Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site

Boeing

Discuss Stock buying Shares, tips and ideas for stock market dealing
djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 106
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Boeing

#270057

Postby djbenedict » December 9th, 2019, 10:25 am

Lootman wrote:
djbenedict wrote:Amazing really. If ever there was a stock I was tempted to short, it must be Boeing. The share price has really just not moved over the time of the 737Max troubles. Yet my gut feel is that the 737(-all) is a big part of their mix, and fixing it properly is going to be expensive. Mental note: revisit in 12 months' time to either kick or congratulate self!

Shorting it would be hazardous. If the Max gets certified then BA's stock price could run to $450 or $500 in no time - it wasn't much short of $450 before this happened.

And Boeing still make the other 737's, plus 777's and 787's. They even still make a few 747's and 767's. And of course the whole military business. You wouldn't just be shorting Boeing. You'd be shorting America, and few people get rich that way.


You raise some good points that are partly why it remains just a temptation for me, rather than a decision. The share price today is where it was in March 2018. However, I feel that the company, even if it can resume sales of its 737MAX type, is in worse shape than it was in March 2018, due to postponed and lost revenue. Perhaps you are also underestimating quite how significant the 737 is to Boeing ("a big part of their mix"):

TOTAL UNFILLED ORDERS (COMMERCIAL)

737 747 767 777 787 Total
4,573 18 102 433 549 5,675

(You can find this information on Boeing's website here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries )

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 19356
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 657 times
Been thanked: 6909 times

Re: Boeing

#270114

Postby Lootman » December 9th, 2019, 4:03 pm

djbenedict wrote:Perhaps you are also underestimating quite how significant the 737 is to Boeing ("a big part of their mix"):

TOTAL UNFILLED ORDERS (COMMERCIAL)

737 747 767 777 787 Total
4,573 18 102 433 549 5,675

(You can find this information on Boeing's website here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries )

Yes, but if you look at revenues then it is a slightly different story, since the 737 is the only narrow-body plane there, and so is much cheaper. I believe they sell for $100 million or less. Whereas a 787 runs around $300 million and the new 777-X, if and when it gets off the ground, will be more like $400 million.

Then there is the military and aerospace side as well. Not to mention the very lucrative order for two new Air Force Ones.

Amazing they have orders for that many 767's. Must be for cargo planes. And of course too bad Boeing didn't keep its sibling plane, the 757, being as that fills the medium size and range need that it is struggling with. It's as happy going 400 miles as 4,000 miles. Fun trivia fact - the 757 is the only narrow body plane designated as "Heavy".

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4660 times

Re: Boeing

#270224

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 9th, 2019, 10:03 pm

Lootman wrote:
djbenedict wrote:Perhaps you are also underestimating quite how significant the 737 is to Boeing ("a big part of their mix"):

TOTAL UNFILLED ORDERS (COMMERCIAL)

737 747 767 777 787 Total
4,573 18 102 433 549 5,675

(You can find this information on Boeing's website here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries )

Yes, but if you look at revenues then it is a slightly different story, since the 737 is the only narrow-body plane there, and so is much cheaper. I believe they sell for $100 million or less. Whereas a 787 runs around $300 million and the new 777-X, if and when it gets off the ground, will be more like $400 million.

Then there is the military and aerospace side as well. Not to mention the very lucrative order for two new Air Force Ones.

Amazing they have orders for that many 767's. Must be for cargo planes. And of course too bad Boeing didn't keep its sibling plane, the 757, being as that fills the medium size and range need that it is struggling with. It's as happy going 400 miles as 4,000 miles. Fun trivia fact - the 757 is the only narrow body plane designated as "Heavy".

The Revenues

Model Net Cost £m   Unfilled Orders    Total       %

737 50 4,573 228,260 53.00
747 210 18 3,780 .88
767 110 102 11,220 2.60
777 180 433 77,940 18.07
787 200 549 109,800 25.45

It could be argued that the net costs used in the above table aren't representative. However, the table is simply to point out roughly how significant Boeings income is from the 737.

