The aerospace giant lost $11.8bn across the year, its worst result since 2020, when the aviation industry was grounded by the Covid pandemic.

In the three months to the end of December, when strikes were affecting the business, it lost $3.8bn.

As well as suffering from well-publicised problems at its commercial aircraft unit, Boeing also struggled with issues affecting a number of defence programmes.

Chief executive Kelly Ortberg said the company was focused on what he called the “fundamental changes” needed to restore its fortunes and restore trust.

Boeing has had a dreadful year by any measure. In January 2024, a door panel fell off a brand new 737 Max shortly after take-off, leaving a gaping hole in the side of the plane. Investigators said it had not been bolted on properly.

The incident highlighted serious quality control failings at the company – and at its main supplier, Spirit Aerosystems. It also reignited concerns about Boeing’s attitude towards safety.

Boeing had been trying to emerge from the shadow of two high-profile crashes involving a different 737 model, the Max 8, in 2018 and 2019, which killed 346 people.

The latest incident forced Boeing to curb production, as regulators called for changes on the factory floor, and demanded the implementation of a comprehensive safety and quality control plan.

In August, Boeing appointed its new chief executive Mr Ortberg, a veteran engineer who was brought in to steady the ship.

But he immediately faced a serious challenge.

A strike by 33,000 workers, most of them in Boeing’s heartlands around Seattle brought two of its most important factories to a halt, and halted production of the 737 Max, the 777 and the 767 freighter.

The seven-week stoppage, which began in September, reflected deep seated resentment among employees over their pay and retirement provisions. The dispute was settled in early November, but it cost the company billions.

Boeing did take action. It announced plans to lay off 10% of its workforce and began raising more than $20bn through a combination of share sales and borrowing in order to protect its credit rating.

It also delayed the entry into service of the 777X. A new version of the long-haul workhorse, it was already years late but had been expected to start operating in 2025. It will not now carry passengers until 2026.

In total, Boeing delivered 348 commercial aircraft last year. Its great rival Airbus delivered 766.

Problems at Boeing’s defence business have been less visible, but no less damaging. The unit lost more than $5bn, largely thanks to rising costs on fixed price military contracts.

Commenting on the results, Mr Ortberg said: “We made progress on key areas to stabilize our operations during the quarter and continued to strengthen important aspects of our safety and quality plan.

“My team and I are focused on making the fundamental changes needed to fully recover our company’s performance and restore trust with our customers, employees, suppliers, investors, regulators and all others who are counting on us.”

Kelly Hughes bought the caravan at a park in north Wales as a temporary home and holiday let when she was looking to move from Kent for work after finishing university.

But she said she felt obliged to sell her £30,000 purchase back to the park’s owner for £9,500 rather than incur costs for selling it privately.

About 1,200 caravan owners across the UK are to begin legal action against the holiday parks that sold them. Industry representative the British Holiday and Home Park Association has said it was not appropriate to comment.

The National Caravan Council said it was aware of the legal action but would not be commenting further.

Ms Hughes explained that she bought her caravan in August 2018 and hoped to use it temporarily while relocating from Kent and then letting it out as holiday accommodation.

But when her plans did not work out, she wanted to sell the caravan and was initially offered £8,000 by the park’s owner before agreeing to £9,500 in December.

“So I lost over £20,000 on that,” she told BBC Radio Wales Breakfast.

“If I didn’t sell it back to the park, they added in a load of additional fees for sort of removal from the park, disconnection fees, massive transport fees, things like that.”You do feel kind of trapped selling back,” she said.

Members of the Holiday Park Action Group (HPAG) are seeking compensation for what they say are unfair increases in annual pitch fees and misleading claims about the value of static caravans at the time of purchase.

The legal proceedings follow a BBC investigation that revealed how people had lost their life savings, inheritance and pensions when the holiday homes they had bought lost value.

As first reported by Bloomberg, the US consumer watchdog was probing the ride-hailing giant over the enrolment and cancellation procedures of the service.

Uber One, which has more than 25 million subscribers around the world, offers fee-paying members discounts on rides and deliveries.

“We will continue to answer any questions the FTC may have about our cancellation policies,” said an Uber spokesperson.

“The Uber One cancellation process follows both the letter and the spirit of the law: Uber One members can easily cancel their membership in the app – in fact, the majority of those cancellations take 20 seconds or less.”

The FTC contacted Uber with a proposal for settling the investigation and the company has since written back with a counter offer.

Other technology giants, including Adobe and Apple, have faced lawsuits from the FTC over cancellation policies that the regulator deemed overly complicated.

Those claims have been disputed by the companies.

Last month, the FTC finalised a ‘click to cancel’ rule, which aims to make it easier for people to end subscriptions.

The new regulations, which have been challenged by some business groups, would force companies to make subscription sign-ups and cancellations equally straightforward.

A law introduced in the UK in May also takes aim at so-called subscriptions traps.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 requires businesses to provide clear information to consumers before they enter a subscription agreement.

It forces sellers to remind customers that a free or low-cost trial is coming to an end.It also requires companies to ensure customers can easily end a contract.

The decision in the Delaware court comes after months of legal wrangling and despite it being approved by shareholders and directors in the summer.

Judge Kathaleen McCormick upheld her previous decision from January, in which she argued that board members were too heavily influenced by Mr Musk.

Reacting to the ruling, Mr Musk wrote on X: “Shareholders should control company votes, not judges.”

Tesla vowed to appeal against the ruling, saying the decision was “wrong”.

“This ruling, if not overturned, means that judges and plaintiffs’ lawyers run Delaware companies rather than their rightful owners – the shareholders,” the electric car company said in a post on X.

Judge McCormick said the pay package would have been the largest ever for the boss of a listed company.

She said Tesla had failed to prove the fairness of the pay package, which dated to 2018.

Mr Musk, the boss of X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX as well as Tesla, is the world’s richest person. His current net worth is estimated at around $350bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

He has used his platform to make his views known on a vast array of topics, and his status seems set to climb higher still following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 US presidential election. The president-elect has picked Mr Musk to lead a newly created Department of Government Efficiency (or Doge – like the dog-related meme).

Trump has said Doge will help the administration “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies”.

A Tesla shareholder vote on the payment passed by 75% in June, but the judge did not agree the pay should be so large despite what she called Tesla’s lawyers’ “creative” arguments.

“Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here,” she wrote in her opinion.

The judge also ruled the Tesla shareholder who brought the case against the company and Mr Musk should receive $345m in fees but not the $5.6bn in Tesla shares they had asked for.

Some observers said a ruling in favour of Mr Musk and Tesla would have dealt a blow to conflict of interest laws in Delaware.

The idea of conflict rules is to protect all investors, not just minority investors, said Charles Elson of the University of Delaware’s Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance.

Mr Elson said Judge McCormick’s opinion was well-reasoned.

“You had a board that wasn’t independent, a process that was dominated by the chief executive, and a package that was way out of any sort of reasonable bounds,” he said. “It’s quite a combo.”

Mr Elson said he expects Tesla might try to reconstitute a similar pay package in Texas where the company moved its legal base earlier this year after the pay ruling.