posted on May, 18 2008 @ 08:05 AM
On the contrary waynos, I observe a lack of head-scratching when there should have been plenty of it.
I recall the old story of Boeing betting the farm on the 747, and just what would have happened had it not been a success.
By comparison, one has to ask what Boeing has been investing its money in over the past few years, and the answer would have to be taking over and
'merging' with other US Aerospace companies (where 'merging' in this case has meant buy-out).
The contracts they have obtained have really been on the back of R&D done by the companies they have absorbed (perhaps the cost of that R&D is why
those companies have become vulnerable to take-over - er I mean 'merger').
Unfortunately, Boeing seems to have neglected their core business while buying developed projects, and I would observe, not marketing those purchased
projects (such as Super Hornet) particularly well.
With the problems that Boeing has been experiencing with the projects and products that came in-house with their corporate acquisitions (like the F-15
structural problems must have come as a big surprise, and the SH seems harder to sell than sand in Iran) one has to wonder just what benefit those
acquisitions have been to Boeing, while reducing the amount of funding they have available for developing core products.
So it occurs to me that Boeing may not actually have been in any position financially to develop something competitive with regard to KC-X or as a
competitor to A380.
A case of putting the money in the wrong place destroying a successful core business?
The Winged Wombat
[edit on 18/5/08 by The Winged Wombat]