77ss wrote:AsleepInYorkshire wrote:....There are still arguments being held over the forum that is the internet saying the US Government cannot allow Boeing to fail. I've never argued and never will argue against that point. But protecting national interests is not the same as protecting shareholders. In any scenario where the US steps in to save Boeing the shareholders are, in my opinion, toast.
The share price is now down to $130. Painful and worrying for shareholders.
As a crude approximation, isn't Boeing two businesses? Armaments and Civil Aviation?
What is to stop a split, followed by a Chapter 11 for the Civil Aviation bit? Protecting the US national interests.
Just an idle thought.
1. The product split is not as hard and fast as that. For example the civil 737 is the basis of the military MPA and AWACS aircraft (up until now the NG version, though I am not sure whether next release of Wedgetail was going to be on the Max, as the NG line had shut). Similar for the tankers (which is a very big product line run), etc.
2. The production line split / synergy matters (both people & machinery).
3. The design skillbase is pooled.
4. The through-cycle financial viability of military without civil is questionable, and vice versa.
Therefore if they did what you proposed then I think they would subsequently need to recombine them in some way. I personally put Boeing in the "too big to fail" category for the USA, but as others have alluded to that does not mean that existing shareholders will be protected. If anything I think that CV19 and impending recession gives USA government the perfect cover to step in.