UALMMFlyer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 135 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15097 times:
Quote: LONDON Jan 22, 2007(MarketWatch) -- Wachovia Securities downgraded the Boeing Co. to market perform from outperform, citing its belief that the commercial aircraft order cycle has peaked. The broker also told clients it's concerned about potential delays on the 787 program, citing contacts deep within Boeing's supply chain. Wachovia said it's been told that suppliers to the program are unhappy with the costs of maintaining schedule and are demanding more money. The broker said the negotiations could result in additional increases in R&D costs if the suppliers get their way.
Suppliers must be really unhappy to leak this to the Investment Bankers. Leak to the press is one thing, but to the investors is anoher.
I am not sure how to read into this, but I do expect additional impact to the Boeing financials and break-even amount of 787. Hope it does not have impact on the operational and production side.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14987 times:
Quoting UALMMFlyer (Thread starter): I am not sure how to read into this, but I do expect additional impact to the Boeing financials and break-even amount of 787. Hope it does not have impact on the operational and production side.
Thanks for the post, UALMMFlyer.
I don't see anything surprising about suppliers demanding more money for accellerating the programme. I'd personally guess the anticipated market slow-down is more of an issue. Boeing stock has risen hugely. Presumably Wachovia think that all of the upside is now built in to the stock price.
The biggest risk for the 787 I guess is that the acceleration doesn't happen as planned, and delays put the 787 into penalty payment mode.
That is the one and only downside I can see of such a large, successful backlog for the 787 before EIS, and talks of accellerated ramp-ups. If it doesn't happen to plan........
Greed has a funny way of backfiring........ I hope it doesn't.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14925 times:
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 1): The biggest risk for the 787 I guess is that the acceleration doesn't happen as planned, and delays put the 787 into penalty payment mode.
That is the one and only downside I can see of such a large, successful backlog for the 787 before EIS, and talks of accellerated ramp-ups.
Wouldn't that just put the B-787 program back to the original schedule?
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14903 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): Wouldn't that just put the B-787 program back to the original schedule?
Possibly, but I think the important question is more one of whether an accellerated rate has been "sold-forward" in the orders that have been placed.
And I honestly wouldn't know.
Reggaebird From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14794 times:
It seems to me that there are quite a few people out there who are almost praying for Boeing to have problems. Nonetheless, the good thing here is that Boeing is most certainly going to do a better job at addressing any potential issues with the 787 than Airbus did with its Whalejet program. That's precisely because Boeing is so beholden to its investors whereas Airbus cares less about investors as it can always get financial support from its EU governmental backers if things go too badly.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, RR: 65 Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14658 times:
Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 4): It seems to me that there are quite a few people out there who are almost praying for Boeing to have problems.
You haven't been exactly reticent yourself at gloating over headaches at Airbus. It's a little ugly when either 'side' wishes the other ill.
No doubt Boeing will stub their toe now and again over the 787 (it's an ambitious and complicated undertaking) but it beggars belief that a successful programme like this will come seriously acropper.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14645 times:
Quoting UALMMFlyer (Thread starter): Suppliers must be really unhappy to leak this to the Investment Bankers. Leak to the press is one thing, but to the investors is another.
Well they probably have their own financials to worry about, so if their stock and credit ratings are being downgraded in the short-term as they pour money into ramping up production, they're going to want to try and "justify" that to the Market so the hit won't be as bad.
Quoting UALMMFlyer (Thread starter): I am not sure how to read into this, but I do expect additional impact to the Boeing financials and break-even amount of 787. Hope it does not have impact on the operational and production side.
Boeing has picked up the cost of some suppliers (getting it back in discounted parts), so Wachovia does have a precedent to make their prediction that Boeing could increase up-front payments to suppliers, but that just means later deliveries will be cheaper then expected. So it should "wash out" in the end and not really hurt Boeing's financials.
Quoting Astuteman (Reply 1): I'd personally guess the anticipated market slow-down is more of an issue. Boeing stock has risen hugely. Presumably Wachovia think that all of the upside is now built in to the stock price.
While the domestic US airlines are expected to start their order cycles soon, now that they are back to profitability (for the moment), chances are their purchase patterns will be smaller and more spread out then some of the international ones.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14660 times:
Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 4): Nonetheless, the good thing here is that Boeing is most certainly going to do a better job at addressing any potential issues with the 787 than Airbus did with its Whalejet program.
whalejet, what is whalejet? do you mean the a380?
Anyway I think the 787 is just an aircraft and Boeing just a manufacturer. Slowly the magical dreamliner becomes a down to earth airliner. Hick-ups in production & certification are common to all new aircraft.
There is no reason the 787 would be an exception. Contrary introducing a lot of new technology at once & outsourcing this much probably doesn't have advantages only.
I think launch customers have calculated this in when they ordered it and possible delays will not really influence the long term succes of the aircraft.
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, RR: 96 Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14585 times:
Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 4): It seems to me that there are quite a few people out there who are almost praying for Boeing to have problems.
I hope that wasn't aimed at me - if it was your aim is poor.
There's a shopping list in my mind of things that I'm particularly keen to see the 787 prove to the industry.
They're all positive, and they depend on the programme's success .
Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 4): Nonetheless, the good thing here is that Boeing is most certainly going to do a better job at addressing any potential issues with the 787 than Airbus did with its Whalejet program
It's hard to imagine a scenario in which anyone could make a worse job.......
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14517 times:
O the perils of outsourcing and sales success!
IMO, Boeing needs to come to grips soon with the fact that their labor contract expires in 2008, which is right around the corner and when the 787 production will be ramping up. They can ill afford another strike and the unions know this. The IAM at Boeing is one of the last unions in the U.S. with serious clout. If I were king, I'd negotiate a 5-7 year contract and sweeten the deal by bringing more production "in house"--particularly on a 2nd 787 line.
BTW, Mr. Carson, if you're lurking, PM me for more thoughts....
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Christopherwoo From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 151 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14328 times:
Quoting Reggaebird (Reply 4): It seems to me that there are quite a few people out there who are almost praying for Boeing to have problems.
I may get fried for saying this, but I wouldn't mind seeing boeing have a few problems along the way. Its much better in the industry to have two competing companies but at the moment Boeing are doing a lot better than Airbus. I don't wish boeing ill, i just would like to see Boeing and Airbus back to competing against each other rather than Airbus playing catchup.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14204 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 7): Anyway I think the 787 is just an aircraft and Boeing just a manufacturer. Slowly the magical dreamliner becomes a down to earth airliner. Hick-ups in production & certification are common to all new aircraft.
If James McNerney and his kids start selling a lot of stock then we know the 787 is headed for trouble.
Khobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14093 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 7): whalejet, what is whalejet? do you mean the a380?
Perhaps he means what the British press, ATC, and Airport managers mean when they talk about the plane?
Quoting UALMMFlyer (Thread starter): he broker also told clients it's concerned about potential delays on the 787 program, citing contacts deep within Boeing's supply chain. Wachovia said it's been told that suppliers to the program are unhappy with the costs of maintaining schedule and are demanding more money.
So the 787 program is on schedule. Thank you Wachovia for yet more confirmation of that. And thank you for confirming that since the 787 program is doing so well, suppliers are wanting a bigger slice of the pie and are threatening to put the squeeze on Boeing with delays if Boeing doesn't cough up more money.
That is, after all, what the article is actually stating in black and white.
Lumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 21 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13885 times:
Conspiracy time.
Hmmm...I wonder if Wachovia took short positions in BA in the past few weeks?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
Leelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 13857 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 7): Anyway I think the 787 is just an aircraft and Boeing just a manufacturer. Slowly the magical dreamliner becomes a down to earth airliner. Hick-ups in production & certification are common to all new aircraft.
You continually and haughtily raise the "magical dreamliner" straw-man to knock down, usually in an absurd attempt to rationalize the "wiring harness imbroglio/industrialization fiasco" Airbus has suffered with the A380 program, which is truly unprecedented in the annals of commercial avation. No sensible observer ever thought that the 787 program was immune from "hick-ups in production & certification common to all new aircraft" or that Boeing wasn't undertaking considerable risk with this ambitious endeavor; nor, as you frequently suggest, has the manifest weight of the media coverage portrayed the situation as such. The clear undertone/subtext of the running "magical dreamliner storyline" you actively promote is your own fanciful notion that Boeing is pre-destined to suffer a similar or worse calamity with the 787 as Airbus/EADS has endured with the A380. We'll all soon find out whether or not you're truly as insightful as you think you are.
Flyorski From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 978 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13700 times:
I bet that with boeing doing so well the suppliers just want a larger slice of the pie.
Interesting that they asked for more money, as I thought that there was a lot of internal competition for the suppliers for the new 787, and boeing picked out only a small percentage of those looking for contracts. Maybe they think that now they are so valuable that boeing can not replace the contract and they can hence ask for more money. Or did I just hear wrong about the competition for the contracts?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13654 times:
Quoting Lumberton (Reply 9): IMO, Boeing needs to come to grips soon with the fact that their labor contract expires in 2008, which is right around the corner and when the 787 production will be ramping up. They can ill afford another strike and the unions know this. The IAM at Boeing is one of the last unions in the U.S. with serious clout. If I were king, I'd negotiate a 5-7 year contract and sweeten the deal by bringing more production "in house"--particularly on a 2nd 787 line.
On the other hand, IAM's labor actions the past two decades and the impact they have had on Boeing's immediate (delayed deliveries) and future (Airbus picking up orders and customers when Boeing couldn't deliver) bottom lines has compelled Boeing to outsource so much of the 787's production to begin with.
If the IAM gets too frisky because of their position with the 737, 747, 767, and 777 programs yet again, they may find themselves as irrelevant when it comes time to build Y1 and Y3 as they have become building Y2.
Pietro also said suppliers Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Alenia have fallen behind schedule.
"It is our understanding that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has caught up a bit but is still behind schedule," Pietro wrote in a client note. "Alenia by contrast appears to be the major culprit at this time, and we understand that Boeing has sent an army of engineers to help get the program back on track."
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13598 times:
Quoting Manni (Reply 19): Pietro also said suppliers Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Alenia have fallen behind schedule.
Well they have delivered the parts for at least the first bird, so at least Boeing should be able to proceed with the intitial build and test schedule.
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13553 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 20): Well they have delivered the parts for at least the first bird, so at least Boeing should be able to proceed with the intitial build and test schedule.
The parts are delivered, as you said, I look forward to see her first take off.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13552 times:
Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 16): Then I wonder why Airbus is going to ape Boeing by doing the same thing with the A350XWB?
Are they? (fuselage, bleedless, 4000 psi). Anyway much of the technology will be proven by 2012 (ever heard of concept "smart follower" ?)
Quoting Leelaw (Reply 15): You continually and haughtily raise the "magical dreamliner" straw-man to knock down, usually in an absurd attempt to rationalize the "wiring harness imbroglio/industrialization fiasco" Airbus has suffered with the A380 program, which is truly unprecedented in the annals of commercial avation.
Man, thnx, I hadn't looked at it myself like that
Well Boeing hired Seismicom to do it with great success! The 7e7/787 became more then just a new aircraft, a new era, a new way of travelling, futuristic, technical superior comeback kid, that deserves all the support it can get.
Back to the subject. I think the industry will be less surprized / shocked / dissapointed then some a.netters when the "usual" hick-ups occur. The 787 will do fine, even if it arrives somewhat later.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26700 posts, RR: 83 Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13429 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 22): think the industry will be less surprized / shocked / dissapointed then some a.netters when the "usual" hick-ups occur. The 787 will do fine, even if it arrives somewhat later.
Richard Abolufia (sic) just said much the same on local Seattle radio: "If it's a bit late, big deal. What matters most to the airlines is that it meets or exceeds it's performance targets."
25 Khobar: You point out a problem with Wachovia - they state the 787 is on schedule. They can't then claim it isn't (but they try to, eh?).
26 Astuteman: Whist explicity NOT commenting on the 787 , I'm sure I've heard this one before, relating to a different maufacturer's recent programme Not this one,
27 Zeke: Does the "initial build and test schedule" for the 787 also require the LCF to be certified ? People swore black and blue at me that the first and on
28 Leelaw: IMO, Boeing's "failure" to live-up to the promise of conceptual drawings isn't the major premise/gravamen/substance of your favorite ongoing "storyli
29 Leelaw: That will be of little solace to Boeing shareholders when the stock tanks as a result.
30 Mrocktor: Boeing set unrealistic goals for the 787. The "quality-cost-time" relationship is such that some things just can't be done, even more so in aviation .
31 Keesje: But potential delays of three to six months on Boeing's deliveries of its new, mid-range twin-aisle jet, the 787, caused the analysts to cut their rat
32 Ikramerica: This sounds like the meat of it. Not the entire story, as the Italian company seems to be behind schedule, but Wachovia is cutting because it senses
33 Lumberton: From Keesje's link: Italy...I knew it! The two month European vacation is the real culprit here!
34 474218: Why does it make any difference who something is leaked to? I take it that you think investor bankers can not read.
35 Khobar: Either the suppliers are unable to maintain the schedule, or the suppliers are unhappy about having to maintain the schedule. Wachovia can't have it
36 Stitch: Evidently not, since she is hauling parts from NGO to CHS. They were not flown on LCFs, but parts are at CHS so evidently Alenia Italy is shipping (m
37 DrExotica: Amazing ... You really have to admire the perspective of wishing another company ill just because their main competitor has screwed up and fumbled so
38 SEPilot: As an avid Boeing fan, I don't wish Airbus ill, I wish they'd get their house in order and offer real and meaningful competition. Two competent playe
39 Ikramerica: Sure they can. They can do or say whatever they want. Their job is to make themselves money, so if they decided that such statements at this point ar
40 Astuteman: Wachovia has used the words "potential" delays.......... Regards
41 Khobar: If the prototype takes to the skies come Summer, the stock will more than recover. It's interesting the Wachovia article claims suppliers are both be
42 Christopherwoo: All im saying is that i think the aviation industry needs two rivals. At the moment this isn't really the way, Airbus is just playing catch up for th
43 Leelaw: Mea Culpa. I should have said "if" rather than "when."
44 AndesSMF: Of course, the issue is the length of the delays. That is what the story is also saying. At the end of 2005, we all thought Boeing had reached a new
45 Wjcandee: My personal opinion is that this is just some dopey analyst at a not-usually-considered shop trying to make a name for himself.
46 Chuchoteur: I tend to think that both Boeing and Airbus are in it together. Any delay in any commercial aircraft program will dent the airlines, and as we all kno
47 Stitch: True, but considering none of the passenger A388 customers have cancelled after a two-year delay, and two of them have essentially doubled their resp
48 BoomBoom: Since the cardinal rule of investing is buy low, sell high, this may be the time to sell Boeing and buy EADS.
49 Ikramerica: Yep. Because that way they can be right no matter what happens at Boeing. Again, if they have knowledge of REAL delays, not rumors, the SEC should be
50 Astuteman: Truth may frequently be stranger than fiction ... That was pretty much my take on it, too.... Regards
51 Khobar: http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2007/01/22/daily1.html "Wachovia Securities downgraded the Boeing Co. to market perform from outperform, ba
52 NYC777: If you need a competitor to slip up in order for you to get back in the race then you have no business being in the race in the first place.[Edited 2
53 AirFrnt: That would be true if I believed for a moment that fundamental problems at Airbus have been dealt with. In particular: The effective write off of eve
54 Ikramerica: Yes. Right now, the firms make money in three big ways. 1. Trade volume 2. M and A 3. IPOs So, if giving "gravitas" to rumors of potential maybe prob
55 Keesje: Chief Executive Officer James McNerney has added $1 billion to the 787's research-and-development budget to better coordinate with suppliers and keep
56 AirFrnt: But you yourself quote the money line below: If (and when) Boeing comes out and says "we will have to delay the 787" then it's appropriate to start a
57 AndesSMF: Hard to really want to cancel your A380 orders, since there is nothing out there to match it. Same with the 787. The A350 is too far in the future fo
58 BoomBoom: Your problem is you tend to view Boeing through your Airbus experience. http://www.leeham.net/filelib/061029...%20Stanley_Boeing%20on%20track.pdf
59 Rheinbote: Right. Analysts are not that much concerned about Boeing being late. They are concerned about Boeing pouring on any emerging problem in order to stay
60 Khobar: Care to point to a particular post as evidence of being "attacked fiercely"? From what I read, at best naysayers were being hit with wet noodles and
61 Stitch: Boeing's management may indeed be taking a page from their Airbus counterparts and denying problems until they absolutely have to admit them. But eve
62 Tommytoyz: I am involved in the securities industry. Let me assure all here what analysts say can not be trusted. Ever since REG FD went into effect, they've bee
63 Keesje: Personal attacks, the usual discrediting the source all over the thread as you see. Some were deleted. But a question; aren´t you impressed by the b
64 Tommytoyz: You've hit it right on. That's exactly what they do. Only it's more sinister than you think. They don't care about trade commissions. They are net sh
65 Gbfra: I'm not an analyst but a journalist, but your statement makes me smile. How do you think information is made public in reality? By official announcem
66 Grantcv: This morning on TV (not sure which news channel), they pointed out that the particular analyst at Wachovia made a similar negative prediction about Bo
67 Tommytoyz: Consider there is the Sarbanes-Oxley. Making false public statements can be punishable by jail time now. Not to mention share holder lawsuits. If the
68 Stitch: Because such information wouldn't remain secret. And if it got out that Boeing was telling some customers they might miss delivery targets while tell
69 BoomBoom: Again, your perceptions are colored by your Airbus experience. Airbus had delays, so it follows Boeing must have delays. Airbus had cost overruns, so
70 TeamAmerica: They can be proud of the accomplishment, but I doubt anyone at Douglas ever got a laugh out of it. I long ago posted that the 787 was very ambitious
71 Keesje: No it seems - the first center wing box delivered last week from Fuji in Japan to Global Aeronautica in Charleston, SC, was sent without the wiring,
72 Leelaw: Unfortunately it seems beyond Keesje's ken that playing the roles of "gadfly" and "sage" simultaneuosly in the same discussion, let alone the same fo
73 NorCal: From the same article: "Boeing says its new 787 will meet its May, 2008 delivery date, despite some parts suppliers being behind schedule. And althou
74 Pygmalion: You need to quit rehashing old news. Boeing stated that for the first few aircraft, wiring and systems would be installed by Boeing personnel. So your
75 Toulouse: Juts two things to add: 1. You probably unfortunately are right, and I think the only reasons there may be some people out there with these silly noti
76 Halls120: You are presuming that when it comes to posts involving Boeing that Keesje has any credibilty to lose, of course. this thread has predictably become
77 Pygmalion: You know Toulouse, for the most part I agree with you. But when many post rumour and innuendo as fact... it doesnt help your case any.
78 AndesSMF: No, no, noooooo! It can't be!!!! I have to say that I usually find that going against predictions in what works best. But knowing simple market econo
79 SunriseValley: I think Boeings ace in the hole on this one is their ability to manage the supply chain. I believe issues such as this were anticipated and that extra
80 Pygmalion: Boeing stock will rise as the 787 comes out and whenever they announce the next competition to Airbus... ie Y3 or 737RS. If you feel the need to get o
81 Aeronut: If by customer delivery you all mean a "hand-over" ceremony to ANA and then back to hanger for months of mod-line activity its doable. There is basica
82 United787: This is exactly why I sold my Boeing stock two weeks ago. Because I don't for see the stock going up much more for two reasons: 1. I also think we wil
83 SSTsomeday: Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Not to mention the major US airlines that have yet to commit to the 787/350 in the most recent (2005/2006) ordering cycle. I
84 Ken777: Pygmalion gets it right: Maybe Boeing too this approach because of the problems Airbus was having with the 380 wiring, or maybe they just wanted to h
85 BoomBoom: I agree with you but I'll share what Goldman Sahcs says: http://www.leeham.net/filelib/EADS_22Nov06_GoldmanSachs.pdf
86 707lvr: All this makes me wish I'd sold my Boeing stock 35 years ago so I wouldn't have to watch it tank like this.
87 Pygmalion: Lets see. If you had 100.00 worth of Boeing stock in 1970 and sold it then, you would have $100. If you had kept it and you had sold it today instead,
88 Baron95: Mrocktor - Congratulations for making the most insightful observation on this thread. I happen to think you hit the nail right on the head. I'd phras
89 Baron95: I have a report (PDF) from Wachovia Securities about commercial aircraft orders, etc. I think it is a good background on the thinking behind the Wacho
90 Reggaebird: Wow!! Someone finally confirms what so many of us have known for ages. I find it refreshingly honest. Thank you Christopherwoo!!! However, I find it
92 Keesje: Well it seems we can't come to an agreement what is really happening at Boeing and possible consequences for the IES. Leaves no other option then wish
93 SEPilot: I believe you should judge any company's statements by their track record. Once someone is caught in a public lie they deserve to be labeled a liar,
94 Zeke: Have a look at the Boeing 737 AEW&C, aka Wedgetail, people are telling of estimates of it being maybe 7 years late.
95 Stitch: And Boeing's not been duplicative about those delays, along with other delays in DoD and NSA/NRO projects they are prime contractor on.
96 SEPilot: I am not familiar with these; but in any case, I am referring to civil airliners promised to customers.
97 TeamAmerica: We're talking civil aviation and you cite an airborne electronic warfare project? In any case, it's not the airframe that's holding back the Wedgetai
98 Leelaw: Here's an article in the Seattle Times reporting on Boeing's reaction to Mr. San Pietro's assertions: "Analyst's 787 doubts burn Boeing" http://seattl
99 Stitch: And so far Boeing has already earned back half of what it lost yesterday in market value...
100 Lumberton: Here's an excellent take-away from the article Leelaw linked: Time for Boeing and its unions to negotiate a long term labor agreement, 7 years IMO, an
101 Khobar: He said that, having outsourced the fabrication of most of the 787's airframe, "Boeing has no internal capability to manufacture the major components"
103 BoeingBus: My prediction is that the DreamLiner will be 8-12 weeks late... I don't think of this as a bad thing for Boeing. The most current time line was and it
105 Domokun: This is from the Seattle Times article: IIRC Boeing is disclosing information for the last quarter sometime relatively soon; telling such a bold-faced
107 Domokun: Which would make *this* week a bad time to lie. Thanks Leelaw..
108 Toulouse: Unfortunately you are very right there sir! I know. It's just amazing, isn't it?
109 TeamAmerica: It's not paranoia when they're really out to get you . There's a little piece of legislation called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that established "new or e
110 Zeke: The math is not mine, it is a RAAF estimate, fully operational readiness is expected to be that late. Engineering colleagues of mine in the RAAF said
111 Khobar: Boeing is delaying delivery specifically because of the problems with integration. Boeing will deliver two fully-functional frames to Australia - the
112 Par13del: So the "wedgetail" problem with integration into Australia's air defense network is an indication that the B787 could be late??????? Just trying to fi
113 Leelaw: "Aerospace Notebook: As more weigh in, Boeing stock recovers" By James Wallace, Seattle P-I Reporter http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/300857_air
114 AerospaceFan: From the very latest news, Leelaw, of both a quick rebound for Boeing's stock, and Wall Street commentary, excerpted in the article you cited, offered
115 SEPilot: Translation: Financial analysts have their own agendas, which have nothing to do with producing airplanes. Financial markets operate on whims, rumors
116 Manni: It appears that Mr. Pietro did not make this one up. The HeraldNet: 787 deadlines missed. http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/07/02/03/100bus_787001.cfm
117 QFFlyer: Souce please. When comments like this were written about A380 delays, links or other proof were always insisted on, why should this be any different?
118 Slz396: Quoting Zeke (Reply 94): Have a look at the Boeing 737 AEW&C, aka Wedgetail, people are telling of estimates of it being maybe 7 years late. Quoting Q
119 Zeke: Once the first is delivered it still will need to do its acceptance testing in Australia, the aircraft landing on Australian soil does not finish the
120 BoomBoom: And just who comprises this "Academy"? If it were anyone else but you, the prize certainly would go to the A380.
121 Jacobin777: ...rather than selectively quoting to meet you needs Manni, how about quoting the other part of the article which states.... "Earlier in the week, Ji
122 Rheinbote: Why is Boeing trying to pull off a stunt like completing flight tests within a timeframe of a mere 8 month, now that the competition is at least 6 yea
123 AirFrnt: I don't think that Boeing is diverging from their usual testing time line and strategy. Why would they push it? Development costs time, and research.
124 BoomBoom: Because they promised their customers delivery by a certain date, well before they even knew how Airbus would respond to the 787.[Edited 2007-02-04 0
125 Manni: That attitude can't be good for your health!. Here's what is written underneath the article... Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
126 BoomBoom: That's no excuse for not paraphrasing or summarizing the article accurately.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 135 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9136 posts, 
From Jamaica, joined Nov 1999, 1169 posts, 
From India, joined Feb 2005, 6715 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
.
From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
