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

Re: Boeing

#261209

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » October 31st, 2019, 8:50 am

31st October 2019
Qantas grounds Boeing 737 plane due to 'cracking'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50244699
Australian airline Qantas has grounded one of its Boeing 737 NG planes after discovering "cracking" in one section.

I wonder if this may be due to additional forces or stresses created by the NG's engine?

AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#261233

Postby dspp » October 31st, 2019, 10:46 am

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:31st October 2019
Qantas grounds Boeing 737 plane due to 'cracking'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-50244699
Australian airline Qantas has grounded one of its Boeing 737 NG planes after discovering "cracking" in one section.

I wonder if this may be due to additional forces or stresses created by the NG's engine?

AiY


No.

This is the 'pickle forks' issue in the NG, not the MCAS issue in the MAX.

The Quantas ones are the 737-NG, which is the generation preceding the 737-MAX. It is the MAX generation that is affected by the MCAS issue which in turn is caused by the very substantial change in engine location & nacelle matters. There is some debate however as to whether winglets of one sort or another on some of the NG's may have affected the stress regime in some of the pickle forks. Irrespective, so far, the main cause of the pickle forks issue appears to be a change in the way they were made.

See https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/625 ... -jets.html

regards, dspp

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

Re: Boeing

#261558

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » November 1st, 2019, 8:48 pm

1st November 2019
Cramer: ‘I’m very worried about Boeing’ and how its 737 Max problems could hurt the US economy

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jim-cra ... rried.html

  1. 737 Max grounded
  2. Dreamliner production to be cut by 14% in 2020
  3. Qantas grounds 3No 737 NG's
  4. Dozens of older Boeings grounded due to "pickle fork" issues
  5. Struggled to deliver a new line of aerial refueling tankers for the Air Force.
There doesn't seem to be good news on the immediate horizon. This looks like a tired company with its main source of income grounded. Clearly some of the older airframes are becoming a challenge too. And there's some clear indications that this isn't about one problem.

AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#262110

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » November 4th, 2019, 8:32 pm

4th November 2019
Boeing's MAX likely to return to European service in first-quarter: regulator

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... KKBN1XE1U1

While the European regulator expects to give its approval in January, preparations by national authorities and airlines may delay the resumption of commercial flights by up to another two months, EASA executive director Patrick Ky indicated ...
EASA also plans to carry out its own program of checks including simulator and flight tests, before allowing flights to resume in Europe.


AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#262268

Postby dspp » November 5th, 2019, 11:55 am

"Reuters) - Airlines struggling to cope with the grounding of the 737 MAX could face a markedly different problem when Boeing Co’s (BA.N) best-selling jet is cleared to re-enter service: a switch to concerns about aircraft oversupply, carriers have been warned."

etc https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKBN1XE21P

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

Re: Boeing

#262429

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » November 5th, 2019, 10:00 pm

5th November 2019
Boeing boss gives up bonus following plane crashes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50304343
Boeing's boss Dennis Muilenburg will not take a bonus this year following two crashes involving the firm's 737 Max plane which killed 346 people.

AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#263577

Postby scotia » November 11th, 2019, 9:07 pm

From the Financial Times (and other sources) today
"Boeing share jump after update on 737Max progress. The company said it was possible jet deliveries to customers could begin in December"
I don't know if this is wishful thinking - given that it is still "dependent on approval and certifications from the Federal Aviation Authority and other regulators".
"Investors nonetheless welcomed the update and lifted Boeing shares more than 5% higher" - I definitely feel that this is wishful thinking!
And from the Boeing Site:-
"Software Updates - Robust MCAS software update three additional layers of protection. 800+ test and production flights with new software totalling 1,500+ hours. Additional updates to the flight control computer software for further redundancy and safety".

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

Re: Boeing

#264733

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » November 16th, 2019, 1:07 pm

16th November 2019
Boeing is pressuring the FAA to clear the 737 Max to fly sooner, even as some airline staff beg not to be put back on it

Reports by The New York Times and Reuters suggest that Boeing has pushed FAA officials to speed up testing and permit early deliveries of the plane.