It doesn't end there though.

July 11th, 2019 (Economies of Scale)
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.


A basic rule of thumb in the global duopoly that Airbus and Boeing currently share is that if a company falls below 40% of total worldwide backlog, its ability to price successfully against the other player begins eroding. Boeing’s strategy in other segments of the aerospace and defense market assumes continued strong cashflow from the commercial side, which would be unlikely in the absence of 737 MAX.

July 14th 2019
April 2018 Letter

http://www.richardaboulafia.com/shownote.asp?id=564

The 737’s first problem, above, shows that the market is up gauging, and Boeing’s next single aisle will simply need to be a larger clean-sheet design (if only to accommodate ever-growing engines under its wings). Since 797 will be a twin aisle, it won’t have much in common with the new single aisle.

Global Air Travel Growth
Boeing Stock Has Much Bigger Things to Worry About Than the 737 MAX

https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1561995357
Boeing—and its suppliers—have been relatively impervious to the MAX woes because growth in air travel has been strong for a decade. Air traffic growth, however, is slowing as the global economy decelerates. And that may be what hurts Boeing stock more in the future than any of the more dramatic issues facing the company.

22 July 2019 (Forecast Debt Increase)
Boeing slides after ratings agencies turn negative on maker of grounded 737 Max
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/22/boeing- ... lainternal
Moody’s warned that it could cut Boeing’s credit ratings if “it becomes apparent that the grounding will extend into 2020 and Boeing does not reduce the production rate to conserve working capital.” ...
Boeing’s debt could rise by $10 billion to more than $24 billion by the end of the year because of the Max grounding

Noting Boeing did cut production and have now suggested they may have to cease completely unless the Max is returned to service by March 2020. In such circumstances will they pay their employees? If they don't they may lose skills?

Boeing Group has three major sources of income. The largest is Commercial Airlines accounting for approximately 60% of the Groups business. And the largest selling vehicle is [still] grounded. Boeing do not have a competitive rival to Airbus in the single aisle category. Albeit the cooperation with Embraer may have potential.

Boeing have bought back $39Bn of their own stock over the last 5 years. They have reduced share count from 767m to 586m. In the same period they have spent $17Bn on R&D. Whilst the EPS has obviously benefited, the same may not be true of the value of the share buy back costs.

In a large group such as Boeing it's always very easy to find "bad news". And Boeing has other problems, albeit they are dwarfed by the Max issue.

AiYn'U

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 106
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Boeing

#270296

Postby djbenedict » December 10th, 2019, 9:38 am

Lootman wrote:
djbenedict wrote:Perhaps you are also underestimating quite how significant the 737 is to Boeing ("a big part of their mix"):

TOTAL UNFILLED ORDERS (COMMERCIAL)

737 747 767 777 787 Total
4,573 18 102 433 549 5,675

(You can find this information on Boeing's website here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/#/orders-deliveries )

Yes, but if you look at revenues then it is a slightly different story, since the 737 is the only narrow-body plane there, and so is much cheaper. I believe they sell for $100 million or less. Whereas a 787 runs around $300 million and the new 777-X, if and when it gets off the ground, will be more like $400 million.


You are talking about factors of 3 or 4 (if you use the right numbers as found on Boeing's website). I am talking about factors of 10. But anyway, I have no horse in this race and am content to come back in December 2020 and see what has happened. It will be a good story either way.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4660 times

Re: Boeing

#271041

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 14th, 2019, 9:34 am

13th December 2019
Boeing CEO's meeting with FAA chief leads to several 737 Max changes

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/12/13/b ... k-box.html

American Airlines removes Max until April

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/12/11/w ... ckson.html

FAA - we have no timelines in our plan to recertify Max

AiY

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4660 times

Re: Boeing

#271079

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 14th, 2019, 12:42 pm

13th December 2019
Americans who know of Boeing's 737 Max don't want to fly on plane

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americans- ... -on-plane/

Only 20% of those who knew of the Max view it as safe and said they'd be willing to ride on a Max now. Of the 80% indicating they'd hold off, 60% signaled they'd have to wait at least six months to fly on the plane after its clearance by regulators.

