In this recent issue of Entrepreneur, a investor's news service, they published an article by a stock rating service breaking down Boeing's recent stock price declines (over 19% over the last 6 months), as well as a mini-analysis of Boeing's gross sales and costs for the 3rd Quarter (as of September 30, 2021).

We here on A-net are familiar with Boeing's current and on-going troubles: They are still recovering from the MAX groundings. Production quality issues, especially with the 787. Delays in getting the B777X certified. Continuing problems in their Space and Military operations. A new COVID-19 variant that is negatively impacting international air travel.

Obviously, the results aren't pretty and this rating service cautions investors of the risks of investing in Boeing in its current situation. But the question arises, with the stock now trading below $200 per share, which is well below the 200-day moving average, is it time for risk-tolerant investors to buy Boeing?

It's an interesting read.

https://apple.news/AowHl-4qySz6NjFFQ1msnfQ

Revelation wrote:

One needs strong nerves to buy into a failing giant, IMO, especially one that shows no signs of understanding why it is where it is. You pretty much then are just left with the hope that someone somehow in-house can turn things around or a merger/buyout can release synergies.

Basically Boeing is now feeling like McDonnell-Douglas V2. Heavy debt load, current products treading water, behind the curve on investment in new product development, competitors already capturing key markets.

I don't invest in individual stocks, but if I did, Boeing would not be one I'd choose.

Boeing's military biz is still very lucrative, I don't see a whole lot of downside buying a stock at its 52-week low. I personally don't like Boeing stock though, it's too expensive. I'd buy commons of airlines and hold long on those right now. Especially some of the more financially stable ones like Alaska, Southwest or Delta.

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Revelation wrote:

One needs strong nerves to buy into a failing giant, IMO, especially one that shows no signs of understanding why it is where it is. You pretty much then are just left with the hope that someone somehow in-house can turn things around or a merger/buyout can release synergies.

Basically Boeing is now feeling like McDonnell-Douglas V2. Heavy debt load, current products treading water, behind the curve on investment in new product development, competitors already capturing key markets.

I don't invest in individual stocks, but if I did, Boeing would not be one I'd choose.

Boeing's military biz is still very lucrative, I don't see a whole lot of downside buying a stock at its 52-week low. I personally don't like Boeing stock though, it's too expensive. I'd buy commons of airlines and hold long on those right now. Especially some of the more financially stable ones like Alaska, Southwest or Delta.

Here's a current list of Boeing's top institutional investors, as well as the mutual funds holding Boeing's stock. Vanguard's mutual funds are staples in most 401K plans, so even the "Working Joe" is being exposed to Boeing's stock troubles to some degree. It will be interesting to see how these funds and I-investors choose to react in the coming days. Do they just bail on Boeing, or do they go "activist" and go after Boeing's board and C-Suite calling for "heads to roll"?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/holders?p=BA

FLALEFTY wrote:

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Revelation wrote:

One needs strong nerves to buy into a failing giant, IMO, especially one that shows no signs of understanding why it is where it is. You pretty much then are just left with the hope that someone somehow in-house can turn things around or a merger/buyout can release synergies.

Basically Boeing is now feeling like McDonnell-Douglas V2. Heavy debt load, current products treading water, behind the curve on investment in new product development, competitors already capturing key markets.

I don't invest in individual stocks, but if I did, Boeing would not be one I'd choose.

Boeing's military biz is still very lucrative, I don't see a whole lot of downside buying a stock at its 52-week low. I personally don't like Boeing stock though, it's too expensive. I'd buy commons of airlines and hold long on those right now. Especially some of the more financially stable ones like Alaska, Southwest or Delta.

Here's a current list of Boeing's top institutional investors, as well as the mutual funds holding Boeing's stock. Vanguard's mutual funds are staples in most 401K plans, so even the "Working Joe" is being exposed to Boeing's stock troubles to some degree. It will be interesting to see how these funds and I-investors choose to react in the coming days. Do they just bail on Boeing, or do they go "activist" and go after Boeing's board and C-Suite calling for "heads to roll"?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/holders?p=BA

I am hopeful for the idea of increased intervention by stockholders in turning the ship around. Men like Calhoun and the new CFO show little leadership publically, and from people I know that work at Boeing, internally. Financials men like them should not be in charge of a place where logical, structured thinking rules the day.

