Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to servodude,tjh290633,csearle,jfgw,bionichamster, for Donating to support the site

Boeing

Discuss Shares, buying selling, tips and deals
AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#234990

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 8th, 2019, 7:19 pm

Lootman wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:The 737 has [imho] reached the end of its service life. Even with modifications it's not going to survive.

Some context here. The 737 is the most successful plane in the history of civil aviation. More have been built than any other plane by a goodly amount. The problem here is specifc to the MAX which was an attempt to stretch the 737 beyond its core capabilites. An error perhaps but not an indictment of the entire product range.

And it is not much older than the erstwhile 747. The 737 made its first flight in 1967 and the 747 in 1969. BA is still flying 32 747s around the globe and nobody complains about them.

Yes an excellent and pertinent point. The 737 has been an extremely successful vehicle for Boeing. And yes again it's clear that Boeing have attempted to stretch the design of this vehicle beyond core. However, I'm not so sure I agree with your choice of words that this amounts to an error. I think in isolation it probably does and in that scenario I would agree with you. However, I am not entirely convinced this is an isolated error. I think there is strong evidence to suggest it's part of an embedded and dysfunctional culture that is cascading down through the company with a focus upon sales numbers.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03 ... -save-cash
In 2011 Boeing learned that American Airlines, one of its best customers, had struck a tentative deal with Airbus for potentially hundreds of A320neo planes to renew its short-haul fleet. American invited Boeing to make a counter-offer. Boeing realized it needed to act fast, and offered what would become the Max . . . American eventually bought 260 Airbus planes and agreed to take 200 upgraded 737s from Boeing. As Boeing hustled in 2015 to catch up to Airbus and certify its new 737 Max, Federal Aviation Administration (F.A.A.) managers pushed the agency’s safety engineers to delegate safety assessments to Boeing itself, and to speedily approve the resulting analysis.

As I've mentioned this isn't a one off. Boeing senior management refused to take on board the recommendations of their own experts regarding outsourcing the design and build of the Dreamliner. And I have got to ask why would anyone hire an expert and promptly ignore them?

If I may come back to your excellent points again please. I'd like to suggest that the Boeing 737 isn't, as you claim the most successful aircraft in history. If I may make so bold as to assume that's based on numbers sold. If this is the basis of your claim then yes in absolute terms the 737 does have the accolade of being the most sold.

However, there is a robust counter position to this which is that the Airbus is actually more successful. The Airbus family has been available over a shorter period of time. Looked at from a point of view of numbers sold per year then Airbus comes out on top. It has also outsold Boeing over the time since it's birth.

https://leehamnews.com/2014/11/17/a320- ... winner-is/
Boeing’s marketing and communications team has done a superb job of claiming its 737 is the best selling jetliner of all time and with 12,257 firm orders since the first program, the 737-100/200, was launched in 1964. The 737 edges out the A320 family’s 11,021 orders. (These figures exclude options and MOUs.)

Boeing’s dominance in the single-aisle is a thing of the past, and it won’t return for at least another decade and perhaps a decade and a half—certainly not until Boeing designs an entirely new, “clean sheet” airplane and this even depends on the Airbus response.

I am not entirely convinced any argument exists from either side to claim a best selling family or design. What is evident, in my opinion, is Airbus is extremely successful in it's own right and clearly a competitive threat to Boeing. It's entirely possible that Boeing are not capable of "dominating" the market in the single aisle category.

You have mentioned quite correctly that the 737 Boeing has sold well. That's not in question. What I think is more important would be to understand to what extent the sales of this particular element of the Boeing family contribute to the bottom line. If Boeings best seller is literally "falling from the sky" then the potential threat to their future earnings (or being completely pessimistic their survival) is suitably proportional. Upon closer inspection the 737-Max is actually the most current configuration of the vehicle and as such any delays to it's return magnify the impact of the negative cost burden that Boeing will incur. I continue to perceive that if the vehicle can be returned to service it will still have a very steep curve to climb in order to get passengers back on board. As such it may not be a risk many airlines want to take when purchasing new. There is ample [imho] evidence to suggest that Boeing's future may just not be as rosy as its past and I think the pain for share holders and particularly share price and dividends could come under mounting pressure. I can't find any evidence to suggest that Boeing's problems will be over in the next year or two. I think they are at least two, if not more, decades away from any form of salvation. I believe their reliance on the old airframe has caught up with them. In my opinion there really is significantly more riding on the 737-Max than Boeing are admitting to.

