the kind capable of figuring a CO2 neutral and highly scalable (industrial, not lab level) way to produce fuel for the airplanes. Otherwise all those machinists and engineers will be like past students of other countries: current and future waiters and chefs.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @05:40AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @05:40AM (#382179)

      Los Angeles area ex-Aerospace engineer here.

      Most of the jobs here are gone. Where I worked is now a church and welfare center, along with some car accessories businesses. ( Beat the swords into plowshares, I suppose ).

      One of my cohorts worked as a counterman at Ford Electronics ( Commonwealth ave in Fullerton ) until it closed.

      Aerospace employment is pretty damn fickle if you ask me.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @03:28AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 31 2016, @03:28AM (#382152)

    We got The Donald's speech writer up in this thing. What a downer.