Unfortunately, these same investors may hope to choke the last eggs from the golden goose before it goes under and then drag their sacks of money to a new venture to repeat the process. Calhoun was reelected by shareholders by a wide margin previously and he's expressed his interest at restarting dividends and buybacks once the situation stabilizes, all while Boeing has aging product lines and is shedding software and mechanical engineers to tech companies and startups!

FLALEFTY wrote:

Here's a current list of Boeing's top institutional investors, as well as the mutual funds holding Boeing's stock. Vanguard's mutual funds are staples in most 401K plans, so even the "Working Joe" is being exposed to Boeing's stock troubles to some degree. It will be interesting to see how these funds and I-investors choose to react in the coming days. Do they just bail on Boeing, or do they go "activist" and go after Boeing's board and C-Suite calling for "heads to roll"?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/holders?p=BA

I doubt if they will bail since most of the holdings are in index funds. Index fund holdings normally remain stable because they mimic the index they are named after.

johns624 wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

Here's a current list of Boeing's top institutional investors, as well as the mutual funds holding Boeing's stock. Vanguard's mutual funds are staples in most 401K plans, so even the "Working Joe" is being exposed to Boeing's stock troubles to some degree. It will be interesting to see how these funds and I-investors choose to react in the coming days. Do they just bail on Boeing, or do they go "activist" and go after Boeing's board and C-Suite calling for "heads to roll"?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/holders?p=BA

I doubt if they will bail since most of the holdings are in index funds. Index fund holdings normally remain stable because they mimic the index they are named after.

It is true that index funds (a.k.a. Exchange Traded Funds, or ETF's) don't usually make sudden moves on individual stock holdings. However, if a major stock holding in their portfolio (Boeing) drastically underperforms the target index (e.g. S&P 500, or the DOW Industrials), the fund manager may decide to sell that stock and replace it with a stock that better tracks the target index. While ETF's are considered "Passive Investing", they aren't totally passive in reacting to the market.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/indexfund.asp

That said, I think Vanguard might use their investment muscle to go "activist" and force changes at the top in Chicago and the board to get Boeing's financial performance back on track. Boeing is awash in debt and burning through cash rapidly, so such moves might happen sooner, rather than later.

As long as the company is led by corrupt Jack Welchesque criminals Boeing will never be sound.

FLALEFTY wrote:

johns624 wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

Here's a current list of Boeing's top institutional investors, as well as the mutual funds holding Boeing's stock. Vanguard's mutual funds are staples in most 401K plans, so even the "Working Joe" is being exposed to Boeing's stock troubles to some degree. It will be interesting to see how these funds and I-investors choose to react in the coming days. Do they just bail on Boeing, or do they go "activist" and go after Boeing's board and C-Suite calling for "heads to roll"?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BA/holders?p=BA

I doubt if they will bail since most of the holdings are in index funds. Index fund holdings normally remain stable because they mimic the index they are named after.

It is true that index funds (a.k.a. Exchange Traded Funds, or ETF's) don't usually make sudden moves on individual stock holdings. However, if a major stock holding in their portfolio (Boeing) drastically underperforms the target index (e.g. S&P 500, or the DOW Industrials), the fund manager may decide to sell that stock and replace it with a stock that better tracks the target index. While ETF's are considered "Passive Investing", they aren't totally passive in reacting to the market.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/indexfund.asp

That said, I think Vanguard might use their investment muscle to go "activist" and force changes at the top in Chicago and the board to get Boeing's financial performance back on track. Boeing is awash in debt and burning through cash rapidly, so such moves might happen sooner, rather than later.

Nope. Index funds and ETF are two different things, although an index fund can be an ETF. Index funds track their index by investing in the stocks in it, not random stocks.

johns624 wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I doubt if they will bail since most of the holdings are in index funds. Index fund holdings normally remain stable because they mimic the index they are named after.

It is true that index funds (a.k.a. Exchange Traded Funds, or ETF's) don't usually make sudden moves on individual stock holdings. However, if a major stock holding in their portfolio (Boeing) drastically underperforms the target index (e.g. S&P 500, or the DOW Industrials), the fund manager may decide to sell that stock and replace it with a stock that better tracks the target index. While ETF's are considered "Passive Investing", they aren't totally passive in reacting to the market.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/indexfund.asp

That said, I think Vanguard might use their investment muscle to go "activist" and force changes at the top in Chicago and the board to get Boeing's financial performance back on track. Boeing is awash in debt and burning through cash rapidly, so such moves might happen sooner, rather than later.