I've not considered the time period for "abstinence" from boarding a returned vehicle but the above figures surprise me a little. The indication is that most people feel that if the [returned] vehicle doesn't have issues in the first six months then it never will.

However, that's still going to add the best part of another year to the Max's profitability for airlines and the probability is that cost for the most will probably be Boeings to bear, either through diminished sales or lower revenues.

And after all that there's still the issue of the next generation of vehicle which by all accounts hasn't got to the drawing board yet. I've had a quick look at Embraer's offerings. I'm not sure I can see a 200 seat single aisle vehicle that could "infill" or plug the timeline gap. Albeit I'm no expert I wonder if the fuselage could be lengthened? Anyway that's another story.

AiYn'U

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Boeing

#271523

Postby dspp » December 16th, 2019, 5:59 pm

"The Seattle Times reported on Sunday that the board is considering a proposal from top management to temporarily shut down 737 production in Renton, Washington.

.......Dickson said there were nearly a dozen milestones that must be completed before the Max returns to service. Approval is not likely until at least February and could be delayed until March, US officials told Reuters last week.

Dickson told Muilenburg, according to an email sent to lawmakers by the FAA, that “Boeing’s focus should be on the quality and timeliness of data submittals for FAA review. He made clear that FAA’s certification requirements must be 100% complete before return to service.”"


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... uction-faa

- dspp

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4660 times

Re: Boeing

#271538

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 16th, 2019, 6:28 pm

dspp wrote:"The Seattle Times reported on Sunday that the board is considering a proposal from top management to temporarily shut down 737 production in Renton, Washington.

.......Dickson said there were nearly a dozen milestones that must be completed before the Max returns to service. Approval is not likely until at least February and could be delayed until March, US officials told Reuters last week.

Dickson told Muilenburg, according to an email sent to lawmakers by the FAA, that “Boeing’s focus should be on the quality and timeliness of data submittals for FAA review. He made clear that FAA’s certification requirements must be 100% complete before return to service.”"


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... uction-faa

- dspp

I'm hardly an expert in the consequences of a temporary shut down of production of the Max, but my commercial guts tell me it won't be a simple case of turning the lights off on a Friday night and turning them back on after [say] 8 weeks. The "what if's" seem particularly negative. Boeings board clearly knew how much headroom they had with the numbers and from the outset December 2019 was always viewed as a drop dead date for current production levels. And if Boeing's bond issue was calculated on a return to service of say March 2020 they currently look as if they may have to go back to the market for additional funds?

AiYn'U

AJC5001
Lemon Slice
Posts: 460
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 4:55 pm
Has thanked: 163 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Boeing

#271588

Postby AJC5001 » December 16th, 2019, 10:29 pm

Boeing to temporarily halt 737 Max production in January
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50817124

Adrian

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4660 times

Re: Boeing

#271857

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 17th, 2019, 9:52 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
dspp wrote:"The Seattle Times reported on Sunday that the board is considering a proposal from top management to temporarily shut down 737 production in Renton, Washington.

.......Dickson said there were nearly a dozen milestones that must be completed before the Max returns to service. Approval is not likely until at least February and could be delayed until March, US officials told Reuters last week.

Dickson told Muilenburg, according to an email sent to lawmakers by the FAA, that “Boeing’s focus should be on the quality and timeliness of data submittals for FAA review. He made clear that FAA’s certification requirements must be 100% complete before return to service.”"


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... uction-faa

- dspp

I'm hardly an expert in the consequences of a temporary shut down of production of the Max, but my commercial guts tell me it won't be a simple case of turning the lights off on a Friday night and turning them back on after [say] 8 weeks. The "what if's" seem particularly negative. Boeings board clearly knew how much headroom they had with the numbers and from the outset December 2019 was always viewed as a drop dead date for current production levels. And if Boeing's bond issue was calculated on a return to service of say March 2020 they currently look as if they may have to go back to the market for additional funds?

