Boeing's quarterly loss shrinks as jet deliveries rebound, but shares drop
Boeing shares dropped 2% in early trading.
The results highlighted Boeing's efforts to cautiously increase monthly output this year, following years of quality issues and production delays on its flagship 737 MAX. Increased deliveries mark a pivotal step in Boeing's effort to rebound from years of production disruptions and crises that piled on debt, increasing the urgency of accelerating output to restore financial stability.
Boeing's financial improvements were tempered by its announcement that certification of the new 777-9 and 737 MAX 7 and 10 models will not happen until 2026, another setback for those programs. The company previously said it expected to finish certification by the end of this year.
BD orders 25 Boeing planes as part of push to ease US tariffs
The company is still developing solutions to address several lingering issues stalling certification, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg told CNBC.
During the interview, he praised President Donald Trump's aggressive use of tariffs to hammer out trade deals.
'I like the way this tariff situation is playing out,' Ortberg told CNBC. 'It's good for our business, is good for aerospace, and will create jobs in the United States.'
The planemaker posted an adjusted core loss per share of $1.24 for the quarter through June, compared with a $2.90 loss a year ago. Analysts had expected a loss of $1.48 per share.
The planemaker's free cash flow usage, a key metric for Wall Street, was better than expected, signaling an improving cash position.
'As we continue to execute our Safety & Quality Plan, there's more stability in our operations,' Ortberg said in a letter to Boeing employees.
In May, the company produced 38 737s and production has been stable since then, according to the company.
Capped production
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration capped the production of Boeing's best-selling 737 MAX jets following a mid-air panel blowout in a nearly new jet in January 2024.
'We plan to seek FAA approval to increase to rate 42 when our key performance indicators (KPIs) show that we're ready,' Ortberg added.
Boeing delivered 206 737 MAX jets through the first half of the year, compared to 135 a year earlier. Across all commercial jet programs, it delivered 285 airliners through June, compared to 175 during the same period in 2024. Wall Street closely tracks aircraft deliveries because planemakers collect much of their payment when they hand over jets to customers.
Boeing also increased 787 production at its plant in Charleston, South Carolina, from five aircraft a month to seven.
Through the first half of the year, the planemaker booked 668 orders, or 625 net orders after cancellations and conversions.
It reported free cash flow usage of $200 million for the second quarter, compared with analysts' expectations of $1.72 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG. Boeing burned $2.3 billion in free cash during the previous quarter and $4.33 billion during the second quarter of 2024.
Its defense, space, and security business earned an operating profit of $110 million, compared with a loss of $913 million a year ago.
Revenue for the quarter rose 35% to $22.75 billion, beating analysts' estimates of $21.84 billion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
19 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The new trade colonialism
On August 1, as the clock struck midnight Eastern Time, a new era in global trade was inaugurated — one that might be remembered not for its reciprocity or fairness, but for the brute leverage of American power. With the rollout of sweeping new reciprocal tariffs under President Donald Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' strategy, dozens of nations were forced into last-minute trade deals that, beneath the surface, bear a striking resemblance to the 'unequal treaties' of the 19th century. Only this time, they were not written at gunpoint, but under threat of economic coercion. The United States, claiming to be correcting trade deficits and restoring domestic manufacturing, has essentially coerced trading partners into accepting higher tariffs, ceding regulatory ground and committing to strategic economic realignments, all while ensuring minimal concessions on its own part. For countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, and even the European Union, the consequences could be far-reaching, reshaping industrial policies, altering investment incentives and, most importantly, undermining economic sovereignty. The Trump administration's public rationale for this aggressive trade overhaul is the need to rebalance global trade deficits. The claim is straightforward: the US has been losing in trade and it's time to 'even the playing field.' However, this rhetoric masks a complex and asymmetric web of tariffs and conditions that belie the supposed principle of reciprocity. Take Vietnam, for instance. Under its deal with Washington, Hanoi agreed to a 20% tariff on most exports to the US, plus a staggering 40% levy on transshipped goods; a direct blow to Vietnam's unique status as a production hub for global giants like Foxconn, Apple, Intel, and Nike. With 71.7% of Vietnamese exports coming from foreign-invested enterprises, this transshipment clause is more than a customs technicality; it strikes at the heart of Vietnam's export-driven growth model. In return Vietnam was pressured into offering zero tariffs on select US imports, including large-engine automobiles, an almost negligible sector in Vietnam's domestic market but a significant win for US exporters. Indonesia, similarly, secured a slightly lower tariff rate — 19% instead of the initially threatened 32% — but only by agreeing to purchase US Boeing aircraft and remove or reduce various trade barriers. Beyond tariffs, the deals increasingly intrude upon the internal economic policies of sovereign states. Embedded in these trade arrangements are demands regarding "transshipment restrictions" and "supply chain security" — vague yet powerful instruments that allow the US to dictate how and where its partners manufacture goods. These clauses give Washington indirect influence over national industrial strategies, particularly in countries where foreign direct investment forms the backbone of growth. For the European Union, the stakes are no less severe. The deal demanded a $600 billion investment from EU states into the US economy, effectively exporting European capital and potentially jobs to American soil. Even more contentious is the clause requiring the EU to buy $750 billion worth of US energy over three years, a move that French officials bluntly called 'capitulation.' Energy policy, long considered a pillar of national sovereignty, is now subordinated to bilateral trade enforcement mechanisms. In trade diplomacy, access to the US consumer market is perhaps the most coveted prize. The Trump administration has weaponised this leverage to extract far-reaching concessions. For some countries, the alternative to signing a deal is punitive: Mexico faces a 25% blanket tariff and Canada, a top US trading partner, could see tariffs of up to 35% on goods not compliant with the existing USMCA. Meanwhile, India — despite being dubbed a 'friend' by Trump — has been hit with a 25% tariff across the board, plus an unspecified penalty tied to its energy dealings with Russia. Such measures reinforce the view that these 'agreements' are less about trade and more about aligning partners with US geopolitical objectives. Even where countries managed to avoid worst-case tariffs, the deals were often asymmetrical. South Korea, for example, agreed to a 15% tariff rate on its exports while pledging $350 billion in US investments and granting zero tariffs on American agricultural and automobile exports. These are not trade negotiations in the traditional sense. They are economic ultimatums wrapped in diplomatic language. Ironically, while these deals are framed as a win for American workers, they may end up harming US consumers and industries. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the average US household could face $2,400 in additional annual costs due to higher prices on imported goods — effectively a hidden tax. Moreover, American industries that rely on foreign components, like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, will face disrupted supply chains and rising production costs. This suggests that the primary beneficiaries of these aggressive trade deals are not US consumers or workers, but rather a political narrative built around economic nationalism and short-term geopolitical gains. What makes these modern trade pacts so unsettling is how closely they echo the 'unequal treaties' of colonial history. In the 19th century, Western powers extracted lopsided agreements from Asian nations, forcing them to open ports, accept foreign jurisdiction and buy unwanted goods. Today, the US is not demanding extraterritorial rights, but it is imposing conditions that interfere with national industrial policies, force purchases of US products, and limit the autonomy of states to craft their own trade strategies. In the longer term, this coercive trade strategy may backfire by undermining the very multilateral institutions that have governed global trade for decades. The World Trade Organisation, already weakened, is increasingly sidelined as bilateral power politics dominate. Meanwhile, countries that feel cornered by US tactics may seek alternative trading blocs, perhaps turning to China, regional groupings, or even forming counter-alliances. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, chief economist at the IMF, warned this week of the broader risk: 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty… Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Al Jazeera quoted him as saying. His words are a plea not just for economic sanity, but for the preservation of a rules-based order. While the US has every right to renegotiate trade terms that it deems unfair, fairness must be mutual. These new 'agreements,' far from establishing equitable exchange, are imposing a 21st-century version of the unequal treaty — a shift that may have profound consequences for global diplomacy, development and international economic cooperation.
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
Microsoft hits $4 trillion market cap
Microsoft's market value soared past $4 trillion in after-hours trading on July 30, joining Nvidia as only the second company to reach this milestone, following a robust quarterly earnings report. The software giant's shares surged 8%, boosting its market capitalisation to approximately $4.1 trillion. The company reported an 18% revenue increase for the fiscal fourth quarter, its strongest growth in over three years, driven by its Azure cloud computing division. For the first time, Microsoft disclosed Azure's revenue in dollars, revealing that sales from Azure and other cloud services exceeded $75 billion in fiscal 2025, a 34% rise from the previous year. Microsoft's performance outpaced Wall Street expectations, with fourth-quarter revenue reaching $76.4 billion against a forecast of $73.8 billion, and earnings per share hitting $3.65, surpassing the anticipated $3.37. Chief executive Satya Nadella attributed the growth to the company's cloud and AI advancements, stating, 'Cloud and AI are driving transformation across every industry.' The surge propelled Microsoft ahead of Apple, now valued at $3.2 trillion, which has seen its shares drop 17% in 2025 amid concerns over its AI strategy. Nvidia, the first to hit $4 trillion earlier this month, remains the top performer among tech giants, with its shares up 33% this year, fuelled by demand for its AI-critical graphics processing units. Read: Microsoft's stock, already up 22% in 2025 compared to the S&P 500's 8% gain, closed at a record $513.71 on July 25 and climbed above $553 in extended trading. The company plans to invest $30 billion in capital expenditure next quarter to bolster its AI infrastructure, outstripping analyst expectations. Microsoft tops $4 trillion in market cap after hours, joining Nvidia in exclusive club — CNBC (@CNBC) July 30, 2025
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
China calls for more engagement with US
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Wednesday called for more engagement with the United States, and warned against confrontations between the two global powers, according to a statement from the Chinese foreign ministry. Wang made the comments during a meeting in Beijing with a delegation of US businesses that include executives from Goldman Sachs, Boeing and Apple, the ministry said. "China is willing to enhance engagement with the US, avoid misjudgment, manage differences, and explore cooperation," Wang was quoted as saying. His remarks came a day after top Chinese and US negotiators wrapped up a latest round of trade talks in Stockholm, with both sides agreeing to seek an extension of their 90-day tariff truce struck in May. Wang said that China-US relations are affected by global developments and exert a "profound impact" on international dynamics. "China and the US need to establish more channels of communication and consultation, view each other objectively, rationally, and pragmatically, and foster a correct strategic perception," he said, urging both countries to reject "unilateralism and bullying". He encouraged US companies to maintain confidence in the Chinese market, and welcomed them to continue to invest in China, the ministry statement said. A high-level delegation of US executives is visiting China this week and has also met with China's commerce and industry ministers. The trip comes as Beijing and Washington work towards a summit between the two countries' leaders later this year, probably around the time of the APEC forum in South Korea from October 26 to November 1, sources previously told Reuters. Reuters