Nope. Index funds and ETF are two different things, although an index fund can be an ETF. Index funds track their index by investing in the stocks in it, not random stocks.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/fund ... ndex-funds

"Index funds match exactly the funds they track. Fund managers make adjustments to index fund holdings that may not be an exact replica of a sector. But even if they were, index funds would underperform because of the fees associated with the fund, says Jason J. Howell, president of Fiduciary Wealth Adviser. "Portfolio managers choose a smaller mix of companies, a different proportion of company size and higher or lower levels of cash to mitigate that drag on performance," Howell says.

Yeah, they may slightly tweak things, but not to the degree that you intimated. Their fees are so small that it doesn't take much to make up the difference. They aren't going to sell all their Boeing shares, or even close to it.

I would wait for signs that the 'curse' is ending and that Boeing has at least plateau'd even watch to see some new green shoots coming up out of the ashes. One might miss the bottom on the stock, but is better than sliding down another hill when they faceplant again.

I really like Boeing and I believe they are getting a foundation back, or they should be. Heck, the 737 line is still running at below half speed and far fewer Maxes from storage have left the kennel. They must get back to having quality built in, not being a gold star award when things look pretty. There are a lot of middle and upper managers that still can't learn new tricks, but they must to succeed. Wait until there are signs of real change before investing.

Boeing will recover. But in order to do so they must invest. This will mean no juicy dividends for a while but investments and that the stock will tank first before it recovers. In theory this looks like the best moment to invest later on to me like after the next program launch.

FLALEFTY wrote:

johns624 wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

It is true that index funds (a.k.a. Exchange Traded Funds, or ETF's) don't usually make sudden moves on individual stock holdings. However, if a major stock holding in their portfolio (Boeing) drastically underperforms the target index (e.g. S&P 500, or the DOW Industrials), the fund manager may decide to sell that stock and replace it with a stock that better tracks the target index. While ETF's are considered "Passive Investing", they aren't totally passive in reacting to the market.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/indexfund.asp

That said, I think Vanguard might use their investment muscle to go "activist" and force changes at the top in Chicago and the board to get Boeing's financial performance back on track. Boeing is awash in debt and burning through cash rapidly, so such moves might happen sooner, rather than later.

Nope. Index funds and ETF are two different things, although an index fund can be an ETF. Index funds track their index by investing in the stocks in it, not random stocks.

https://money.usnews.com/investing/fund ... ndex-funds

"Index funds match exactly the funds they track. Fund managers make adjustments to index fund holdings that may not be an exact replica of a sector. But even if they were, index funds would underperform because of the fees associated with the fund, says Jason J. Howell, president of Fiduciary Wealth Adviser. "Portfolio managers choose a smaller mix of companies, a different proportion of company size and higher or lower levels of cash to mitigate that drag on performance," Howell says.

Index funds can have hundreds of different stocks in them. While they may make tweaks on size of Boeing’s share in fund based on Boeing’s performance they are not going to be as laser focused on the company as you seem to think they would become. Index funds are just interested in making as much low risk safe money as possible, they are not about being activist shareholders.

No one thought General Motors would file for bankruptcy either. Turns out that was exactly what that company needed. Now they have a super sharp Electrical Engineer running the place.

Time for a drastic change or they will turn in a Kodak.

Boeing up big today on the China MAX AD news so, it looks like investors are saying YES, it’s time to buy Boeing at these levels.

RobertoMugabe wrote:

Calhoun was reelected by shareholders by a wide margin previously and he's expressed his interest at restarting dividends and buybacks once the situation stabilizes, all while Boeing has aging product lines and is shedding software and mechanical engineers to tech companies and startups!

Calhoun was critical of Mullenburg's stock by backs... but surely that activity would have had board approval... so I think those statements were just posturing....

I can't wait for Calhoun to go. He's no renaissance man. He just reeks of status quo....

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

RobertoMugabe wrote:

Calhoun was reelected by shareholders by a wide margin previously and he's expressed his interest at restarting dividends and buybacks once the situation stabilizes, all while Boeing has aging product lines and is shedding software and mechanical engineers to tech companies and startups!

Calhoun was critical of Mullenburg's stock by backs... but surely that activity would have had board approval... so I think those statements were just posturing....

I can't wait for Calhoun to go. He's no renaissance man. He just reeks of status quo....

I once used to defend him but I’m over that now. Boeing needs somebody fresh and from outside. But who though? That’s the thing, I don’t think they can poach from any of their competitors because of NDAs and all those other kinds of things

Long term Boeing will be back at 350+, but it may take a while. When I invested in 2001, just after 9-11, I did so because of their essentially market leadership, monopoly position. $36 a share if I recall. The market leadership is down but there are still more plane buyers than makers, simply put so I am not selling. Buying at $200+/- harder call of course.

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

I would wait for signs that the 'curse' is ending and that Boeing has at least plateau'd even watch to see some new green shoots coming up out of the ashes. One might miss the bottom on the stock, but is better than sliding down another hill when they faceplant again.

I really like Boeing and I believe they are getting a foundation back, or they should be. Heck, the 737 line is still running at below half speed and far fewer Maxes from storage have left the kennel. They must get back to having quality built in, not being a gold star award when things look pretty. There are a lot of middle and upper managers that still can't learn new tricks, but they must to succeed. Wait until there are signs of real change before investing.

No real evidence of green shoots though. Talk of Boeing still investing in developing better development technology (black diamond etc) but no evidence of it being put to use in commercial aviation any time soon. Totally treading water, IMO. For every positive we can easily find a negative.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

No one thought General Motors would file for bankruptcy either. Turns out that was exactly what that company needed. Now they have a super sharp Electrical Engineer running the place.

Time for a drastic change or they will turn in a Kodak.

The mental model I have is more like IBM. Still has a lot of strong relationships, still has products that some pretty large customers still rely on so it can continue to tread water for a long time, but without any hope of turning around with regard to stock price without a major change in strategy and leadership. Would need the willingness to take short term hits and accept risk in hope of long term gain. Seems the management is more into the slow glide path towards obscurity, with full pay to the last day.

No green shoots visible here, but it is still in Boeing's winter. Spring will come, but it will be cold and dark until then.

IBM is an excellent example, the total leader in computers to still a big company but no longer the industry titan. Kodak, GM, Polaroid, and a host of other companies that lost their relevance.

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Time for a drastic change or they will turn in a Kodak.

The mental model I have is more like IBM. Still has a lot of strong relationships, still has products that some pretty large customers still rely on so it can continue to tread water for a long time, but without any hope of turning around with regard to stock price without a major change in strategy and leadership. Would need the willingness to take short term hits and accept risk in hope of long term gain. Seems the management is more into the slow glide path towards obscurity, with full pay to the last day.

The IBM analogy is a pretty good one. But there is also a possibility that Boeing could "go Kodak", too. In my opinion, Boeing seems to be emulating MDD in its final days.

The larger issue here is that Boeing is a critical technology company whose performance (or lack of it) has a significant impact on the US economy. How much longer can Boeing issue debt to try to keep a business of their massive size running before the potential bondholders say, "No mas! No mas!"? Then US taxpayers will probably be on the hook for another massive bailout of a large, but strategically-important private company.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Revelation wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

Time for a drastic change or they will turn in a Kodak.

The mental model I have is more like IBM. Still has a lot of strong relationships, still has products that some pretty large customers still rely on so it can continue to tread water for a long time, but without any hope of turning around with regard to stock price without a major change in strategy and leadership. Would need the willingness to take short term hits and accept risk in hope of long term gain. Seems the management is more into the slow glide path towards obscurity, with full pay to the last day.

The IBM analogy is a pretty good one. But there is also a possibility that Boeing could "go Kodak", too. In my opinion, Boeing seems to be emulating MDD in its final days.

The larger issue here is that Boeing is a critical technology company whose performance (or lack of it) has a significant impact on the US economy. How much longer can Boeing issue debt to try to keep a business of their massive size running before the potential bondholders say, "No mas! No mas!"? Then US taxpayers will probably be on the hook for another massive bailout of a large, but strategically-important private company.

And Ch.11 would wipe out stocks as part of revitalizing effort. That is yet another possibility.

At a minimum, Boeing should be forced by activists to break itself up. Smaller and nimbler. And the argument that they need size to compete is rubbish.
Is Textron Aviation or Gulfstream so big that they don't come out with innovative, sound products?

General Electric is doing it right now. Boeing has to be next.

Boeing Commercial Aircraft being in a duopoly has no real reason to change. Airbus can't produce all the worlds airlines. For lack of a better term, you could put the place on autopilot & still sell planes & make them. Change costs money, so I don't expect them to really change except in the areas they are required to for legal or liability reasons.

VS11 wrote:

Boeing's stock is absolutely a buy. Especially, at yesterday's close at $188. Just today it is up $12, or 6.5%. Boeing's stock is prone to wild daily fluctuations. It is not uncommon for it go up or down by $11-$17 in a single day, partly because there are not many shares outstanding. IMO, BA is undervalued and it is about to go higher especially after the new variant panic subsides.

The IBM analogy is quite wrong. IBM's lunch was eaten by the likes of DELL, HP, COMPAQ and many other generic PC makers. The barriers to entry in the aircraft producing industry are so huge that it took decades of the concerted efforts of several major European governments to build up Airbus. Nobody can deny Airbus's success but to believe that Boeing is done is just plain ridiculous. Boeing's strategy was quite smart but its execution was poor. Nevertheless, demand for air travel is not going anywhere. Oil and jet fuel will continue to be pricier in the next several years creating demand for newer generation aircraft. Frankly, I don't see anything undermining Boeing's long-term recovery. Airbus can only produce so many airplanes per month. It is not like airlines are going to wait forever for them A321's.

I still think a significant portion of IBM problems stems from closing III-V program in 1990, if I remember correctly. So they couldn't cash on internet boom.
And a few high-profile decisions, like microchannel architecture, made life difficult for them.
It is hard to draw direct comparison from those to Boeing issues - other than saying that high profile C-suit choices can easily become make it or break it for the company.

Revelation wrote:

One needs strong nerves to buy into a failing giant, IMO, especially one that shows no signs of understanding why it is where it is. You pretty much then are just left with the hope that someone somehow in-house can turn things around or a merger/buyout can release synergies.

Basically Boeing is now feeling like McDonnell-Douglas V2. Heavy debt load, current products treading water, behind the curve on investment in new product development, competitors already capturing key markets.

I don't invest in individual stocks, but if I did, Boeing would not be one I'd choose.

Best investment advice I've gotten is don't try to catch a falling knife.

From the extreme capitalist position of: The Only Stakeholder that Matters are the Stock Holders
To extreme free marketers seeming saying 'Let China Do it All'
To national socialism let the bought legislatures and their stooges in the White House and Courts do their thing.

To the boring and maybe dying center in the US, we gotta get along, go along, prod the weak and undeserving, rein in the strong and powerful. Otherwise it is national socialism (it only feels good while the pretenses can be maintained).

As the churches went, so do civil organizations (Bowling Alone), so unions, so goes Boeing, and worryingly so, the US. I think there are connecting links in all of this. Boeing is just a symptom.

Revelation wrote:

One needs strong nerves to buy into a failing giant, IMO, especially one that shows no signs of understanding why it is where it is. You pretty much then are just left with the hope that someone somehow in-house can turn things around or a merger/buyout can release synergies.

Basically Boeing is now feeling like McDonnell-Douglas V2. Heavy debt load, current products treading water, behind the curve on investment in new product development, competitors already capturing key markets.

I don't invest in individual stocks, but if I did, Boeing would not be one I'd choose.

In my life I learned one thing, Only thing worth investing in is real estate. Never have to worry.

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I still think a significant portion of IBM problems stems from closing III-V program in 1990, if I remember correctly. So they couldn't cash on internet boom.
And a few high-profile decisions, like microchannel architecture, made life difficult for them.
It is hard to draw direct comparison from those to Boeing issues - other than saying that high profile C-suit choices can easily become make it or break it for the company.

Actually I was an IBM employee in 1990 and I don't know what you are referring to by "III-V program".

As far as I remember, you're more on software side of things. Those were cuts in Fishkill..

Canuck600 wrote:

Boeing Commercial Aircraft being in a duopoly has no real reason to change. Airbus can't produce all the worlds airlines. For lack of a better term, you could put the place on autopilot & still sell planes & make them. Change costs money, so I don't expect them to really change except in the areas they are required to for legal or liability reasons.

I grew up in the midwest and saw industry after industry go from market leading to a shell of its former self. It didn't happen overnight but the decay - bloated overpaid management, poor Union relations, failure to innovate, fierce foreign competition.

Although the barriers to entry are high, the Brazilians show it can be done. It's only a matter of time for Boeing if they don't get their act together.

But the shareholders won't care they what they can while the getting is good.

NIKV69 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

One needs strong nerves to buy into a failing giant, IMO, especially one that shows no signs of understanding why it is where it is. You pretty much then are just left with the hope that someone somehow in-house can turn things around or a merger/buyout can release synergies.

Basically Boeing is now feeling like McDonnell-Douglas V2. Heavy debt load, current products treading water, behind the curve on investment in new product development, competitors already capturing key markets.

I don't invest in individual stocks, but if I did, Boeing would not be one I'd choose.

In my life I learned one thing, Only thing worth investing in is real estate. Never have to worry.

2008?
Granted stocks got hammered as well.

So far BA is only down a bit today. Anyone surprised that's the case?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

So far BA is only down a bit today. Anyone surprised that's the case?

Not surprised based on the Qantas news, but at the same time, Boeing is still neck a neck with Airbus in orders for the year. I think this is probably the time to step in and pick up some more Boeing. Looks great for the next 5 years.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing ... 1639660280

antas (QAN.Australia) is planning to purchase about 130 A320 and A220 aircraft over the coming 10 years. Today, Qantas operates Boeing 737 and 717 jets. Those are the models that will be phased out in favor of the comparable Airbus models. Qantas also operates Airbus A330 and A380 jets as well as Boeing 787 jets, but the twin-aisle 787 planes aren’t affected by the A320 and A220 order.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/ ... 021-12-14/

Gross orders for the year increased from 720 to 829, or from 373 to 457 after cancellations, conversions and stricter accounting standards were applied, Boeing said.

It is currently at 190.xx as I write this with an average PT of 263 by the analysts.

Actually this might stimulate an activist to force a breakup. That might be good for the stock, no?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Actually this might stimulate an activist to force a breakup. That might be good for the stock, no?

I doubt they will break up the company.

Revelation wrote:

kalvado wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

The larger issue here is that Boeing is a critical technology company whose performance (or lack of it) has a significant impact on the US economy. How much longer can Boeing issue debt to try to keep a business of their massive size running before the potential bondholders say, "No mas! No mas!"? Then US taxpayers will probably be on the hook for another massive bailout of a large, but strategically-important private company.

And Ch.11 would wipe out stocks as part of revitalizing effort. That is yet another possibility.

It's kinda interesting to consider what potential end games there are for Boeing.

Would the government allow it to merge with another major defense contractor such as LM or NG? I'd guess 'no'. Then, is there any feasible merger partner that would be acceptable? If not, the McDD end game is not on the table.

If there was a trip through CH11, what assets would be shed? Personally I think the whole space business is something to shed. It's clear the old school NASA big space project model is under duress, it has been disrupted by the new entrants. As above, Boeing is working on a fixed price contract with the CS vehicles and is gonna be in the red no matter what. It seems there are others who would buy its space stuff just for the intellectual property and existing contractual relationships. After that, it seems there still is a lot of synergy between defense and commercial, but I'd bet a whole lot of under performing assets would get shed in the trip through CH11. That, along with shedding debt and installing new leadership and consolidating operations, might be the key to a brighter future. Lord knows if this would ever come to pass, though.

NASA are pissed off with Boeing, who has been sending it’s crews from US soil for the past 18 months? Not a Boeing spacecraft, still delayed. Space X ,who are also increasingly sending other payloads up for them and of course they are embracing the Starship concept. Who would have thought that just a few years ago? What has become an expensive and delayed project, albeit in part due to Congressional meddling and pork barrel? Though Space X got flak from that too. A Boeing run project, SLS.
They built Apollo, one of the companies they brought produced the Shuttle, now they are left in the dust for a much simpler spacecraft requirement by a company less than 20 years old.
In the same period of Boeing’s recent problems with commercial aircraft and the tanker program.

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

NASA are pissed off with Boeing, who has been sending it’s crews from US soil for the past 18 months? Not a Boeing spacecraft, still delayed. Space X ,who are also increasingly sending other payloads up for them and of course they are embracing the Starship concept. Who would have thought that just a few years ago? What has become an expensive and delayed project, albeit in part due to Congressional meddling and pork barrel? Though Space X got flak from that too. A Boeing run project, SLS.
They built Apollo, one of the companies they brought produced the Shuttle, now they are left in the dust for a much simpler spacecraft requirement by a company less than 20 years old.
In the same period of Boeing’s recent problems with commercial aircraft and the tanker program.

Personally, I'm hoping we're getting close to the last day with regard to full pay to the last day. SpaceX has shown a better way of doing things, it's folly to keep the old way going in parallel, especially for something IMO is non-essential. It's time for vanity projects to die, IMO. If aiming for Mars is what fires billionaires like Elon and Jeff up, fine, but leave the taxpayer out of it.

To be fair, Space X has got taxpayer help, via the NASA budget, for things like the COTS program. But (unlike with Boeing who got some of this money too) the relatively small investment there has now paid dividends, which Musk has acknowledged.
This billionaires issue is one for governments, it is they who make the rules, they who seem to be well behind the curve in this, or are just too compromised by corporate money to change things. This goes way beyond aerospace, in the US the lions share seems to prop up fossil fuels, big agriculture, at least the small amount given to Space X has seen very real results (and jobs).
Bezos by comparison, not such a stellar record, not delivering beyond suborbital stunts, though the most recent Amazon news was the treatment of their employees during that recent tornado at their facility. A last text from one of them 'they won't let us leave'.

Modern day robber barons like him haven't just happened, they've been enabled.
The domination of big finance uber alles over the past 40 years too, GE was gutted that way, Boeing compromised too.
With 'big tech' monopolies, history tells us what to do, that well known leftist Teddy Roosevelt and the early 20th century monopolies.
Could that even happen in the deeply money compromised political culture now?

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

NASA are pissed off with Boeing, who has been sending it’s crews from US soil for the past 18 months? Not a Boeing spacecraft, still delayed. Space X ,who are also increasingly sending other payloads up for them and of course they are embracing the Starship concept. Who would have thought that just a few years ago? What has become an expensive and delayed project, albeit in part due to Congressional meddling and pork barrel? Though Space X got flak from that too. A Boeing run project, SLS.
They built Apollo, one of the companies they brought produced the Shuttle, now they are left in the dust for a much simpler spacecraft requirement by a company less than 20 years old.
In the same period of Boeing’s recent problems with commercial aircraft and the tanker program.

Personally, I'm hoping we're getting close to the last day with regard to full pay to the last day. SpaceX has shown a better way of doing things, it's folly to keep the old way going in parallel, especially for something IMO is non-essential. It's time for vanity projects to die, IMO. If aiming for Mars is what fires billionaires like Elon and Jeff up, fine, but leave the taxpayer out of it.

I retired from the Launch Vehicle business (but not from Boeing). Launch vehicles have reliability many orders of magnitude worse than jet aircraft. Launch vehicles are highly-sensitive to ambient temperature extremes, humidity, vibration, pressure leaks, static discharge, etc. Manned space flight, especially the sub-orbital celebrity thrill rides offered by Musk, Branson and Bezos, are way more risky than they are advertised to the public. The likelihood of a major accident involving one of those "billionaire rockets" is more an issue of "when", not "if".

There is an imaginary "3-legged stool" when it comes to manned space flight - One leg is the high cost. The second is the high risk. The third is the potential long-term benefit of technology advancement. If any of those legs got way out of proportion of the other two, the "stool" collapses. In the 1960's and 70's that "stool" had tall legs, but they were all pretty much equal in length. Taxpayers and politicians during the "New Frontier" era were willing to fund the high costs. The military offered up test pilots willing to be astronauts, which covered the risk tolerance. And the need for electronics miniaturization and powerful, much more compact computational devices required for manned space flight also offered potential long-range technology advancements that could benefit the general society.

Today, that "3-legged stool" of manned space flight is all out of whack. The costs are still very high. The billionaire space moguls have simply downplayed the risk. And the list of potential long-term technological benefits of manned space flight to the general society has become much shorter. Boeing is bumbling and stumbling along with their manned space efforts (being run under the worst hybrid of defense contractor management, but with civilian cost/profit goals) while competitors, Bezos and Musk throw caution to the wind and run their space programs more like reality TV show productions. NASA, being a highly-politicized organization, isn't helping things with their ever-changing program requirements and goals. Those "manned mission to Mars" plans will most likely get de-railed due to the high costs that the US taxpayers and debt holders will be unable to tolerate. I don't see Russia, China or the EU pulling the manned mission to Mars off, either.

FLALEFTY wrote:

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

NASA are pissed off with Boeing, who has been sending it’s crews from US soil for the past 18 months? Not a Boeing spacecraft, still delayed. Space X ,who are also increasingly sending other payloads up for them and of course they are embracing the Starship concept. Who would have thought that just a few years ago? What has become an expensive and delayed project, albeit in part due to Congressional meddling and pork barrel? Though Space X got flak from that too. A Boeing run project, SLS.
They built Apollo, one of the companies they brought produced the Shuttle, now they are left in the dust for a much simpler spacecraft requirement by a company less than 20 years old.
In the same period of Boeing’s recent problems with commercial aircraft and the tanker program.

Personally, I'm hoping we're getting close to the last day with regard to full pay to the last day. SpaceX has shown a better way of doing things, it's folly to keep the old way going in parallel, especially for something IMO is non-essential. It's time for vanity projects to die, IMO. If aiming for Mars is what fires billionaires like Elon and Jeff up, fine, but leave the taxpayer out of it.

I retired from the Launch Vehicle business (but not from Boeing). Launch vehicles have reliability many orders of magnitude worse than jet aircraft. Launch vehicles are highly-sensitive to ambient temperature extremes, humidity, vibration, pressure leaks, static discharge, etc. Manned space flight, especially the sub-orbital celebrity thrill rides offered by Musk, Branson and Bezos, are way more risky than they are advertised to the public. The likelihood of a major accident involving one of those "billionaire rockets" is more an issue of "when", not "if".

There is an imaginary "3-legged stool" when it comes to manned space flight - One leg is the high cost. The second is the high risk. The third is the potential long-term benefit of technology advancement. If any of those legs got way out of proportion of the other two, the "stool" collapses. In the 1960's and 70's that "stool" had tall legs, but they were all pretty much equal in length. Taxpayers and politicians during the "New Frontier" era were willing to fund the high costs. The military offered up test pilots willing to be astronauts, which covered the risk tolerance. And the need for electronics miniaturization and powerful, much more compact computational devices required for manned space flight also offered potential long-range technology advancements that could benefit the general society.

Today, that "3-legged stool" of manned space flight is all out of whack. The costs are still very high. The billionaire space moguls have simply downplayed the risk. And the list of potential long-term technological benefits of manned space flight to the general society has become much shorter. Boeing is bumbling and stumbling along with their manned space efforts (being run under the worst hybrid of defense contractor management, but with civilian cost/profit goals) while competitors, Bezos and Musk throw caution to the wind and run their space programs more like reality TV show productions. NASA, being a highly-politicized organization, isn't helping things with their ever-changing program requirements and goals. Those "manned mission to Mars" plans will most likely get de-railed due to the high costs that the US taxpayers and debt holders will be unable to tolerate. I don't see Russia, China or the EU pulling the manned mission to Mars off, either.

I don’t want to stray from Boeing too much but it is clear that what Musk is doing, whatever you think of him, is way beyond Branson and Bezos, in providing a now operational spacecraft to orbit, to supply mainly the ISS, just one tourist flight and that was 4 days in orbit above the ISS, not the Virgin and Amazon’s space farts.
A mature and semi reuseable booster too.
In the same program as the Boeing entry, which has one botched unmanned test in 2019, still a way from another attempt at doing that successfully, given the same money, at the same time, with a half century of experience behind them.
Would the pre reverse MDD takeover, stock buyback, lets have a new corporate HQ Boeing, to use an old Astronaut term, have ‘screwed the pooch’ like this?

I just don’t see any real comparison with Musk and Bezos here, the first is very open and accessible, the other, beyond the sub orbit stunts, is secretive and their actual engine for orbital boosters is 4 years late and giving United Launch Alliance problems.
Plus Crew Dragon had to go through all the rigours of NASA testing, it’s their crews, not tourists, it’s mostly flying.
Another thing Boeing have fallen foul of.

One cannot infer future stock prices from past ones. A trend that held until today can fail tomorrow. The only sensible thing is fundamental analysis, like analyzing how much knowledge the company has, whether their managers can actually address problems without reprisals, and knowing which forces are at work in the comopany.

Is there a zeal to do better in future? Or are they still bogged down in the same processes that put them into the MAX fiasco?

A currently falling stock price is often a warning sign. That investors are still believing that the company is rotten, and not doing a sensible turn-around thing. And then, stock price is also determined by factors external to the company, like the inflation rate (which can force investors to withdraw money from bonds, to put them into shares), or how well a competitor is doing.

Imagine a pharma company X that focuses on developing a drug against Covid-19. It does not have any other products. When Pfizer gets their own drug approved faster, the X's stock will drop because it has been beaten in the race - but nothing within X's company has actually changed. Nothing. Maybe they'e still on track getting their own drug approved.