At the same time, airline crew and pilots are pushing back against any expedited timescale for the Max's return, with some begging not to be assigned to the jets even after they return to service.

The Times reported that Dickson was personally lobbied by Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg over the request to begin deliveries sooner, and has yet to make a decision.

If true, disturbing at the very least. If Muilenburg has tried to influence Stephen Dickson (Head of FAA) this isn't going to do Muilenburg, his team or Boeing any great favours. If such an allegation turned out to be true it could be a view into the mindset of Boeing's senior management team and once again raise that ultimate question ... which comes first at Boeing - safety or sales?

I continue to remain totally perplexed at Boeings stock price. It seems excessive given the huge amount of uncertainty about the future of the Max. Sentiment amongst US aircrews to get back on this vehicle seems to be well and truly north of conservative apprehension. If aircrew need to be pacified before returning to the vehicle then what are potential passengers going to need. And [if] Muilenburg is "personally" attempting to influence the FAA in anyway he may find undue focus upon such behaviour.

AiY

BobGe
Lemon Slice
Posts: 550
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 12:49 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: Boeing

#265034

Postby BobGe » November 18th, 2019, 3:24 am

Frankly I can't see many passengers looking forward to be being carried on this plane and I can understand that cabin crew would be equally reluctant until such times as it can be proven and seen to be safe. That could be some years away.

Traditionally one had confidence in the pilot (and crew, where appropriate) to fly the plane, to deal with anything that cropped up and to make the decision when the plane was not fit to fly. The 737 Max has invalidated this.

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

Re: Boeing

#265226

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » November 18th, 2019, 7:54 pm

18th November 2019
Boeing Directors Sued Over Missed Warning Signs on 737 Max 8

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-d ... oygxPGGnbV

The case is Kirby Family Partnership LP v. Dennis Muilenburg, 2019-0907, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington)

AiY

monabri
Lemon Half
Posts: 8396
Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 1539 times
Been thanked: 3428 times

Re: Boeing

#265870

Postby monabri » November 20th, 2019, 8:00 pm

"BOEING MUST RETROFIT ENGINES ON 7,000 ACTIVE PASSENGER PLANES AFTER WOMAN SUCKED OUT OF WINDOW IN FATAL ACCIDENT"


"737 troubles have multiplied. The planemaker’s Max model is grounded worldwide after two fatal crashes – and now it has agreed to “retrofit” 7,000 older models of the aircraft to avoid a repeat of an inflight tragedy."

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 10171.html

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3492
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 1280 times

Re: Boeing

#265878

Postby richfool » November 20th, 2019, 8:37 pm

On Channel 4 TV tonight at 9.00pm: Boeing's Killer Plane: What Went Wrong?"

(It conflicts with The Apprentice on BBC1!)

BobGe
Lemon Slice
Posts: 550
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 12:49 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: Boeing

#267837

Postby BobGe » November 28th, 2019, 5:17 am

MCAS aside, if I understood this correctly and the observations within the program are accurate, it is puzzling that someone can design a mechanical trim system where the efficiency is such that the required manual (human) input may not or cannot provide sufficient output to overcome the resistance. Similarly, that would also suggest it was either untested, inadequately tested, or the test results were ignored. In brief, an emergency backup sytem which, in an emergency, simply may not or cannot work.

Just for my sanity, did others notice this?

(P.S. Apols that this is rather straying off topic.)

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

Re: Boeing

#267881

Postby dspp » November 28th, 2019, 10:03 am

BobGe wrote:MCAS aside, if I understood this correctly and the observations within the program are accurate, it is puzzling that someone can design a mechanical trim system where the efficiency is such that the required manual (human) input may not or cannot provide sufficient output to overcome the resistance. Similarly, that would also suggest it was either untested, inadequately tested, or the test results were ignored. In brief, an emergency backup sytem which, in an emergency, simply may not or cannot work.