AiYn'U

17th December 2019
Boeing will still burn $1 billion a month on 737 Max even with production halt, JP Morgan says

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/17/boeing- ... organ.html

Its overhead and labor costs won’t be going anywhere, and it’s expected to support its suppliers until the 737 Max is cleared for flight, analyst Seth Seifman says.
...
J.P. Morgan remains overweight Boeing shares, but the bank cut its price target on the company’s stock to $370 a share from $400 a share. That still implies 13% upside from Monday’s closing price of $327 a share.

I wonder if this comment regarding the level of Boeing shares held by JPM may be a good reason for US analysts to find upside in this stock? Cynical?

AiYn'U

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3578
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2388 times
Been thanked: 1951 times

Re: Boeing

#271870

Postby scotia » December 17th, 2019, 10:36 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I wonder if this comment regarding the level of Boeing shares held by JPM may be a good reason for US analysts to find upside in this stock? Cynical?
AiYn'U

Cynically, I would expect major holders of worthless stock to pretend it is a good investment, while trying to (unobtrusively) dispose of their own holdings for top dollar. Does this apply to JPM and Boeing? Well at least its worth considering. But I suppose one defence of propping up Boeing and its shares is that I suspect that no American President (especially Trump before the November 2020 Presidential Election) can allow it to fail.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 19356
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 657 times
Been thanked: 6909 times

Re: Boeing

#271871

Postby Lootman » December 17th, 2019, 10:49 pm

scotia wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I wonder if this comment regarding the level of Boeing shares held by JPM may be a good reason for US analysts to find upside in this stock? Cynical?

Cynically, I would expect major holders of worthless stock to pretend it is a good investment, while trying to (unobtrusively) dispose of their own holdings for top dollar. Does this apply to JPM and Boeing? Well at least its worth considering. But I suppose one defence of propping up Boeing and its shares is that I suspect that no American President (especially Trump before the November 2020 Presidential Election) can allow it to fail.

Boeing won't "fail" in any event. The question is really whether, if in the worst case, the Max becomes untenable and is written off, then what is the value of the other parts?

Boeing builds the 747, 767, 777, and 787, plus cargo planes, military planes, aerospace items and so on. If the Max ceases to exist then what is that rump worth? $400 a share? $300 a share? It sure as heck isn't nothing.

And if the Max gets back in the air, then add the value of that. The best guess is that the current share price (25% down whilst the market is up maybe 20% in the same period) reflects the best guess.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3578
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2388 times
Been thanked: 1951 times

Re: Boeing

#271889

Postby scotia » December 18th, 2019, 1:07 am

Lootman wrote:
scotia wrote:
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I wonder if this comment regarding the level of Boeing shares held by JPM may be a good reason for US analysts to find upside in this stock? Cynical?

Cynically, I would expect major holders of worthless stock to pretend it is a good investment, while trying to (unobtrusively) dispose of their own holdings for top dollar. Does this apply to JPM and Boeing? Well at least its worth considering. But I suppose one defence of propping up Boeing and its shares is that I suspect that no American President (especially Trump before the November 2020 Presidential Election) can allow it to fail.

Boeing won't "fail" in any event. The question is really whether, if in the worst case, the Max becomes untenable and is written off, then what is the value of the other parts?

Boeing builds the 747, 767, 777, and 787, plus cargo planes, military planes, aerospace items and so on. If the Max ceases to exist then what is that rump worth? $400 a share? $300 a share? It sure as heck isn't nothing.

And if the Max gets back in the air, then add the value of that. The best guess is that the current share price (25% down whilst the market is up maybe 20% in the same period) reflects the best guess.

I think you are being a bit optimistic on Boeing's commercial operation if construction of the 737 family ceases. The 747 sells in penny numbers - about 6 a year. The 767 only sells as a freighter, with currently about 50 orders. This is propped up by about the same number of the military tanker variant. The 787 into which they invested heavily was supposed to be their star - but its production is being cut back.
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer - the Boeing Military side cannot and will not fail. But lets return to the commercial side. And lets consider the worst case scenario with the 737. Lets suppose the 737MAX is effectively scrapped - that's a current inventory loss of about 30 to 40 billion dollars. And there is a massive reduction in their ongoing revenue - with no aircraft to fill this most popular market sector. Launching the 787 cost about 30 billion dollars - and an entirely new 737 replacement may cost a similar amount. Are they big enough to finance all of this? I think their market cap is around 180 billion dollars. It would certainly mean they would have to drop their plans for a New MidSize Airplane (NMA - provisionally called the 797). My guess is that they will need a lot of US "military" orders at generous terms to keep them in the commercial business if they lose the 737MAX. But with Boeing being the largest US goods exporter, I suspect such a socialist subsidy will be forthcoming from either of the US parties.
My less-than-worse-case supposition is that they will get the 737MAX into service, but it won't sell in the numbers which they hoped for, and they still will need to think about a modern replacement, but with significantly less revenue to support such a venture. Its share price has dropped by a quarter since March. I can't see anything like its past buy-backs continuing - so is a 25% drop sufficient? - I doubt it.

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 106
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Boeing

#271894

Postby djbenedict » December 18th, 2019, 2:59 am

Some interesting data and comments in this Economist article.

Boeing’s strategy has strained its balance-sheet, with its inventories reaching $73bn and gross debts $25bn.

... a majority of Boeing’s sales are now made outside America and authorities abroad no longer want to play wingman to the FAA.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/ ... he-737-max

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4660 times

Re: Boeing

#272420

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 19th, 2019, 9:29 pm

18th December 2019
Turbulence intensifies for Boeing as 737 MAX remains grounded

https://news.sky.com/story/turbulence-i ... d-11888392

It is impossible to overstate the impact of a freeze in production of Boeing's 737 MAX aircraft.
...
Boeing agreed over the weekend to make a confidential compensation payment to Southwest over the weekend which has been put at some $600m.

Probably one of the most damning articles to date on the state of Boeing

  • 12,00 employees to "redeploy" with no real chance of placing them all elsewhere within the group
  • Quarterly dividend payments of $1.2bn
  • Quarterly costs to service debts of £1.8bn
  • $25bn in debts
  • $75bn in "stock"
  • Management creating unrealistic expectations of an "early" return to service
  • Management convincing investors that maintaining [slightly reduced] production was cheaper than shut down resulting in 500 aircraft now awaiting "delivery" - instead of planning for the worst outcome
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is a management team that are completely focused upon their own words. Had they carried out a simple risk assessment (what will it cost us if the vehicle isn't certified within "our" predicted timelines) they would have rationalised their plans to dovetail with a longer period before a return to service.

And let's not forget if and when the FAA certify a return to service other Certifying Authorities will not accept the FAA's certificate without first carrying out their own reviews.

The cash burn at Boeing currently must be astronomical. Regardless of Boeing's capitalisation the numbers are beginning to look increasingly sizable. Noting that Moody's have downgraded Boeings debt with no upwards pressure until the Max situation is completely resolved. Indeed they have indicated a further downgrade mid 2020 is possible if the Max remains grounded.

AiYn'U

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Boeing

#272460

Postby dspp » December 19th, 2019, 11:20 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:18th December 2019
Turbulence intensifies for Boeing as 737 MAX remains grounded

https://news.sky.com/story/turbulence-i ... d-11888392

It is impossible to overstate the impact of a freeze in production of Boeing's 737 MAX aircraft.
...
Boeing agreed over the weekend to make a confidential compensation payment to Southwest over the weekend which has been put at some $600m.

Probably one of the most damning articles to date on the state of Boeing


AiY,
Expect lots more bungs for Boeing, like this one,

https://www.janes.com/article/93296/us-lawmakers-approve-eight-f-15ex-aircraft-for-us-air-force-in-fy-2020

The US Air Force is a step closer to acquiring its first batch of F-15EX aircraft after legislators approved the purchase


regards, dspp

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 19356
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 657 times
Been thanked: 6909 times

Re: Boeing

#272465

Postby Lootman » December 19th, 2019, 11:33 pm

dspp wrote:Expect lots more bungs for Boeing, like this one,

https://www.janes.com/article/93296/us-lawmakers-approve-eight-f-15ex-aircraft-for-us-air-force-in-fy-2020

The US Air Force is a step closer to acquiring its first batch of F-15EX aircraft after legislators approved the purchase

Is that like BA and AF being the only airlines to buy the Anglo-French Concorde?

Or is it more like BA choosing RR engines over GE or Pratt & Whitney engines?

Asking for a friend.

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3169
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3732 times
Been thanked: 1539 times

Re: Boeing

#272580

Postby ReformedCharacter » December 20th, 2019, 2:10 pm

Not a very good day for Boeing's launch of an Atlas 5 rocket with their Starliner crew capsule on an unpiloted Orbital Flight Test to the International Space Station. According to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine:

Because Starliner believed it was in an orbital insertion burn (or that the burn was complete), the dead bands were reduced and the spacecraft burned more fuel than anticipated to maintain precise control. This precluded @Space_Station rendezvous.

Close, but no cigars. I'd guess a programming error. Have to wait and see how Spacex gets on.

RC

dspp
Lemon Half
Posts: 5884
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 5825 times
Been thanked: 2127 times

Re: Boeing

#272748

Postby dspp » December 21st, 2019, 12:28 pm

"FlyersRights Sues FAA For Refusal To Release Boeing 737 MAX Records

Supported by a Team of Aviation Professionals Arguing for Transparency and Independent Analysis Before Any Decision to Unground the MAX is Made

News provided by

FlyersRights.org Dec 19, 2019, 17:04 ET



WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- FlyersRights.org, the largest airline passenger organization, has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. (1:19-cv-03749-CKK) seeking release of the Boeing Corporation's proposed changes to the 737 MAX submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

FlyersRights.org previously submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the records on November 1st seeking expedited treatment, but the FAA failed to respond.

Supporting the lawsuit are seven aviation experts who declared that they need the FAA to release technical details to them and other independent experts in order to be able to evaluate whether the 737 MAX is safe to fly.

Paul Hudson, President of FlyersRights.org and member of the FAA's Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee since 1993, explained, "Trust in the FAA and Boeing has been shattered due to astounding revelations of misfeasance and incompetence in originally certifying the 737 MAX aircraft as safe. Accordingly, to regain public confidence, the flying public needs and deserves independent expert evaluations of the changes that Boeing and FAA may deem sufficient to unground the aircraft."

The seven aviation experts who have submitted declarations in favor of transparency and independent evaluation are:

Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger- Retired airline captain, famous for the "Miracle on the Hudson" landing and aviation safety expert for over four decades

Association of Flight Attendants-CWA- The largest flight attendants union, with nearly 50,000 members at 20 airlines

Michael Neely- Thirty-three years of experience in commercial and military aircraft development programs since 1983, working for Boeing from 1995-2016 serving in Multi-Discipline Engineering and Program Office roles

Javier de Luis- PhD Aeronautical engineer and scientist for 30 years and former lecturer at MIT

Michael Goldfarb- Aviation safety management consultant and former Chief of Staff and Senior Policy Adviser to the FAA Administrator

Gregory Travis- Computer software engineer with over 40 years of experience and pilot with over 30 years of experience

Paul Hudson- President of FlyersRights.org and long-time airline passenger safety advocate

The FOIA request can be found here:
https://flyersrights.org/wp-content/upl ... equest.pdf

The complaint can be found here:
https://flyersrights.org/wp-content/upl ... plaint.pdf

FlyersRights.org is represented in court by Joseph E. Sandler of Sandler, Reiff, Lamb, Rosenstein & Birkenstock P.C., Washington, D.C. FlyersRights.org, established in 2007, is the largest airline passenger organization. It publishes a bi-weekly newsletter, operates a free hotline for airline passengers 877- FLYERS6, advocates for passenger rights and interests, represents passengers on the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee dealing with air safety, and maintains a staffed office in Washington, D.C.

See: FlyersRights.org or https://twitter.com/FlyersRights. Media line 800- 662-1859. FlyersRights.org, 4411 Bee Ridge Road, 274, Sarasota, FL 34233

SOURCE FlyersRights.org"


[note the above is a press release, so quoting in full is permissible]

Does anyone feel brave enough to take a view on Boeing shares (long or short) ?

regards, dspp

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4660 times

Re: Boeing

#272848

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 22nd, 2019, 11:10 am

8th November 2019
Boeing Co's Dreamliner hit by landing gear glitch

https://www.arabianbusiness.com/boeing- ... -also-like

Boeing Co and All Nippon Airways are investigating a landing gear problem on the 787 Dreamliner, the first technical glitch reported since the new jetliner entered service less than two weeks ago, the airline said on Monday. Pilots on the first of two aircraft delivered so far to ANA were forced on Sunday to deploy the landing gear using a manual backup system, after an indicator lamp suggested the wheels were not properly down.

Rather worrying I'd suggest. The Starliner didn't quite go to plan, two Dreamliner's suffer with issues almost immediately after delivery and the Max fleet grounded. It's possible to postulate that Boeing aren't where they need to be with regard to their products reliability. Speculation is mounting for at least the CEO to be replaced. I read one report which suggested Boeing have moved from an "engineering" driven culture to a "dividend first" culture and the same report indicates this "evolutionary trend" can be traced back to their buyout of McDonnel Douglas in 1997. It' an interesting "theory" and one which I suspect may hold some water. I prefer to think that the "Boeing Culture" has also probably been driven by it's shear size and "Management" has probably not really known where to take it. I'd argue this can be seen in the share buy-backs, the lack of investment in development of a new single aisle airframe, budget over-runs in the development costs of The Dreamliner and their appalling behaviour after the first Max crash, denying anything was wrong with their vehicle. I believe Management are demonstrating quite clearly that they are wandering through time quite detached from the real world in which Boeing is operating. I am struggling to find evidence of one good decision. The decision to put new engines on the old airframe was actually nothing more than a [desperate] reaction to the Airbus NEO configuration. Furthermore I cannot see how the purchase of huge amounts of their stock was anymore beneficial than using these funds to develop that golden prize in aviation - the single aisle vehicle.

There's an unerring consistency to Boeing's decisions. A culture of reacting. A culture that is completely and utterly detached from anything other than the next sale. It could be argued it's a culture that has become dismissive to anything real. I would go so far as to suggest a culture of arrogance has pervaded Boeing's Senior Management. Ultimately 346 have paid the price with their lives. This was no accident. This was corporate behaviour "out of control". Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I have doubts that the Max will return to the skies this year. Let's not forget that Muilenberg stated it would return this year. As I understand it Boeing have not yet put forward the new software and vehicle to the FAA. I could possibly draw some conclusion from this that the problem is not something Boeing's CEO really understands. Yet he's accomplished at share buy backs. I think the Fox may have been running the hen house. Both of them. The FAA has allowed "self certification" by Boeing and Boeing share-holders have enjoyed [it could be argued, short term] gains through buy-backs.

I cannot see a focus upon the engineering aspects in all of this. And I would challenge anyone who would argue that the efforts to revise the software and [possibly] hardware are just that. They are nothing more than a reaction and a reaction that is way too late.

AiYn'U


Return to “Stocks and Share Dealing Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests