Profit margin on a modern Boeing jet?

Exporting the risk also exports profit. Wouldn't this country have been better off if they kept production of the plane on home soil? How many communities would have benefited from local production versus the mass exportation of jobs and prosperity of this nation as a whole that got chopped in some pseudo-intellectual pursuit of short-term profit.

Why stop at production? China has shown MBA types that labor is cheaper there, so why not offshore the whole lot, from marketing to VP's and CEO's and the entire board of directors. Experience has taught us that it takes connections, not brains to run a company, so let's offshore the whole ****ing lot.

This country has become a joke because its citizens allowed it to become a joke.

Next up? Off shoring of our electoral process. Why not? MBA's tell us it isn't efficient, so let's cut the crap.

 

Define profit.

And, no, I'm not kidding. I have an academic interest in figuring out exactly what profit means. Does profit mean maximizing gross margin on the next plane you sell? Or does it mean nailing long-term customer value so that the company will survive for another day, week, year, decade, or century?

Dale

 

For the purposes of my original post, the definition I'm looking for should be pretty self evident in the rest of this thread.

Jedi

 

This is the argument that the local Union has been using for years, to no avail. The "bean-counters' have convinced the "shot-callers" that offloading everything is the way to go, and look how that has blown up in their faces.

Again, you are not far off base with this question. It's a trend that is prevalent in all aspects of business across the country.

Not necessarily true. There are thousands that have been involved with collective bargaining nationwide but the concessions most industry leaders want would reduce the standard of living of the work force to 3rd world country levels, hence the off-loading. Of course Industry blames the Unions for the downfall of the American work force................

I am only stating the situation as it exists and the position the Company maintains. Don't shoot the messenger.
I'm just as angry about it as you are.

 

I think you are talking about the gross margin on each aircraft-- right? Are you including overhead? Amortized tooling cost? Amortized R&D cost? Only the cost of the parts going into that specific airframe?

As Dale says, there are many ways to calculate profit...

I'm guessing you are thinking of it in a more simplistic, wholesaler -> dealer sort of way. The wholesaler pays $80 and marks it up to $100 to the dealer... that sort of thing. Unfortunately, it's way more complicated than that-- and Boeing doesn't have wholesalers, or even dealers.

 

Mostly just gross - I can assume NET to be 4%-7% after EVERYTHING - that's a pretty
typical corporate "after tax bottom line" right now.

As I'm in sales, I'm just curious what the markup is from what it cost to build vs. what
they sold it for.

Jedi

 

So just parts and labor to build it?

No amortization for tooling, R&D, overhead, etc?

And margin from list price, or the more typical price paid?

 

Yep - just parts and labor and the ACTUAL price paid. Just trying to get
an idea, that's all. I've always been curious.

Again, I can easily guess that Boeing, Inc. turns 5%-7% annual after tax
bottom line profit - that would be very predictable for a huge corporation.

Jedi

 

Their projected goal a decade ago was 16% until everything went sideways....................

 

This is a interesting thread. I have wondered about stuff like this myself so thanks for your input you guys. Anyway I have the invoice for my 355 challenge, dealer cost was 121,125.00 and retail was 142,500.00 which comes out to 15 percent for the dealer. I realize it's not a Boeing jet but could relate to a corporate idea of value for a product. Basing my thought on Spasso's projected goal of 16 percent reference.