Donate to Remove ads

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

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Boeing

Discuss Stock buying Shares, tips and ideas for stock market dealing
AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Boeing

#233782

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 3rd, 2019, 8:52 pm

More a link than any real news but it does identify initial sums of money they are being sued for

Boeing gives $100m to help 737 Max crash families
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-488 ... ting-story
Mr Husain has so far filed seven cases on behalf of families, with some of those lawsuits seeking damages of $276m. He estimated that about 50 lawsuits had so far been filed by victims' families.

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.

AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#233796

Postby dspp » July 3rd, 2019, 9:58 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:More a link than any real news but it does identify initial sums of money they are being sued for

Boeing gives $100m to help 737 Max crash families
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-488 ... ting-story
Mr Husain has so far filed seven cases on behalf of families, with some of those lawsuits seeking damages of $276m. He estimated that about 50 lawsuits had so far been filed by victims' families.

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.

AiY



This isn't a LSE share so I've moved it to the Share Ideas board, presumably as a shorting opportunity - or long Airbus.

For aviation I always find these a good read http://www.richardaboulafia.com/newsletters/ . Watching who he isn't talking about gives a pretty direct clue as to who is paying the emergency consulting fees.

I'm expecting Boeing to get sweetheart defence deals to keep them running.

regards, dspp

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

Re: Boeing

#234585

Postby dspp » July 7th, 2019, 1:52 pm

"Flyadeal, the low-cost airline Saudi Arabian airline, has cancelled an order for 30 Boeing 737 Max aircraft...........

The deal, which included an additional option to purchase 20 more 737 Max aircraft, was worth $5.9bn at list prices, but the airline would have been offered a discount on that price tag.

Instead flyadeal, which is controlled by state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines, will operate a fleet of Airbus A320 planes."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48899588

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Boeing

#234597

Postby SentimentRules » July 7th, 2019, 2:43 pm

The price for 2019 that was transacted most by volume is 378. It was tested and rejected in June. The average price based on ohlc for 2019 is 330.

In America those numbers are 374/336. The support in America last month was purely based on ohlc averaging. That's retail as I see no money of worth in there.

A few other reasons.. . It's a false support. Going to go down a lot over the coming quarter imo. The numbers and everything else suggest this is all sell volume. A close below 352 In America, and it's bear party time.

Airbus numbers are the inverse. Screaming a buy/hold.

That's just a volume take on it for what it's worth.

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#234603

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 7th, 2019, 2:59 pm

dspp wrote:"Flyadeal, the low-cost airline Saudi Arabian airline, has cancelled an order for 30 Boeing 737 Max aircraft...........

The deal, which included an additional option to purchase 20 more 737 Max aircraft, was worth $5.9bn at list prices, but the airline would have been offered a discount on that price tag.

Instead flyadeal, which is controlled by state-owned Saudi Arabian Airlines, will operate a fleet of Airbus A320 planes."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48899588

I wonder if the event horizon has a different timeline for Boeing. I'm not a frequent traveller. However, I do go abroad on the odd holiday. And I can say without any fear of contradiction that I will never get on this aircraft. Not if you paid me a substantial amount of money. It would be interesting to know how many others shared a similar view. Boeing have tried, and it appears unsuccessfully, to modernise an old design. The consequences were fatal. Many airlines will be thinking seriously about the perception of their customers relating to an aircrafts safety. In their position I would be very concerned about buying aircraft that many may avoid flying on. I suspect 50 years ago the world was probably not as well informed as it is today. And people probably tolerated far greater levels of risk because it was considered "acceptable". Then there's the air crew and pilots to consider. Many may not want to fly these vehicles, regardless of certificates proving their air worthiness. The latter were not worth the paper they were written on and the loss of even one life because of this seems unacceptable.

There will always be some who will fly and not bother with safety records of the aircraft. I wonder if they are going to be enough to keep Boeing sales buoyant. There is always a possibility that the aircraft will not come back into service. That's another horizon completely.

