The stock fell as much as 10%, its biggest intraday drop since April 2025, after Boeing said it would fall short of its target to deliver 500 737 Max jets this year. The company also expects deliveries of its 787 Dreamliner to come in near the lower end of its guidance.
Production ramp up faces fresh delay
Boeing now plans to increase 737 production to 52 jets a month in the second half of next year, up from 47 currently. That milestone had previously been targeted for the end of 2026.
“As I’ve said many times before, it’s more important that we do this ramp right than what particular month we achieve a rate break, and we’ll stay disciplined here,” Chief Executive Officer Kelly Ortberg said on a call with analysts.
The slower ramp up adds pressure to Boeing’s efforts to strengthen cash flow after years of production disruptions, quality issues and supply constraints. Bloomberg Intelligence analyst George Ferguson said the reaction reflected the importance of higher commercial aircraft production to Boeing’s finances.
“I think he’s being honest, but I think what that does is push all the cash flow expectations to the right,” Ferguson said.
Boeing’s commercial airplane division posted a $697 million third quarter loss, wider than the $360.8 million deficit expected by analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. The division’s loss was nevertheless substantially lower than a year earlier.
Cash flow offers some relief
Free cash flow provided a brighter spot, reaching $464 million in the quarter and beating estimates of $325.1 million. Boeing expects to generate about $2 billion in free cash this year, $3 billion next year and $10 billion by 2029.
The company also reiterated that it plans to begin deliveries of its 777-9 next year, although the programme is running about six years behind schedule.
Ortberg said Boeing has significantly reduced risks across its portfolio, while the company continues to deal with engine and supply chain constraints affecting its aircraft production.
(Disclaimer: This article is based on inputs from agencies. These do not represent the views of The Economic Times)