AiY

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1648
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Boeing

#234991

Postby richfool » July 8th, 2019, 7:21 pm

Lootman wrote:
richfool wrote:Are there any spin-offs, or adverse implications affecting the Boeing 777's?

I take it that the Dreamliner 787 was a completely new design.

There is a new version of the 777 called the 777-X. It embodies some of the new technology used on the Dreamliner, like the use of carbon fibre. It has folding wingtips so it can use existing airport gates, unlike the A380. And it has a new engine specially built for it which is I believe the most powerful jet engine on the planet - its width is about the same as the fuselage of a 737. When complete it will be the most capacious plane thar Boeing builds, given that 747 construction has almost halted, holding about 400 passengers. And obviously the largest 2-engined plane in the world. BA has oordered a few even thoough it has also ordered the Airbus A350 - the closest competitor.

If you visit Boeing's Paine Field plant north of Seattle you will see that the new 777-X is being built right alongside 787s. It's maiden flight has been delayed because of some design issues with the engine but I'm not aware it's a serious threat to the plane or the programme. The 777 is the bright spot for Boeing - both the 737s and 787s have issues at the moment, whilst 747 and 767 construction, in the adjacent production line, are both running down. The narrow-body planes are built elsewhere.

Thanks for the update.

Long haul, I usually fly 777's with EVA or sometimes Thai Airways. Last year, we were due to fly A350 with Thai and A380 back, but they changed the aircraft and we flew 777 both ways (so getting a hit boring). I have flown in the A380 with Singapore Airlines when they first came out (2008), which was good and quiet, though slow to load and unload, both passenger-wise and luggage-wise.

When flying around the Far-East, it was usually 737-800's or an Airbus (I think A300/A320's). I shall avoid 737 Max if and when it is re-introduced, along with anything else that has developed along similar lines.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Boeing

#235036

Postby SentimentRules » July 8th, 2019, 10:47 pm

I like Thai Airways Airbus to Thailand. I'm lucky enough to know somebody in the company where I can get 1st class if not sold out. (So I always wait for the day it isn't sold out)

Compared to Emirates, and Singapore A, I have to say the standard isn't great.

But anything beats getting on a Boeing. Anyone willing to be one of the first on the 'ironed out engine issues ' of the delayed 777X? No chance.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#235047

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 8th, 2019, 11:49 pm

When flying around the Far-East, it was usually 737-800's or an Airbus (I think A300/A320's). I shall avoid 737 Max if and when it is re-introduced, along with anything else that has developed along similar lines.

In a successful bid to get ahead of their competition Airbus managed to update their airframe by adding more fuel efficient engines (the neo - new engine option). Per seat these changes increased fuel efficiency by about 20%. I suspect at that time they caught Boeing napping.

Boeing responded by doing the same - they added a fuel efficient engine to their airframe. But they did so in a bid to catch-up. They created "work-arounds" to get the certificate of air worthiness pushed through to meet those time boundaries.

Ultimately the board at Boeing convinced themselves that they had a way to get back into the game.

Boeing
  • Were out maneuvered
  • Were already struggling against a superior product
  • Harassed (lobbying doesn't seem appropriate) to be given more independence to write their own certificates
  • Convinced themselves their airframe could cope with the new engines
  • Ignored calls to ground the vehicle after the first crash
  • Have started to "buy their way" out of this situation by pledging £100m
  • (Allegedly) trained new pilots to the Max on i-Pads

Richfool probably uses aircraft travel more than I do. It's entirely possible that she/he represents the current ground swell of opinion regarding the safety of the Max. This being regardless of any certificates. In my opinion the Board at Boeing are as much out of date as the 737 airframe. I would suggest this isn't an unforeseeable error. I would suggest this is poor culture.