There are some strong headwinds gathering for Boeing

  • Poor global economic growth and consequently subdued demand for new aircraft
  • Potential liability for the loss of life connected to the two "incidents"
  • Loss of future sales due to customer perceptions relating to safety
  • Unable to get the nearly 400 grounded vehicles certified to fly again
Relating to the two "incidents" I suspect Boeing have been, at the very least, asleep at the wheel. The reality may be even worse. They may not have the necessary skills and funds to design the aircraft of tomorrow. This may be why they opted to modify the old design.

AiY

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Boeing

#234611

Postby tjh290633 » July 7th, 2019, 3:30 pm

AiY, you got me thinking about aircraft where serial crashes became common. I fighter jets the Meteor and Starfighter were obvious examples. In passenger aircraft the original Comet was another. I know that many of the Meteor crashes during early training were down to a particular demonstration, which led to an irrecoverable situation. The Comet had its problem with square windows.

Boeing clearly have a lot to do to recover from this situation. I suspect that it is analogous with the Comet problems, and that a major redesign is their only answer. That might not be practicable with the aircraft already built.

What is certain is that a future crash with a modified version could be the end of Boeing. They have to get it right.

TJH

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 296
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Boeing

#234616

Postby SentimentRules » July 7th, 2019, 3:53 pm

They might ask trump to ban all other brands in America. And enforce sanctions on any country that buys Airbus lol

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Boeing

#234648

Postby Lootman » July 7th, 2019, 5:47 pm

tjh290633 wrote:AiY, you got me thinking about aircraft where serial crashes became common. I fighter jets the Meteor and Starfighter were obvious examples. In passenger aircraft the original Comet was another. I know that many of the Meteor crashes during early training were down to a particular demonstration, which led to an irrecoverable situation. The Comet had its problem with square windows.

Boeing clearly have a lot to do to recover from this situation. I suspect that it is analogous with the Comet problems, and that a major redesign is their only answer. That might not be practicable with the aircraft already built.

What is certain is that a future crash with a modified version could be the end of Boeing. They have to get it right.

Another example of a plane that had a series of crashes was the DC-10. This story from 1989 describes the series of accidents - I feel sure you remember some of them:

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/20/us/t ... ashes.html

I remember Freddy Laker flying one of his the day after one of those crashes to reassure his customers they were safe.

It was grounded for a while but eventually flew again. It was partly redesigned and re-emerged as the MD-11. But it heralded the end of the MD company and name, which was merged into Boeing. The Boeing 717 was originally the DC-9 - a plane as old as the 737.

Lockheed also abandoned civil airliners although I always had a soft spot for the L-1011, despite it nearly bankrupting Rolls-Royce. It just does military planes now.

Boeing will survive because of its criticality to the US military. Whether the shares will do well is another matter, but I cut my holding last year which turned out to be fortunate.

The new 797 may be reprioritised as that would replace the 767, 757 and the longer-range 737's. Any more problems with the Dreamliners might really kill the enterprise. But at least none have crashed.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Boeing

#234659

Postby scotia » July 7th, 2019, 6:29 pm

tjh290633 wrote: I know that many of the Meteor crashes during early training were down to a particular demonstration, which led to an irrecoverable situation.

Was that the asymmetric flying simulation of a single engine failure? The fatality rate was, to modern eyes, incredible. But I suppose pilots and their trainers at that time were still hardened by war experience. And am I correct in thinking that the training version of the meteor had no ejection seats?

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#234689

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 7th, 2019, 7:46 pm

Lootman wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:AiY, you got me thinking about aircraft where serial crashes became common. I fighter jets the Meteor and Starfighter were obvious examples. In passenger aircraft the original Comet was another. I know that many of the Meteor crashes during early training were down to a particular demonstration, which led to an irrecoverable situation. The Comet had its problem with square windows.

Boeing clearly have a lot to do to recover from this situation. I suspect that it is analogous with the Comet problems, and that a major redesign is their only answer. That might not be practicable with the aircraft already built.

What is certain is that a future crash with a modified version could be the end of Boeing. They have to get it right.

Another example of a plane that had a series of crashes was the DC-10. This story from 1989 describes the series of accidents - I feel sure you remember some of them:

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/20/us/t ... ashes.html

I remember Freddy Laker flying one of his the day after one of those crashes to reassure his customers they were safe.

It was grounded for a while but eventually flew again. It was partly redesigned and re-emerged as the MD-11. But it heralded the end of the MD company and name, which was merged into Boeing. The Boeing 717 was originally the DC-9 - a plane as old as the 737.

Lockheed also abandoned civil airliners although I always had a soft spot for the L-1011, despite it nearly bankrupting Rolls-Royce. It just does military planes now.

Boeing will survive because of its criticality to the US military. Whether the shares will do well is another matter, but I cut my holding last year which turned out to be fortunate.

The new 797 may be reprioritised as that would replace the 767, 757 and the longer-range 737's. Any more problems with the Dreamliners might really kill the enterprise. But at least none have crashed.

I can't say with any certainty if Boeing will survive or not. However, I don't hold so may remain oblivious to the outcome. I suspect in the worst scenario the US government would find a way to protect their interests but I don't think they would put shareholders interests first. I'd be quite surprised if they considered them at all. My point is that it's not whether Boeing survives or not but whether or not the current stock holders do and if they do what happens to the price of their holding.

I wonder if there is an embedded culture within Boeing that may be undermining it's ability to evolve as a profitable aircraft manufacturer in the future. The Dreamliner design and manufacture may demonstrate this.

The 787 (Dreamliner) project ran past its deadline resulting in significant cost over-runs. This was due to Boeing’s supply chain which was complex and difficult to manage. They decided to outsource the design and manufacture of the majority of parts to decrease costs. Previously, these tasks were conducted in-house.

This decision cost billions. However, the most disturbing part of this failure were events that preceded it. The advice from its technical experts was to keep with traditional methods of design and manufacture. Ironically, they ignored this advice in an attempt to cut costs.

Boeing seem quite capable of making damaging management decisions. Which doesn't sit well given the external headwinds building against them currently.

It may be interesting to note that nearly 60% of Boeing's turnover is from their civil aircraft division. Another 25% is from space and government projects and the balance from global sales. In the event of a complete failure of the business the US government may find it difficult to keep the Aircraft and Global Divisions from a collapse that would ensure the protection of the share holders interests.

All simply my humble opinion

AiY

gryffron
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3605
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:00 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 1585 times

Re: Boeing

#234745

Postby gryffron » July 7th, 2019, 11:31 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:I can say without any fear of contradiction that I will never get on this aircraft.

So you'd rather get on an aircraft with unknown faults? I'll be fine with it once the FAA certify it. I suspect it will, by then, be better tested than anything else you might fly on.

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:In the event of a complete failure of the business the US government may find it difficult to keep the Aircraft and Global Divisions from a collapse that would ensure the protection of the share holders interests.

Can't agree. They make a lot of aircraft. A lot of different models. The operation can't be allowed to fail. Shareholders yes, but not production. Both for US strategic interests, and quite simply because they are too huge for anyone else to produce enough to fill the gap. The airlines would run out of airplanes. It would be decades before airbus could scale up production enough to take over the numbers Boeing produce.

They could just scrap the 737. It's old. The Chinese, Russians and Brazilians are all producing new competing small airliners (although in relatively tiny numbers at the moment). But I suspect it will be a matter of pride for Boeing to fix it.

Gryff

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Boeing

#234746

Postby tjh290633 » July 7th, 2019, 11:43 pm

scotia wrote:
tjh290633 wrote: I know that many of the Meteor crashes during early training were down to a particular demonstration, which led to an irrecoverable situation.

Was that the asymmetric flying simulation of a single engine failure? The fatality rate was, to modern eyes, incredible. But I suppose pilots and their trainers at that time were still hardened by war experience. And am I correct in thinking that the training version of the meteor had no ejection seats?

Yes, it was. The Meteors had no ejector seats before the 8, I believe. Certainly the 7 had none.

TJH

AsleepInYorkshire
Lemon Half
Posts: 7383
Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
Has thanked: 10514 times
Been thanked: 4659 times

Re: Boeing

#234757

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » July 8th, 2019, 12:28 am

So you'd rather get on an aircraft with unknown faults? I'll be fine with it once the FAA certify it. I suspect it will, by then, be better tested than anything else you might fly on.

