The Boeing Co.’s recent success under CEO James McNerney, including the addition if 13,000 jobs and rise of stock price from $25 to $88 a share, is an argument for globalization, according to columnist George F. Will. "Assuming that Boeing manages the supply chain — with 10 subcontractors on four continents — for a plane with 4 million parts, the 787 might solidify Boeing’s supremacy," he writes. Meanwhile, Will says, "Airbus is illustrating what happens when governments treat commercial enterprises as jobs programs and instruments of national glory."
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DorisKing on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- george on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on So they said
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
5 Comments
Thats like saying Boeing is completely devoid of government influence and interaction. Where does Boeing get most of its money anyways? The airline industry? Some, but think about it some more. Oh right, the United States Government and specifically NASA and the Military. So funny we forget that…
I recall hearing, on a History Channel program, a while back that Boeing at one time in the 1930s was teetering on the edge of Bankruptcy as a commercial airplane manufacturer, and that it was “saved” by obtaining the contract to build the B-17. If this is true, Boeing has been on the government dole, in small part or large part, for a good deal of its existence, and in fact owes its very existence to the military. Does anyone out there have any data which substantiates or refutes this?
The B-29, the 707 – originally built as a tanker – the b52, etc., etc.
Boeing has been actively modeling itself after airbus, so much for that argument. That’s why they sold off Wichita, didn’t fit in with their dreams of being primarily a company that designs and sells commercial aircraft, and outsources the ‘metal bending’.
Oh, they also want to be an assembler, not parts manufacturer.