Plagiarised - A Time To Kill
"I want you to imagine those 346 people who died on those two aircraft. I want you to see their broken bodies, dismembered after the crash. I want you imagine their screams as they waited in desperate hope for the pilots to regain control of the aircraft. I want you to imagine the fear and dread that went through their minds as they neared the ground"

...

"Now ... now imagine they are white Americans"

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#235318

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 9th, 2019, 7:37 pm

Boeing reports no new orders for 737 Max amid grounding
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/07 ... 562691948/

July 9 (UPI) -- Boeing on Tuesday said it received orders for 13 commercial jets during its second quarter, a 95 percent drop compared to the same time period last year after the global grounding of its 737 Max aircraft.
Of those 13 orders, none was for a 737 Max. June was the third straight month of no new orders for the model. Boeing received a letter of intent from International Airlines Group for the purchase of 200 737 Max aircraft earlier this month.


Boeing set to lose biggest planemaker title as deliveries fall 37%
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... KKCN1U41T3

To cope with the fallout after the grounding, Boeing has slowed production to 42 MAX jets per month from 52 earlier, causing the planemaker to take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter.

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#235649

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 10th, 2019, 6:10 pm

Southwest updates safety information cards to avoid Boeing 737 Max confusion
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/fl ... 691808001/

passengers who saw Max 8 in bold yellow letters on the safety card bombarded Southwest flight attendants and the airline's social media representatives with questions about whether they were on the troubled plane ...

Airlines are already preparing for a new round of traveler questions, concerns and, in some cases, refusals to fly on the plane once the FAA clears the Max 8 to return to service.

AiY

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1648
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 274 times

Re: Boeing

#235675

Postby richfool » July 10th, 2019, 7:26 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Southwest updates safety information cards to avoid Boeing 737 Max confusion
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/fl ... 691808001/

passengers who saw Max 8 in bold yellow letters on the safety card bombarded Southwest flight attendants and the airline's social media representatives with questions about whether they were on the troubled plane ...

Airlines are already preparing for a new round of traveler questions, concerns and, in some cases, refusals to fly on the plane once the FAA clears the Max 8 to return to service.

AiY

I wonder, if and when they ever bring the 737 Max back into service, whether they might change its name to something different. I must admit I would have second and third thoughts about flying on a 737 Max for some considerable time to come, if and when it is brought back into service.

Lanark
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 243
Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Boeing

#235684

Postby Lanark » July 10th, 2019, 8:18 pm

Well IAG (BA + Iberia) placed an order for 200 737 Max's in June, so I guess I wont be flying with them again for a while.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3918
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3035 times
Been thanked: 914 times

Re: Boeing

#235693

Postby dspp » July 10th, 2019, 8:39 pm

Lanark wrote:Well IAG (BA + Iberia) placed an order for 200 737 Max's in June, so I guess I wont be flying with them again for a while.


A Letter Of Intent is not the same as an order. One can be cashed, the other is single use material.

Meanwhile Death & Destruction Daily (aka Janes) has added 2+2 in the normal way to get an article out of it .........

"Boeing military deliveries offset sluggish commercial sector
Deliveries of Boeing fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft more than doubled on a year-by-year basis in the first six months of 2019, compensating for problems with the 737 MAX commercial aircraft. Statistics released by Boeing on 9 July show that it delivered 37% fewer commercial aircraft compared with January–June 2018. The total of 239 lags behind the 389 recorded by rival manufacturer Airbus. In contrast, Boeing Defense, Space & Security had provided 96 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft by 30 June, more than double the 41 it delivered in the first six months of 2018."

https://www.janes.com/article/89792/boe ... ial-sector ($$$ if you want more)

It is quite likely that SpaceX and BO will win the launcher war, leaving ULA (which includes Boeing) dead in the water. So absent civil narrowbodies, and if dead in the water in space, then that just leaves military and civil widebodies to carry the slack. That would be quite a contraction for Boeing, to the point of being sub critical mass vs Airbus. At a time when UK is Brexiting this could lead to some very interesting M&A discussions, even to the point of BAe in oldspeke dallying with Boeing. BAS are now more exposed to US mil than to UK mil I think, so there is merit in them unifying as a prime. It would be one way of Boeing getting the slice of the F35 action they thought they'd lost .......