Just for my sanity, did others notice this?

(P.S. Apols that this is rather straying off topic.)


The 737 has grandfathered certification, dating from the time when the certification rules were different. That is the central issue in this affair. International technical standards are deadly weapons in very many ways. (as an aside that is one reason why the USA hates the EU, because slowly, carefully, and remorseless rationally and logically the EU is wresting de facto control of global technical standards from the USA and moving them to either full shared ownership, or EU control.) If there were a sunset clause on grandfathering then the 737 would have been replaced by now, and Boeing would have had to accept a very large bill so as to generate the replacement aircraft, thereby placing it at a decade-long disadvantage compared to Airbus. Instead Boeing kept gambling, and so far has yet to completely lose the gamble (it will lose if the 'victims' court cases can be transferred to the USA).

regards, dspp

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

Re: Boeing

#269387

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 5th, 2019, 8:21 pm

5th December 2019
Boeing says 737 MAX approval delays could hit production

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... KKBN1Y928K

Significant additional regulatory requirements or delays in returning Boeing Co’s (BA.N) 737 MAX to commercial service could cause it to cut or temporarily halt production of the aircraft, it said in an Oct. 18 letter released on Thursday.

AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#269705

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 6th, 2019, 7:31 pm

6th December 2019
Boeing tries to reassure airline industry leaders about Max

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... x-67529647

The aircraft maker invited about 30 union officials, safety experts and others to the Seattle area for two days of meetings with Boeing executives and factory tours.

United’s Big Airbus Order Shows Boeing Really Needs To Build A Middle Market Plane
https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardabo ... 1dff7539e8

Total new jet orders have fallen to just around 500 (net of cancellations) this year at Airbus and Boeing combined; the A321neo, the most capable (and arguably only) middle market jet available today, took about 430 of these orders.

AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#269722

Postby djbenedict » December 6th, 2019, 8:43 pm

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!

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Boeing

#269725

Postby Lootman » December 6th, 2019, 9:30 pm

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.

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

Re: Boeing

#270000

Postby AsleepInYorkshire » December 8th, 2019, 9:18 pm

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.

The Titanic sank. Over a hundred years later we are still intrigued by this event. We still look for a reason that will explain the loss. And that list has grown over the decades. Ultimately, I would suggest, this wasn't the result of a single event. It was the consequence of a series of happenings. What probably happened was the Titanic sank not due to one issue, but due to a series of events.

  • A weakened bulkhead caused by a fire in a coal bunker
  • Weak rivets that couldn't withstand the pressure of the collision
  • Sailing too fast
  • Missing binoculars in the crows nest
  • Bulkheads that weren't high enough
  • An inordinate loss of life due to a shortage of lifeboats, exacerbated by ill trained crew and a captain incapable of taking control of the situation
  • Mill pond conditions reducing the extent of vision
  • A race between competing companies to ferry passengers over the Atlantic at ever more faster speeds and lower costs
The White Star Line survived for another 20 years after this. Cunard, White Stars competitor did a little better.

I'm not convinced that shorting Boeing would be hazardous. Indeed all the evidence suggests it's a company in a lot of trouble. Any recovery, if it happens, is going to take decades. There are no more stock buy back rabbits in the hat. This is a company whose board is convinced it can talk its way out of a deep dark cavern it has created for itself. The reality, in my humble opinion is this ship has already struck the iceberg. This isn't a case of limping into harbour to be fixed up and sail off into the lovely blue yonder. This is the start of a very slow death. No ... that started years ago when the board of Boeing convinced themselves that they had to, and indeed could rival the Airbus NEO. And from there nothing was going to get in their way. They purchased their own stock in a crude bid to improve the companies EPS. But the stark reality, in my opinion was this money should have gone into R&D for the next generation of vehicle.

Boeing's survival has never been in doubt. However, intrinsically linking the survival of Boeing to that of the shareholders is very optimistic in the least.

Let's imagine that Boeing get this vehicle back into service. And let's assume that the flying public use the vehicle in sufficient quantities to make it viable. Then what? More share buy-backs? Less R&D? Reliance upon state orders? Boeings cash cow, the 737 Max, is grounded. Boeing has continued to make the vehicle, albeit in smaller numbers. Boeing has gone to the bond market for support.

Not long ago I replied to one of your posts which lamented my choice of words. I don't recall a reply?

I've copied my response to that post below. I would suggest that since my post nothing has improved for Boeing. And that despite their CEO claiming the vehicle would fly again before Xmas. I'd invite you to substantiate the claim that Boeing stock could return to $450-500. Perhaps you could throw a few numbers in there based upon current and future sales of the 737 Max which would support an EPS capable of sustaining a price of $450. And I would also invite you to substantiate your claim that the market price underpins the real value of this stock as your claim earlier in this thread.

July 14th, 2019, 11:04 am
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
Lootman wrote:
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.

Fair point. Clearly the market doesn't think the company is going to fail. This puts me in a very vulnerable position when I say that I feel it's not quite as rosy as the current price belies. I wonder if the price has detached from the underlying value of the business? Has the market got it wrong? I would be barking mad to ignore the current price and argue that Boeing is in serious trouble. Ultimately I could end up sucking a very bitter lemon and looking rather foolish.

That’s a risk I am prepared to take. You may of course, reserve the right, to come back and say “I told you so” :roll: I dare say it won't be the first or last time I have been foolish :lol:
Lootman wrote:Boeing shares went up fourteen-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

Another fair comment. Again it puts me out on a fools limb as I have not deferred to these statistics.
Lootman wrote: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.

Yes. The Rolls Royce engines have been the cause of some issues.

All the points you refer to are solid fact. And in there own right, alongside the current share price, it could be argued that they underpin a robust business that isn’t in any trouble. It would be reasonable to assume the market has got it right.

Yet I am currently not convinced.

I believe that Boeing can only continue in its current configuration if certain events unfold. And let me clarify that please. If any one of these don’t occur then at the very least Boeing will need to re-organise its structure.

  • The Max returns to service
  • The take up by global passengers is significant. In other words they forget the crashes
  • The FAA take back those controls handed to Boeing of certifying the safety of aircraft
  • Boeing commence design and development of a new single aisle aircraft
  • There’s no real downturn in growth of air travel

Return to Service
No matter how small there’s a chance the Max will not be certified to return to service. I think it will return. In the interim the time it takes to achieve certification only serves to amplify the damage being done to its future viability. Many airlines, currently unable to fly the Max are beginning to lose a share of the market they fought hard to secure. This may influence their choice when they purchase replacements for their future fleets.

Passenger Take Up
Information is available globally almost instantaneously. For the most the audience is more educated than it was 50 years ago. It’s more likely to refuse to fly on the Max when it returns to 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?

The FAA & Aircraft Safety – In Particular the Boeing 737 Max
Let me be absolutely blunt. Boeing have attempted to modernise an old out of date aircraft. It almost worked. But almost isn’t good enough. Boeings attempt to polish a turd has failed. Management at Boeing convinced themselves that they could get one more “iteration” from an old, tired and beleaguered vehicle. To ensure the success of their idea they have lobbied to take control of safety certification. The latter was clearly done not for the benefit of the flying public but Boeing itself. How anyone other than the board at Boeing can argue that self-certification improves the safety of an aircraft really beggars belief. And indeed it’s entirely possible that when the results of the investigation come out this will be proven. I’d suggest that after the first aircraft crashed Boeing continued down their blinkered and self-fulfilling path and denied any wrong with their vehicle. I’ve said in previous posts that I felt management were asleep at the wheel. Maybe they weren’t. Maybe they knew they had a serious issue? And God forbid that they did.

Single Aisle Aircraft Sales
Lootman wrote: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.

Airbus have slowly but surely stolen market share from Boeing who have not invested in the development of a new single aisle aircraft. Boeing have left themselves with no other option than to roll the dice and “hope” that the Max would tied them over the ensuing gap in development. And with all their eggs in one basket they could not afford to allow any bump in the road to get in the way.

The reality is that Boeing have invested in new aircraft that do not represent the largest market. Single aisle vehicles dominate market share. Literally the survival of Boeings Aircraft Division relies upon the Max.

Five Basic Facts About Boeing Missing From Coverage Of the 737 MAX Story
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... c2e5b4521b

737 MAX isn’t just one of the jetliners in Boeing’s commercial product mix, it is the pivotal offering of the entire enterprise. Over 80% of the company’s order backlog is commercial airplanes, and four out of five of those commercial planes are 737s. The company’s latest 20-year forecast of demand for jetliners projects that 74% of the 44,000 commercial transports ordered worldwide over the next 20 years will be single-aisle aircraft, and 737 is the only single-aisle jetliner Boeing makes.

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. 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.


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.

Boeings Dreamliner Design & Build Costs
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. The Dreamliner events may evidence that Boeing lack the necessary skills to deliver a new single aisle aircraft on time and within budget. They have clearly been misguided about their abilities to deliver a safe and viable Max iteration.

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.

History Share Price Detachment
History is littered with the demise and fall of large companies. The Royal Bank of Scotland fell from grace just over a decade ago.
http://tools.morningstar.co.uk/uk/stock ... 0P000090MW]3]0]E0WWE$$ALL

It’s interesting to note that the share price of RBoS rose just over 14 times from September 1992 to March 2007. It may also be worth noting that the current share price is below that of 1988 and 1992.

Boeing Can't Fail its too Important
RBoS was not allowed to fail. The shareholders haven't been protected though.

AiY

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

Re: Boeing

#270004

Postby dspp » December 8th, 2019, 10:18 pm

AsleepInYorkshire wrote:
Let's imagine that Boeing get this vehicle back into service. And let's assume that the flying public use the vehicle in sufficient quantities to make it viable. Then what? More share buy-backs? Less R&D? Reliance upon state orders? Boeings cash cow, the 737 Max, is grounded. Boeing has continued to make the vehicle, albeit in smaller numbers. Boeing has gone to the bond market for support.

Not long ago I replied to one of your posts which lamented my choice of words. I don't recall a reply?
AiY


AiY,

It wasn't me you were responding to above, but let me have a go.

Assume the 737-MAX gets a second chance with MCAS-revisited and god-knows-what-else-fixed with service resumed within a year from now. Then you are absolutely correct there needs to be a replacement aircraft PDQ in the relevant (MMA) segment. My suggestion would be that for military-industrial reasons Uncle Sam would slide a huge wodge to Boeing one way or another to tide Boeing over, and to subsidise the development of the MMA. There are a myriad different ways that wodge can get slid over the table to Boeing. And with no WTO appelate panel there's not even a referee in place. So. much as I agree with you that Boeing cultural decline has led via very direct path to the MCAS & 837-MAX tragedy, I do not expect it to lead to the death & dismemberment of Boeing unless something unusual happens. The reality is that the number of airframe primes in USA has dwindled to the point where Boeing cannot be allowed to fail, or another must take its place.

But does that make Boeing a good bet for an investment, mmmmm.... not sure.

(if on the other hand FAA, EASA, China Aviation Authority, all dig their heels in and demand better, and 737-MAX does not resume service within 12-months, then it will be a different pathway. In that case Boeing might not survive in its current form. In that case, may I humbly suggest, the real wild card is how Space X allows for and indeed provokes a much more radical restructuring of the US aerospace primes. There is no meaningful way for a retail punter to go long on Space X btw).

regards,
dspp


Return to “Stocks and Share Dealing Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Salvelinus and 8 guests