Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5128 posts, RR: 22 Posted (9 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 13249 times:
The WSJ online edition hit with a headline an hour ago that says "Boeing Gets Big U.S. Order for 7E7s". I don't subscribe to the online edition, so I don't know if this is in addition to the CO order announced on Wednesday.
I don't know if 10 aircraft is exactly a "Big" order, so I'm inclined to think that this is new news. OTOH, it could be an article that didn't make it into Thursday's paper; I don't know if they published on Friday.
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 13098 times:
if i were a betting man i would say gordon and his band of texans are gonna jump in and get some, just a hunch
Gordon and his band of Texans already has jumped in and gotten some. If you look on Boeing's website, you will see a 7E7 flying in CO colors. The question is if another big 7E7 order is coming from a U.S. carrier....
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32620 posts, RR: 72
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 14 hours ago) and read 12926 times:
If another order is coming from a US airline, it is Northwest or American. I wouldn't be surprised to see American start ordering them, because they short-ranger version is prefect for their short/medium haul markets to the Caribbean and Latin America from Miami.
Before people keep on going "AA can't afford it blah blah blah", keep in mind we are talking about 2009-2010 here. They can place an order now with little or no financial obligation for another 3-4 years.
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5128 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 12675 times:
I hardly thinks that this merits a "Duh."
Respectfully, the Wall Street Journal often breaks stories on Boeing (and other large American industrial firms) before the markets open and before the companies officially announce them. That's sort of the point of being a business reporter -- to glean information and break stories before the companies issue their own press releases. Otherwise, I wouldn't read the newspaper; I would just monitor PR Newswire and corporate web sites for my business news.
Given that this is Sunday, perhaps Boeing was planning on announcing it tomorrow. All the articles over the weekend that I saw stated that Boeing was not giving up on the 200 number, even after the close of business on Friday.
Of course, as I note in my initial post, this could simply be the headline for an analytical article to appear in Monday's print edition regarding the CO order. However, as the CO order came on *Wednesday*, it just seemed odd to me that the WSJ would put the headline out to Yahoo! and others for the first time late on Sunday evening. It's possible. But it might well be something else. Hence, the intrigue.
Hoya From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 12588 times:
The article is about CO's order. I have access to the WSJ Online. However, this article is from Dec. 30, and not today.
Edit: The article is about CO. It came up as a new article because there were some corrections and updates to the one from Thursday. Allegedly in the original article, WSJ gave the specs for the 7E7-3 and not the 7E7-8 that CO ordered.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 13 hours ago) and read 12565 times:
I wanted to add what Wjcandee already did. The WSJ often is the first to press with such news. Given that they already obviously knew about the CO order and published a piece on it on Thursday, then there is a good chance there is an actual entirely new order for B7E7 since they published a separate article 4 days later.
I hope it is NWA or American. I hope it is not Primaris doubling its order though.
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 12 hours ago) and read 12083 times:
It's the article from 12/30/04 which has merely been been corrected, under "corrections and amplications" at the bottom of the article, to include the specs froms the 7e7-8 rather than 7e7-3 which were originally published.