- dspp

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#235702

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 10th, 2019, 9:10 pm

richfool wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Southwest updates safety information cards to avoid Boeing 737 Max confusion
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/travel/fl ... 691808001/

passengers who saw Max 8 in bold yellow letters on the safety card bombarded Southwest flight attendants and the airline's social media representatives with questions about whether they were on the troubled plane ...

Airlines are already preparing for a new round of traveler questions, concerns and, in some cases, refusals to fly on the plane once the FAA clears the Max 8 to return to service.

AiY

I wonder, if and when they ever bring the 737 Max back into service, whether they might change its name to something different. I must admit I would have second and third thoughts about flying on a 737 Max for some considerable time to come, if and when it is brought back into service.

53% American adults say they don't want to fly on a Boeing 737 Max
https://www.businessinsider.com/america ... ?r=US&IR=T

We asked more than 1,100 respondents "If you had a flight on a Boeing 737 Max next week, and the FAA decided to clear the aircraft for flight, given the issues the plane has experienced, what would you do?"
In total, 53% of respondents said they would attempt to reschedule while 32% said they wouldn't change their travel plans.


I have to admit that I find the number who would get on the Max alarmingly high. However, it wouldn't be significantly enough to make the vehicle commercially viable, would it?

400 pilots have joined a growing number of airlines in demanding payback from Boeing for its 737 Max disasters — here's the full list
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing- ... ?r=US&IR=T

More than 400 737 Max pilots have launched a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer, accusing it of an "unprecedented" cover-up of "know design flaws" in the plane ...

Boeing has promised that the plane will be one of the "safest ever to fly" when it returns to service and that the company will "earn and re-earn" flyers' trust.

I'm not convinced that any form of name change will save this aircraft. In a global community linked by the power of the internet news travels fast. Dependent upon gaining an airworthiness certificate it could be used to carry freight? I think there's only one route Boeing can take - try to bring it back into service and hope they can convince the travelling public to use the vehicle. But there are a growing number of airlines looking at alternatives.

And then there is the issue of trust in Boeing ... clearly they are aware that they have transgressed the ultimate boundary.
I've mentioned before that the headwinds now facing Boeing are significant. Most seem to feel they will survive and the Max will fly again. I'm certainly not qualified to know better. I just simply don't see any upside from here.

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#235974

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 11th, 2019, 6:26 pm

Five Basic Facts About Boeing Missing From Coverage Of the 737 MAX Story
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 57ea8e521b

Boeing makes widebody jets too—747,767,777,787—but without 737 the company could not remain competitive in any market segment with European rival Airbus. ...
What is largely missing from coverage of the MAX crisis, though, is an explanation of how important Boeing’s sole single-aisle offering is to the company’s fortunes, to the nation’s trade balance, and to the fate of local economies in the U.S.

I think that this article seems to indicate that if the 737 Max doesn't return to service it could be a fatal blow not just to Boeing's aviation arm but parts of the US economy.

Ryanair risks loss if Boeing 737 MAX remains grounded
https://www.dw.com/en/ryanair-risks-los ... 49557486-0

Ryanair chief executive has said the airline could suffer losses if Boeing's embattled 737 MAX planes don't become operational beyond November.

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#235992

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 11th, 2019, 7:34 pm

dspp wrote:
Lanark wrote:Well IAG (BA + Iberia) placed an order for 200 737 Max's in June, so I guess I wont be flying with them again for a while.


A Letter Of Intent is not the same as an order. One can be cashed, the other is single use material.

Meanwhile Death & Destruction Daily (aka Janes) has added 2+2 in the normal way to get an article out of it .........

"Boeing military deliveries offset sluggish commercial sector
Deliveries of Boeing fixed-wing and rotary-wing military aircraft more than doubled on a year-by-year basis in the first six months of 2019, compensating for problems with the 737 MAX commercial aircraft. Statistics released by Boeing on 9 July show that it delivered 37% fewer commercial aircraft compared with January–June 2018. The total of 239 lags behind the 389 recorded by rival manufacturer Airbus. In contrast, Boeing Defense, Space & Security had provided 96 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft by 30 June, more than double the 41 it delivered in the first six months of 2018."

https://www.janes.com/article/89792/boe ... ial-sector ($$$ if you want more)

It is quite likely that SpaceX and BO will win the launcher war, leaving ULA (which includes Boeing) dead in the water. So absent civil narrowbodies, and if dead in the water in space, then that just leaves military and civil widebodies to carry the slack. That would be quite a contraction for Boeing, to the point of being sub critical mass vs Airbus. At a time when UK is Brexiting this could lead to some very interesting M&A discussions, even to the point of BAe in oldspeke dallying with Boeing. BAS are now more exposed to US mil than to UK mil I think, so there is merit in them unifying as a prime. It would be one way of Boeing getting the slice of the F35 action they thought they'd lost .......

- dspp

Interesting thoughts. Clearly Boeing have some stable military hardware that is selling well. But as you've pointed out there is some significant downside within the group . I simply cannot say if the Max will return or not. If it doesn't Boeing are going to have to restructure I think. If it does I am not convinced the travelling public will use it in significant numbers. And of course there is no new vehicle coming through to replace this airframe. I simply cannot see any good recovery route for Boeing from here. It's either going to be really bad news or slightly less bad news. The critical factor in all of this is (imho) a gross over estimate in the number of passengers who will board this vehicle if it returns. I think the best Boeing can hope for is that it returns and in doing so, effectively mitigates some of the additional cost burdens it would incur if it didn't. Two airlines have announced they anticipate losses if the vehicle is grounded for much longer. Albeit one was already performing quite poorly anyway. I'm sure more will follow. It's not as if they can call "we sell any aircraft.com" and order a few replacements neither.

Some may hope that the Max returns quickly and the take up is buoyant. Currently that's all it is - hope. And the cost burden isn't going to go away any day soon. Yes you can tinker with the thought of changing the vehicles names. Yes you can fiddle with the thought of using it to fly freight. Nothing more than sticking plasters on a compound fracture in my opinion.

It's a mess I think.

AiY

MaraMan
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 178
Joined: November 22nd, 2016, 3:30 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Boeing

#236017

Postby MaraMan » July 11th, 2019, 8:43 pm

Last week I did a tour of Boeing’s factory at Everett where they make the wide bodied jets (what a fascinating place). I can’t predict what will happen with the Max more than anyone else but I expect the problem will be solved and forgotten in the foreseeable future. Boeing’s order book for the Dreamliner and the new versions of the 777 remain extremely strong. I think they are too big to be allowed to fail and I really don’t see this current problem as a long term threat.

MM

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Slice
Posts: 980
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 471 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Re: Boeing

#236028

Postby ReformedCharacter » July 11th, 2019, 9:21 pm

dspp wrote:
It is quite likely that SpaceX and BO will win the launcher war, leaving ULA (which includes Boeing) dead in the water.

- dspp

I get the impression (as an uninformed observer) that commercially Spacex and BO will 'win the launcher war', but that Boeing is of strategic importance - at least for the moment - as a supplier to the US government of both military and space technologies. Boeing (with Spacex) being chosen to provide astronaut deliveries to the ISS and prime contractor for the Space Launch System.

RC

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#236047

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 11th, 2019, 11:13 pm

Boeing reshuffles management of grounded 737
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-moves/boeing-reshuffles-management-of-grounded-737-memo-idUKKCN1U62Q9

Boeing has reassigned the head of its next airplane project to run the troubled 737 program, according to a memo seen by Reuters on Thursday, as the grounding of its 737 MAX in the wake of two accidents commands the planemaker’s full attention.

Families 'cheated of Boeing crash compensation'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48953892

Relatives of people killed in the Boeing 737 Max crash in Indonesia last year have been cheated out of compensation, their lawyers say.

Plagiarised - A Time To Kill
"I want you to imagine those 346 people who died on those two aircraft. I want you to see their broken bodies, dismembered after the crash. I want you imagine their screams as they waited in desperate hope for the pilots to regain control of the aircraft. I want you to imagine the fear and dread that went through their minds as they neared the ground"
...
"Now ... now imagine they are white Americans"

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#236052

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 11th, 2019, 11:33 pm

MaraMan wrote:I think they are too big to be allowed to fail and I really don’t see this current problem as a long term threat. MM

I cannot see any reason why this company would not be allowed to fail. If it did the US government would be more than able to pick over the corpse and select the bits it needed to keep afloat if it was in the countries defensive interests. Whilst this is a large exporter and employer I don't think the US people would have the appetite to support the entire company at a huge cost. I've no idea how they could justify it legally. Although I'm sure they would find a way. Quite simply though if they did want to save it they would save the bit that was in the national interest. I am not convinced the aircraft division is an attractive bet currently. The current problem isn't minor in my opinion. There is every chance we are witnessing a systemic failure created by a company completely out of touch with the safety of its end users. Time, as they say, will tell.

In the meantime I

MaraMan
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 178
Joined: November 22nd, 2016, 3:30 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Boeing

#236072

Postby MaraMan » July 12th, 2019, 1:38 am

Boeing employs a huge number of people (I think over 150,000) and its suppliers many times more than that. They are the major employer in the City and of great importance to the state of Washington. In the same way that GM weren’t allowed to fail same goes for Boeing. And that’s putting aside their strategic and geo-political importance.



MM

PS - the damages for the victims of the crashes will be covered by insurers don’t forget

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#236484

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 13th, 2019, 6:38 pm

Boeing: Once an Admired Company, Now Just Poorly Led
https://www.industryweek.com/operations ... poorly-led
That said, it’s only fair that we paint a picture of the potential demise of a formerly great U.S. company. Such a fall, except for paradigm shifts in technology, is nearly always caused by bad leadership, faulty products and employees who finally give up fighting their knuckleheaded leadership and just do what they’re told.

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Slice
Posts: 566
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 331 times
Been thanked: 229 times

Re: Boeing

#236486

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 13th, 2019, 7:05 pm

When and If to Buy Boeing Stock Is All About the Max
https://www.yahoo.com/news/buy-boeing-s ... 6Z9J2_ZxtE
If you believe the 737 Max won’t fly again, you should definitely not buy. Not now, not ever.

I still think that Boeing is now descendant to Airbus as they do not have a new single aisle vehicle ready to replace the old 737 design. Not that being second to Airbus is really a prime issue. Not having a rival single aisle aircraft is. I also feel that if the Max does fly again the take up by passengers will not secure its long term viability. I wonder if it's fair to say that Boeing have been playing a short game and this is now catching up with them. There's a feel about all of this which smacks of sales before safety. All simply speculation on my part.

I know several posters have said the US government will not allow Boeing to collapse. As I have already said that isn't an insurance policy for current stock holders who [imho] in such circumstances would either be wiped out completely or more likely suffer significant pain both with the share price and future dividends.

AiY

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5955
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 931 times

Re: Boeing

#236488

Postby Lootman » July 13th, 2019, 7:12 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote: it’s only fair that we paint a picture of the potential demise of a formerly great U.S. company. Such a fall, except for paradigm shifts in technology, is nearly always caused by bad leadership, faulty products and employees who finally give up fighting their knuckleheaded leadership and just do what they’re told.

Demise? Fall? Paradigm shift?

The market doesn't think so. Boeing shares are at $365, which is an 18% drop from their all time high earlier this year of $446. At the market bottom in 2009 they were briefly below $32.

Boeing shares went up forteen-fold in a decade and have now had a correction of less than one fifth. So the market clearly does not think Boeing will fail. Other than the 737-MAX, things look good. The 787 Dreamliner problems are with the engines - specifically the Rolls Royce Trent engines, so that is our fault rather than theirs. And no 787 has ever crashed.

There are large backorders for 777s and 787s. Then there is the whole military and aerospace side, plus Embraer's successful E175/E190 and new E2 regional jets, which Boeing has a 80% interest in.


Return to “Share ideas”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests