Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"How Boeing Blew The Dreamliner"  
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7437 posts, RR: 62
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21515 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...dels/BoeingBendsThePlaneTruth.aspx


I was a bit surprised to read email and come across this article on MSN this morning. While the article is geared toward investors, I'm wondering how the aviation community perceives the article.


Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
62 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20322 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21460 times:

Quoting Mirrodie (Thread starter):
"How Boeing Blew The Dreamliner"  

The article was about accounting tricks and the effect on earnings and stock price. Where does the article even hint that "Boeing Blew The Dreamliner"? In what way? They're just a bit late.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21463 times:

Nice "I told you so" piece, but there's not really much substance to it. Besides, the guy is still standing by his -- wrong -- premise from last year, which was:

Quote:
All I had observed was that Boeing in the past had rarely built a new aircraft on time when the planes were constructed in the Greater Seattle area.

It's actually the opposite, which is that Boeing in the past had rarely built a new aircraft late. So he took a wild guess last year based on hearsay in the aviation community and he comes up right. That does not mean his analysis was good nor that Boeing was playing with less than a full deck of cards.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21273 times:

It just shows how most investors don't understand what they are investing in. Those who bought Boeing stock (ticker BA) based on the fact Boeing was selling B-787s all over the place, had no idea just how much of a leap forward in technology it is.

Now Boeing announced a 6 month delay in the B-787 program, and investors bail out?

Are they really as stupid as they appear to be?

The delay is really nothing and does not effect the long range timing of the B-787 deliveries. Yes, Boeing will probibly pay out a few penalties to NH, JL, and NW. But, it seems they have excepted that.

You would think this new program is the first ever to be delayed. Well, it is not, and (so far) it is only 6 months, and the first flight is still scheduled for next month. The delay is all based on spinning the subcontractors up with their production (stuffing barrel sections, etc.) It seems to me the A-380 program had 3 different delays, for a total of 2 years, and they still don't have a production certificate.


User currently offlineUnknownUser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21153 times:

What an idiot, he has no idea what he is talking about. Very typical, though.

User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 21095 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
and the first flight is still scheduled for next month

Well that's not true


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20748 times:

Everybody that dared to say a lot of new technology involved on the 787 meant risking delays and doubted the aircraft would fly / be delivered on time was personally attacked, deleted and ridiculed here on a.net.

Now that reality is kicking in, they are attacked for arrogance, lack of knowledge, "I told you so" by the same folks when they refer to documented statements on the subject.

Embarrassing IMO.


User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7437 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20700 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 1):
Where does the article even hint that "Boeing Blew The Dreamliner"? In what way?

I'd attach a screenshot, but I'm in a hurry. But if you type in www.msn.com, toward the middle right of the page, that was the headline that caught my eye. It worked.

it says:

Money
How Boeing blew it on Dreamliner BofA misses big on earnings Best 'starter cities' for young couples Money expert: What I got wrong Best Buy pulls plug on analog TVs



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20669 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Everybody that dared to say a lot of new technology involved on the 787 meant risking delays and doubted the aircraft would fly / be delivered on time was personally attacked, deleted and ridiculed here on a.net.

Indeed. Been there.

Cost - Schedule - Performance (i.e. Technology). One of the three had to give, and IMO Boeing has been wise in managing the problem (though it would have been wiser to not paint itself into that corner in the first place).


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4608 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20534 times:

Quoting Mrocktor (Reply 8):
Cost - Schedule - Performance (i.e. Technology). One of the three had to give, and IMO Boeing has been wise in managing the problem (though it would have been wiser to not paint itself into that corner in the first place).


And it was the schedule part that cost Mike Bair his job running the project. In the September web cast he was much too insistent that all was well when it wasn't.
The Jack Welch G.E. culture in which McNerney is steeped cannot accept such failure.


User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2199 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20443 times:

Often the best returns come from venture with a degree of risk to them. If you want safe stay in the blue chip stocks. If you want higher returns in a shorter period you have to up your tolerance of risk. Any investor that bails at this stage with the 787 will be very sorry they did so when things are really humming. The 767 tanker order should rightly have more impact that the 787 at this stage. If an investor needs to bail at this stage they shouldn't have been in the game anyways.

User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20441 times:

Funny I came across this topic. I emailed MSN on this article about an hour ago...told them the culmination of my thoughts, which is pretty much in-line with the majority of the replies above.


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineAF2323 From France, joined Aug 2007, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19682 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It seems to me the A-380 program had 3 different delays, for a total of 2 years

Actually, it's 18 months late, not 2 years.


User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 19681 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Are they really as stupid as they appear to be?

No one is stupid because they don't know about AC, I think you went too far with your post.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
the first flight is still scheduled for next month.

You are wrong, first flight will be next year.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
It seems to me the A-380 program had 3 different delays, for a total of 2 years, and they still don't have a production certificate.

A380 has nothing to do here.


User currently offlineStarCityFlyr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 18814 times:

Speaking strictly from a passenger perspective, I think the writer in the MSN article is full of baloney. He reminds me of most of the "whiny know-it-all Wall Street" types that don't have a clue as to what is happening in the real world.

Did Boeing have an aggressive schedule for the Dreamliner? Sure. That's what Wall Street expected and demanded. Is Boeing wise for delaying the program until the issues are worked out? YES! It would be far more catastrophic on the company to put a product out in the market that is flawed in any way shape or form that could potentially be life threatening just to get it out early or on some time schedule that is put forth just to appease Wall Street. Talk about a screaming Wall Street...now that would do it.

I prefer Boeing to fly a safe and well tested airframe before selling it to the market. Same holds true for Airbus or any other aircraft manufacturer.

Just my two cents worth.


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 18323 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 6):
Everybody that dared to say a lot of new technology involved on the 787 meant risking delays and doubted the aircraft would fly / be delivered on time was personally attacked, deleted and ridiculed

Yes, the 787 has a lot of new technology. But did it occur to anyone that Boeing already "baked" into the project schedule contingencies? So had Boeing said back in 2004 when they launched the program that EIS would be 2009 (or 2010), would the naysayers have shut up or would people still have been saying "a lot of new technology involved on the 787 means risking delays"? At what point is enough development time enough?

In the final analysis, the delays on the 787 seem to have very little to do with all the whiz-bang technology and everything to do with the supply chain. So despite the fact this analyst's predictions came to fruition, they are for all the reasons he did NOT predict.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 17869 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The author penned an article last year that claimed Boeing would be late with the 787 and the company's shares would plummet.

Well, she's late and the shares remain stable (some movement, but nothing dramatic). So he has to pen a new article spreading more doom and gloom to try and knock the shares down some more (just checking my iPhone and BA is up $0.86) to bring his "prophecy" true.

I guess he's taking lessons from Richard A. on spin... Big grin


User currently offlineJustloveplanes From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 1002 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 17871 times:

Well, they haven't blown the Dreamliner, but the shine is off the silver. The have lost a big part of their PR advantage over Airbus. That PR perception was a strong sales tool in negotiating that they just lost. All the justifcations are valid, but this really negates a big advantage Boeing had. If they can somehow get the bird off 3 months instead of 6 months late, it will help, but a clink in the armor is a clink in the armor.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 17811 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Justloveplanes (Reply 17):
Well, they haven't blown the Dreamliner, but the shine is off the silver. The have lost a big part of their PR advantage over Airbus. That PR perception was a strong sales tool in negotiating that they just lost.

Bah. They still have close to four times the sales and will still enter service years before the A350, which itself may encounter problems (knock on wood it doesn't). Hence the reason the stock has remained stable.


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 17752 times:

The world isn't going to gloom and doom, folks. Boeing still sold over 700 of the 787 and the best is yet to come in a couple of years when the model -3 goes up for sale. This is the domestic version that will take the place of th 767.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4253 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16601 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Now Boeing announced a 6 month delay in the B-787 program, and investors bail out?

Are they really as stupid as they appear to be?

Well, stupid investors would bail. Traders on the other hand have no interest in investing and are much more hair trigger when it comes to when to buy and when to sell.

Quoting StarCityFlyr (Reply 14):
Speaking strictly from a passenger perspective, I think the writer in the MSN article is full of baloney. He reminds me of most of the "whiny know-it-all Wall Street" types that don't have a clue as to what is happening in the real world.

People on Main Street invest, people on Wall Street trade, hence the disconnect from the "real world."


User currently offlineWAH64D From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 966 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15784 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 19):
The world isn't going to gloom and doom, folks. Boeing still sold over 700 of the 787 and the best is yet to come in a couple of years when the model -3 goes up for sale. This is the domestic version that will take the place of th 767.
safe

I'm afraid I disagree with that. The B787-3 is/will be a pig of an aircraft. Way too heavy for the range/missions it can fly. Lack of any competition in its sector and "niche-ism" for the Japanese domestic market explains its orders so far (exclusively Japanese). I can't see any of the US/European majors ordering that aircraft. Only 43 B787-3s have been ordered as opposed to 547 B787-8s and 120 B787-9s, I don't see many more -3s being ordered.



I AM the No-spotalotacus.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WAH64D (Reply 21):
I'm afraid I disagree with that.

And I am afraid I have to agree with that disagreement.

If the 787-3 flies outside of Asia and India, I'll be incredulous...


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 15590 times:

Boeing has more time to work the bugs out of the model 3 than it does with the models 7 or 8.
I was referring to replacing the 767-200's which are mid 1980 and late 1980 vintage airplanes.
The timing is right to start to replace these in 2010 thru apx 2014. As you know, some model 200s have
already been scrapped.
The is nothing else out there AT THIS TIME to compete with the model 3 sales window.
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14778 times:

Nothing said about the B748? Is the delay of this aircraft due to B787 problems, they share a lot of new technology....

25 DAYflyer : Yes. Show them a 777 and they think it is a 787 every time. Some of it anyway. I do fear further delays could seriously dampen the enthusiasm of the
26 Post contains images Art : True. Any sign of revisionist thinking (a la Boeing might have to revise its delivery schedule) was roundly condemned by the members of the Central C
27 Stitch : FWIW, I overheard some 747-8I engineers at lunch the other day and they were talking as if the program was still on plan.
28 Justloveplanes : I don't think Wise is the right word. They really don't have a choice. The stock is leveling off, and imaging Leahy in the sales meeting last month f
29 Post contains images Stitch : And yet, even with the delays, Boeing will have been building and delivering 787s for years and years and years before Airbus delivers their first on
30 FAEDC3 : Sorry but no, shares had not been leveling off, stock has fallen more than $10 since Oct 1st, and has not jumped back to 105 per share. Todays closin
31 Post contains images FAEDC3 : Sorry a typo, closing price was $96.94/share today
32 AirNZ : Can someone explain to me why you feel the need to bring A380 and A350 into the discussion on an article exclusively about Boeing??? Is there some st
33 EI321 : The 787-3 is already for sale. It is not selling very well, for reasons outlined above.
34 Stitch : And it's 52-week high is $30 more then it's 52-week low. And it's doubled over the last three years. And it's beating the returns of other stocks in
35 EI321 : Guys regards to stock prices just bear in mind that we are not in normal market conditions.
36 RedFlyer : When or what is considered "normal" market conditions?
37 FAEDC3 : You are right Stitch, one helluva stock, there is no question about it. But let me clarify my post: - The stock is not levelling off, is has fallen,
38 Post contains images AviationNut : You are spot on KC135TopBoom, the ordinary investor on the street wouldn't know about the principles of flight, let alone the latest materials being
39 Pellegrine : I'm not really a proponent of either side, but why do you think the stock bounced back post-10/15? 787 exposure for BA is much less than the A380 for
40 Post contains images Stitch : It's trading within a very narrow range. It went up today, even though the market as a whole fell. The MSNBC author expected the stock to drop signif
41 CaptainJon : I am a BA investor, and as the big guys keep selling, I keep buying. I love aviation, I love Boeing, and I love BA stock (and AAPL I might as well add
42 Post contains images FAEDC3 : Stock has not bounced back really... it hitted $94.45 (low) and closed at $94.83 on 10/15, now it has gotten to 96.94, more like a hiccup to me We ar
43 Charles79 : Probably the most intelligent post in this thread. I hold no personal preferences for either manufacturer, but from an objective point of view it alw
44 Justloveplanes : What I meant (and tried to say) was that Boeing had a huge PR/Sales stick to swing in sales meeting regarding credibility versus Airbus when there wa
45 Mike89406 : Let me just say if anyone works in the aircraft industry like i do delays happen and even more often than people would think. It happens quite a bit i
46 AY104 : I am certain that Boeing is doing everything possible to deliver the aircraft as close as they can to scheduled delivery. The delay benefits nobody, p
47 Post contains links PhilSquares : The 27 Sept issue of "The Economist" had an interesting piece on the 787 and Boeing. Very different perspective than some of the "opinions" posted her
48 Post contains images Stitch : It cuts both ways, believe me. The Airbus folks are just a bit more...oblique...about it. I never bought the line that airlines buy Boeing because th
49 Astuteman : Indeed not! This plane is going to sell in the thousands, and be a huge asset for the customer airlines, not to mention source of cash for Boeing and
50 Isitsafenow : Its early yet. Like I said, come back in few years after the bugs are worked out of the 787, and after the 767-200 has a few thousand more cycles on e
51 Post contains images Leskova : After all, if the manufacturer "underpromise[s] and overdeliver[s]", it can land an airline with a plane that doesn't fit their requirements as much
52 Stitch : The 787-3's certification is only hung-up in Europe, and only because EASA is supposedly charging more to certify it then the JAA and FAA are. I imagi
53 Post contains images FAEDC3 : First of all, let me tell you Stitch, that I am am BA stock lover as any investor looking for good returns, my firm has BA in the list of recommended
54 Post contains images Stitch : But they did do so, and did so at their normal Investors Conference Call. They didn't say "everything is fine" at the ICC, and then the next day anno
55 Post contains images Stitch : Also, site issues don't allow me to edit posts, but I do want to thank you, FAEDC3, for your input and opinions.
56 Tdscanuck : It's not about relative costs, it's about return on investment. Boeing has to certify it with the FAA (because that's where Boeing is) and the JAA (b
57 Post contains images FAEDC3 : Agreed.... as wide as my Aunt Laura´s waist, and that is some waist!! Agreed, I did bought it, and also did recommend it to my customers, we are all
58 Post contains images WingedMigrator : This is amusing... and if you had bought stock right after the June 2006 surprise delay announcement (when EADS stock tanked), today you'd be 24% furt
59 Post contains images Stitch : Well there you go. Neither company has been a poor long-term investment, even with their issues.
60 Post contains images Isitsafenow : I was figuring on selling a few in North America. We keep reading about air travel growth and too many planes. We read right here at A net .."bigger
61 Boeing7E7 : Those things took place because you had no basis for your statement. It was pure conjecture. US Carriers have no choice but to order them due to mark
62 Boeing7E7 : US Carriers have no choice but to order them due to market operational constraints. No one is building runways and the FAA is hell bent on slot alloc
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A Telling Tale: How Boeing Blew The Frontier Order posted Thu Oct 21 1999 18:57:59 by MAC_Veteran
Pilots: How Insulting Is The "bus Driver" Commet? posted Sat Apr 10 2004 02:47:23 by Lehpron
How Boeing Delivers The 787 To Its Customers? posted Mon Apr 23 2007 21:17:36 by EA772LR
How Do You Imagine The "new" 737 posted Tue Sep 18 2007 18:58:49 by LY777
Boeing 73G - What Does The "G" Mean? posted Wed Jun 2 2004 10:39:17 by CRJ900
How To Cure The "fear Of Flying"? posted Sat Feb 17 2001 19:02:28 by Fear_of_fly
Why Did Boeing Choose The Number "7" posted Mon Aug 21 2000 17:37:46 by Euroflyer
Horizon Air Introduces The " Slog Campaign" posted Fri Sep 7 2007 22:02:09 by Socalatc
Should Airbus Have Built The "A325" Instead? posted Tue Jul 10 2007 13:19:28 by MBJ2000
Has UA Mastered The "Hub"? posted Fri Jun 29 2007 02:12:13 by Boston92