I'm not sure if you may have inadvertently quoted me out of context? I did suggest that the problem for Boeing was that there may be others who share my own perception that is never to get on this aircraft again. I'm not prepared to assume that the vehicle will be safe just because "in theory" they need to get it perfectly right this time. I think I am also making an inferred point which is if one more Boeing goes down then they really are going to feel the pain. Of course, should this vehicle receive an air worthiness certificate you are more than welcome to fly upon it.

The operation can't be allowed to fail. Shareholders yes, but not production. Both for US strategic interests, and quite simply because they are too huge for anyone else to produce enough to fill the gap. The airlines would run out of airplanes. It would be decades before airbus could scale up production enough to take over the numbers Boeing produce.

If, for the sake of debate, we assume Boeing's Airline Division did fail I would like to understand how the US government could support it? Any bail out be it direct or indirect would be difficult to justify.

They could just scrap the 737. It's old. The Chinese, Russians and Brazilians are all producing new competing small airliners (although in relatively tiny numbers at the moment). But I suspect it will be a matter of pride for Boeing to fix it.

They haven't scraped it though. And yes I agree it's a very old design. Too old. Why have they tried to revive it instead of creating a new design fit for purpose? There are, in my opinion, two issues to consider. The first is that Boeing could have scraped the 737 and designed a new vehicle. They didn't. The second is that they aren't managing their business all that well. There is [imho] an inappropriate and unproportionate reliance upon outsourcing without the means to assure themselves that they are getting best value for money and a safe vehicle.

Two Boeing vehicles have taken 346 people to their graves. Boeing assured everyone after the first crash that the vehicle was not the source of the problem. I would suggest that not only is the management team asleep at the wheel but that they are incapable of recognising constructive feedback if it doesn't agree with their other focus. Clearly they were not focused upon managing the outsourced software contract at the very least. They have relied upon "certification" - they have relied on "box ticking". They haven't [yet] demonstrated any effective method of ensuring that there was anything more robust.

Can't agree. They make a lot of aircraft. A lot of different models.

The 737 has [imho] reached the end of its service life. Even with modifications it's not going to survive. Indeed currently all the evidence suggests it hasn't. We can agree that it needs to go. But all that's a little too late. It should have been dismissed before Boeing tried to modernise it. How have Boeing convinced themselves that they could mount a new engine on an old airframe and overcome the stability issues this created through some software? It's highly likely they have focused upon cost more than safety. It's highly likely they have not understood the risks associated with outsourcing. I have to ask - why hire an expert and tell them what to do? They have asked for expert opinion and chosen to ignore it. They really need a good reason to have done so. And cost isn't good enough.

If they cannot see the blindingly obvious in front of them how can they manufacture the airlines of the future?

Ultimately it doesn't make any difference if we agree or disagree as to the future of Boeing. I think the reality is that if it fails, the US government will find some way of supporting it. But the share holders will be toast.

AiY

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Boeing

#234760

Postby Lootman » July 8th, 2019, 2:02 am

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.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Boeing

#234837

Postby scotia » July 8th, 2019, 11:28 am

tjh290633 wrote:Yes, it was. The Meteors had no ejector seats before the 8, I believe. Certainly the 7 had none.
TJH

OK - I'm drifting off topic, but I remember as a boy (early fifties) my father returning from work to tell me that they had a presentation by a team (from the RAF presumably) on how to disable an ejection seat (by inserting a safety pin) before helping to rescue a pilot from a crashed aircraft. Although it seems exceedingly unlikely that a pilot would still be rescuable from a crash in a high speed jet.
Back on topic - Boeing. There seem to be two massive failures - first in an attempt to fit the latest engines, they substantially changed the dynamics of the aircraft, and tried to hide this by a software fix - so pretending that there would be no need to retrain pilots. And secondly, the software seems to have been written by a clueless bunch who had no thoughts on single failure mechanisms.
Imagine if this had happened with Airbus. What do you think Trump would have done? Possibly banning all sales of all Airbus aircraft to the USA, and maybe even banning their flights over the USA.
This is a huge problem for Boeing, and for the quasi self-certification which allowed such a circumstance to happen. I think it will be a significant time before all bodies agree that it is safe to fly in a 737 Max. And although I'm a rational engineer, I still would have significant reservations if they are still using the same software team.
I'll not be buying Boeing shares, no matter how distressed they may become.

scotia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3561
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:43 pm
Has thanked: 2371 times
Been thanked: 1943 times

Re: Boeing

#234850

Postby scotia » July 8th, 2019, 11:59 am

Lootman wrote: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 Model T Ford was the most successful car in history, but by the time Ford decided to move on, it was hopelessly outdated.
The first delivery of the Airbus 320 series was in 1988, so it is no spring chicken, but the 737 is twenty years older!
The significant advantage that the 737 had was that it was widely used (before the advent of the 320), there was some commonality among versions, and there was no need to retrain pilots for each new variant. But this will certainly no longer be the case with the 737MAX. New training simulators will need to be created and verified, and I would imagine that this time there will be significantly more care taken with the software! Also, there will be no engine commonality with the earlier variants, so I suspect a number of airlines that were 737 users may be giving a fresh look at the 320 series.
And I think Boeing have parked their thoughts on a 737 replacement - with the 2030s now being rumoured. So Boeing's ongoing share of this section of the market is all riding on the 737MAX.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8208
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4096 times

Re: Boeing

#234859

Postby tjh290633 » July 8th, 2019, 12:13 pm

scotia wrote:
tjh290633 wrote:Yes, it was. The Meteors had no ejector seats before the 8, I believe. Certainly the 7 had none.
TJH

OK - I'm drifting off topic, but I remember as a boy (early fifties) my father returning from work to tell me that they had a presentation by a team (from the RAF presumably) on how to disable an ejection seat (by inserting a safety pin) before helping to rescue a pilot from a crashed aircraft. Although it seems exceedingly unlikely that a pilot would still be rescuable from a crash in a high speed jet.

There are crashes and crashes. Undercarriage collapse, for example. We had one example of brake failure, and the Meteor ended up two fields past the end of the runway, having gone through two hedges. That was a walk-away job.

At Worksop we had Meteor 7 and 8, because they had used up all the 3s and 4s at the other AFSs. I never went solo in the Meteor, because of bad weather and illness, and with the end of the Korean War approaching, they decided to start taking people off the course whenever possible. We lost one pilot and instructor from our course, down to the aforementioned demonstration. I and several of my friends survived, in my case through sorting the aircraft out after the instructor had got his foot stuck beneath the rudder bar, and we got into a second spin because of that. We pulled out of the dive probably no more than 300 feet above the ground. I can tell you that we were back at 20,000 feet sharpish. One near miss too many.

TJH

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

Re: Boeing

#234873

Postby dspp » July 8th, 2019, 12:35 pm

scotia wrote:
Lootman wrote:The first delivery of the Airbus 320 series was in 1988, so it is no spring chicken, but the 737 is twenty years older!


The 737 is largely based on the 707 fuselage and the 727, so it is very directly linked to aircraft introduced 1958-1963, but of course designed during the early 1950s. Basically the 737 is a flying antique. A heck of a lot of learning went on in subsonic commercial aerospace between the early 1950s and the late 1970s which was when the A320 took shape, so almost a thirty year separation in design terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Background
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A3 ... ign_effort

Unfortunately for Boeing the learning pretty much came to an end in the early 80s, so there was no good reason for Boeing to launch a successor as that would not have the benefit of the grandfathered certification that the 737 has. And the MBA-types that ruled Boeing in the last thirty years didn't want to do capital invested, just return on capital employed. So they just kept on stretching the 737, until MCAS bit them in the Max. Now as the certification bodies dig into what other nasties are sitting beneath the various stretches it is not a given that they will be able to find a resolution that is commercially attractive.

regards, dspp

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#234948

Postby richfool » July 8th, 2019, 5:13 pm

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.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18679
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6562 times

Re: Boeing

#234961

Postby Lootman » July 8th, 2019, 6:08 pm

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.


Return to “Stocks and Share Dealing Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests