Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
⇒ All Things Boeing ... NASA may send Starliner home without its crew
No, the caption says "DreamLIFTER", not "Dreamliner".
From Wickipedia:
The Boeing Dreamlifter, officially the 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter (LCF), is a wide-body cargo aircraft modified extensively from the Boeing 747-400 airliner.
I think when bonds drop to junk, equity drops too cause less retained earnings available for equity upon refinancing. The bonds could also sell off (more selling) cause some holders’ mandate does not allow them to hold junk rated bonds. The co is a national asset and so the Govt might intervene which could boost bond prices but equity might be SOL because of potential dilution.
@hank - I'm finding that as I age I'm making many more errors in "quick glance" situations... the brain is not quite keeping up with the fast eyeball, and sometimes "substitutes" words. Kind of like "AI", I guess. Then I have to go back over the text to take a closer look. All my life as a reader I was able to sort of "scan" whole paragraphs at a time, and thus read very fast. Not anymore.
Nice of you OJ. All true. But this esteemed forum demands accuracy. I just “blew it”, probably thinking I knew more than I really do. But it’s a great thread you’ve got going here.
As nasty as all these “near-misses” today are, it’s a hell of a lot better than in the 70s and 80s when fatal jetliner crashes / accidents seemed to occur with regularity once or twice every year in this country alone . I recently went back and reread the account of the DC-10 disaster shortly after takeoff at O’Hare Memorial Day weekend May 1979. Fascinating details and chilling as well.
I suspect @BaluBalu is on to something with his mention of possible government bailout intervention. Too big a national asset to let Boeing go under.
"Boeing raised $10 billion from a bond sale on Monday that attracted about $77 billion of orders and allowed the planemaker to ease some of its financial strains by refinancing part of its massive debt load. The outsized demand for the bonds—which Boeing attracted by initially dangling a relatively juicy yield premium to prospective investors—allowed the company to ultimately shrink that premium before it priced."
"Boeing raised $10 billion from a bond sale on Monday that attracted about $77 billion of orders and allowed the planemaker to ease some of its financial strains by refinancing part of its massive debt load. The outsized demand for the bonds—which Boeing attracted by initially dangling a relatively juicy yield premium to prospective investors—allowed the company to ultimately shrink that premium before it priced."
"The company sold bonds in six portions, with maturities ranging from three to 40 years ... The 40-year portion yields 2.25 percentage points more than Treasuries, said the person familiar with the offering. Initial discussions called for around 2.65 percentage points."
Before a door-size panel blew out of a Boeing 737 Max, leaving a gaping hole in the side of an Alaska Airlines aircraft shortly after takeoff; before whistleblowers came forward to say they were threatened for bringing up safety issues at the company; and before the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the blowout incident, Boeing was struggling with another set of issues, on another high-profile vehicle.
Its Starliner spacecraft, designed to fly astronauts to orbit under a $4.2 billion contract from NASA, had suffered a series of problems that put its launch with astronauts years behind schedule. Its onboard computer had failed during its first test flight. A second test flight was scrubbed after valves in the vehicle’s service module stuck and wouldn’t operate. Then, after the craft finally flew a test mission successfully without anyone on board, Boeing discovered that tape used as insulation on wiring inside the capsule was flammable and would need to be removed. The parachute system also had problems, which forced the company to redesign and strengthen a link between the parachutes and the spacecraft.
Now, a decade after NASA awarded Boeing a contract to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, Boeing will finally attempt to fly its Starliner spacecraft with people onboard. If all goes to plan, at 10:34 p.m. on Monday, the company is set to fly a pair of veteran astronauts, Sunita Williams and Barry “Butch” Wilmore, on a mission that will be one of the most significant tests for Boeing’s space division — and for NASA — in years.
The flight is intended to see how the spacecraft performs in space with a crew onboard. If all goes well, the spacecraft will catch up with the space station — which travels at 17,500 mph — about a day after lifting off. Along the way, the crew members will test manually flying the spacecraft before it docks autonomously with the station. NASA and Boeing will also be eager to see how the spacecraft’s heat shield and parachutes work as it brings Williams and Wilmore back to Earth after about eight days.
NASA officials express confidence in Boeing and say the company has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mission will be successful. They are eager to have another spacecraft, in addition to the one SpaceX flies, that can ferry astronauts to the station. “I can say with confidence that the teams have absolutely done their due diligence,” James Free, NASA’s associate administrator, said at a briefing last week.
CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) -Boeing's new Starliner astronaut capsule was poised for launch on Monday night on a much-delayed first crewed test flight to orbit, as the company scrambles to compete with Elon Musk's SpaceX for a greater share of lucrative NASA business.
The CST-100 Starliner with two astronauts aboard was due for liftoff at 10:34 p.m. from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, carried atop an Atlas V rocket furnished by the Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture United Launch Alliance (ULA).
Atlas V is an expendable launch system and the fifth major version in the Atlas launch vehicle family. It was originally designed by Lockheed Martin, now being operated by United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. It is used for DoD, NASA, and Commercial payloads. It is America's longest-serving active rocket. After 87 launches, in August 2021 ULA announced that Atlas V would be retired, and all 29 remaining launches had been sold. As of January 2024, 17 launches remain. Other future ULA launches will use the new Vulcan Centaur rocket.
Each Atlas V launch vehicle consists of two main stages. The first stage is powered by a Russian engine manufactured by Energomash and burning kerosene and liquid oxygen. The Centaur upper stage is powered by one or two American RL10 engine(s) manufactured by Aerojet Rocketdyne and burns liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Strap-on solid rocket boosters are used in most configurations.
But the Shuttles used multiple, smaller rockets, eh?
Umm … I wouldn’t put it that way. Very different vehicles. Probably the 5-engine first stage of the Saturn V had more thrust than the 3 onboard shuttle engines working alone. But the Saturn didn’t have the 2 solid rockets strapped to it. And the first stage of the Saturn dropped off into the ocean after only a couple minutes, while the shuttle’s engines propelled it all the way into earth orbit.
The Saturn’s first stage had 5 engines. And the complete Saturn “stack” was a 3-stage monster (3 rockets stacked on top of one another vertically). Much different from how the shuttle operated.
The space shuttle had awesome power. Leaped off the pad. The 2 strapped-on solid boosters really jacked it off the bad. Solid fueled. Not dissimilar to sitting on a keg of dynamite and lighting it. Problem is - you can’t throttle them back or shut them off once they are lit like you can a liquid fueled engine (like the shuttle’s main engines). That makes them inherently more dangerous for use on crewed flights.
The space shuttle had 3 gigantic liquid fueled engines. Those returned to earth with the shuttle at mission’s end (but were not used in the landing process) Not only could they be throttled up or down, but they could be gimbled for steering control. Something those solids weren’t capable of. Yes. So much power. The Saturn 5 was much slower getting off the pad. Felt like watching a slow motion movie. If anybody hasn’t watched Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks please do so immediately. You won’t regret it.
Oops. Sorry @Old_Joe. This rambling probably belongs in off-topic. Thanks for alerting us to the Starliner launch. Hope it works out well.
Correct me if wrong. But unlike SpaceX which uses its own in-house rockets, Boeing will launch its Starliner on an Atlas 5 booster whose first stage is Russian made! The linked Wikipedia article pertains only to the Atlas 5 booster.
No correction required- from my post just above: "Each Atlas V launch vehicle consists of two main stages. The first stage is powered by a Russian engine manufactured by Energomash and burning kerosene and liquid oxygen."
This is how a culture problem looks like. The rot has gone to all the levels of the company. The company is operating like a mafia and it must be demoralizing to the few honest workers there and they probably fear for their safety everyday. May be it is time to force the sale of Boeing to another well run company (or group of companies), I know it is unAmerican to do that but the company is too important to our economy to wait for market forces to take effect. I forget it is election year and no one will want to do anything constructive.
@Old_Joe. Thanks for the note. I got a little carried away responding to @Crash. You had it right all along. Also, I did correct an earlier reference to the Shuttle having 5 main engines. After checking, it had only 3.
@BaluBalu - I like your idea of placing a wager on Boeing. But appears you got tripped up by the 787 news. The FAA investigation is new I guess. But there’s been allegations on that matter swirling for weeks. So perhaps this won’t move the stock much.
However - think I’ll keep my small wagers confined to MLB games.
BA is just sinking like a stone. It needs to be eviscerated and restarted with a whole new leadership AND employees who do not falsify records! @BaluBalu
The Department of Justice said on Tuesday that Boeing was in violation of a 2021 settlement related to problems with the company’s 737 Max model that led to two deadly plane crashes in 2018 and 2019.
In a letter to a federal judge, the department said that Boeing had failed to “design, implement and enforce” an ethics program to prevent and detect violations of U.S. fraud laws in the company’s operations. Creating that program was a condition of Boeing’s settlement, which also carried a $2.5 billion penalty.
The determination by the Justice Department opens the door to a potential prosecution of a 2021 criminal charge accusing Boeing of conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration, though Boeing can contest Tuesday’s decision.
In a statement, Boeing said that the company believed that it had honored the terms of the settlement, adding that it was looking forward to the opportunity to respond.
To recap, in the OT section the articles on the Boeing situation are as follows
Scummy, blind greed. DO them. DO THEM hard and deep and long. Boeing must be gutted and start from scratch. Shareholders would be GRATEFUL, eh?
As a former BA shareholder in large quanties, HELL TO THE YEAH. At this point it's not just 'mistakes' or 'oversights' -- it's intentional business practices, perhaps corruption, and NOTHING I would want to be associated with as a shareholder or passenger.
In a letter to a federal judge, the department said that Boeing had failed to “design, implement and enforce” an ethics program to prevent and detect violations of U.S. fraud laws in the company's operations. Creating that program was a condition of Boeing’s settlement ...
In order to feel obligated to comply with a settlement agreement, especially one requiring you implement an ethics program, wouldn't you already need to have a modicum of ethics?
Otherwise you don't do anything and just say with a straight face that you honored the agreement. Oh, wait ...
Boeing said that the company believed that it had honored the terms of the settlement
NPR reported yesterday that Boeing received 7 plane orders in the past month but that 33 previous orders were canceled. That’s nearly 5 steps back for every one forward.
"Boeing said that the company believed that it had honored the terms of the settlement"
That old BELIEF! We know beliefs are facts for many.
It is the justice department's fault the way they agreed and let the implementation of the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). If you look at the history of successful DPAs (i.e., no repeat offending), invariably you will see they start with some heads of upper management roll and a monitor placed as part of the agreement - many times rolling heads is not laid out explicitly but that is how it gets implemented. No heads were rolled means no change in culture. Replacing the CEO with a lame board member is never enough. Who was the monitor? Never gets mentioned in the press. My recollection was that BA was allowed to self certify a lot of the work even after the DPA. There was never a scope for remediation.
Comments
BTW Bloomberg was reporting Friday that Boeing is close to being junk. Not the planes, but rather their bonds.
From Wickipedia:
Gosh … maybe just give the 737 Max a new name based on the ”dream-theme” … ?
As nasty as all these “near-misses” today are, it’s a hell of a lot better than in the 70s and 80s when fatal jetliner crashes / accidents seemed to occur with regularity once or twice every year in this country alone . I recently went back and reread the account of the DC-10 disaster shortly after takeoff at O’Hare Memorial Day weekend May 1979. Fascinating details and chilling as well.
I suspect @BaluBalu is on to something with his mention of possible government
bailoutintervention. Too big a national asset to let Boeing go under."Boeing raised $10 billion from a bond sale on Monday that attracted about $77 billion of orders and allowed the planemaker to ease some of its financial strains by refinancing part of its massive debt load. The outsized demand for the bonds—which Boeing attracted by initially dangling a relatively juicy yield premium to prospective investors—allowed the company to ultimately shrink that premium before it priced."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-looks-sell-bonds-reporting-125719270.html
An excerpt from The Washington Post:
dBackground Info from Wickipedia:
https://www.clickorlando.com/moon-landing/2019/07/08/heres-how-the-saturn-v-rocket-compares-to-todays-rockets/
Umm … I wouldn’t put it that way. Very different vehicles. Probably the 5-engine first stage of the Saturn V had more thrust than the 3 onboard shuttle engines working alone. But the Saturn didn’t have the 2 solid rockets strapped to it. And the first stage of the Saturn dropped off into the ocean after only a couple minutes, while the shuttle’s engines propelled it all the way into earth orbit.
The Saturn’s first stage had 5 engines. And the complete Saturn “stack” was a 3-stage monster (3 rockets stacked on top of one another vertically). Much different from how the shuttle operated.
The space shuttle had awesome power. Leaped off the pad. The 2 strapped-on solid boosters really jacked it off the bad. Solid fueled. Not dissimilar to sitting on a keg of dynamite and lighting it. Problem is - you can’t throttle them back or shut them off once they are lit like you can a liquid fueled engine (like the shuttle’s main engines). That makes them inherently more dangerous for use on crewed flights.
The space shuttle had 3 gigantic liquid fueled engines. Those returned to earth with the shuttle at mission’s end (but were not used in the landing process) Not only could they be throttled up or down, but they could be gimbled for steering control. Something those solids weren’t capable of. Yes. So much power. The Saturn 5 was much slower getting off the pad. Felt like watching a slow motion movie. If anybody hasn’t watched Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks please do so immediately. You won’t regret it.
Oops. Sorry @Old_Joe. This rambling probably belongs in off-topic. Thanks for alerting us to the Starliner launch. Hope it works out well.
Wikipedia
and then this -
https://apnews.com/article/faa-boeing-787-inspection-investigation-4b6ac28d8ab0d7687112e2cbb7bf6e00
This is how a culture problem looks like. The rot has gone to all the levels of the company. The company is operating like a mafia and it must be demoralizing to the few honest workers there and they probably fear for their safety everyday. May be it is time to force the sale of Boeing to another well run company (or group of companies), I know it is unAmerican to do that but the company is too important to our economy to wait for market forces to take effect. I forget it is election year and no one will want to do anything constructive.
@BaluBalu - I like your idea of placing a wager on Boeing. But appears you got tripped up by the 787 news. The FAA investigation is new I guess. But there’s been allegations on that matter swirling for weeks. So perhaps this won’t move the stock much.
However - think I’ll keep my small wagers confined to MLB games.
This report has been archived in the OT section
I knew about the 787 news during the regular session but as everyone else, I, the investor, am desensitized to BA follies.
Following are short excerpts from a current New York Times Report:
To recap, in the OT section the articles on the Boeing situation are as follows
• 4/6/24: Boeing workers falsified 787 inspection records- FAA will investigate
• 3/25/24: Shakeup: Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun to step down
• 3/12/24: Boeing quality whistleblower John Barnett is found shot dead
• 3/9/24: Boeing Subject of Criminal Inquiry by DOJ
• 3/6/24: Boeing stonewalling National Transportation Safety Board, says top US safety official
• 2/28/24: FAA gives Boeing 90 days to fix quality control issues
• 2/26/24: Boeing Efforts to Improve Safety Fall Short, FAA Panel Says
• 2/21/24: Head of Boeing’s 737 program will leave the company
• 1/25/24: Airlines Hoping for More Boeing Jets Could Be Waiting Awhile
• 1/25/24: Alaska holds Boeing accountable, wants to be made whole for $150M in losses
• 1/24/24: Boeing's quality control: "A rambling, shambling, disaster waiting to happen"
• 1/23/24: United Airlines re Boeing: "The Straw That Broke the Camel's Back"
• 1/22/24: FAA: Airlines should check the door plugs on another model of Boeing plane
• 1/12/24: FAA to increase oversight of Boeing citing ‘other manufacturing problems'
• 1/11/24: F.A.A. Investigating Whether Boeing 737 Max 9 Conformed to Approved Design
• 1/10/24: Boeing 737 Max 9: A closer look at the much-discussed "missing bolts" -
• 1/9/24: FAA says safety ‘not speed’ will decide how long Boeing jets are grounded
• 1/8/24: United finds loose bolts on Boeing jets grounded after blowout incident
• 1/7/24: Yet More Trouble on the Boeing 737... so it's asking for an exemption to safety rules
Boeing must be gutted and start from scratch. Shareholders would be GRATEFUL, eh?
Otherwise you don't do anything and just say with a straight face that you honored the agreement. Oh, wait ...
That old BELIEF! We know beliefs are facts for many.
It is the justice department's fault the way they agreed and let the implementation of the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). If you look at the history of successful DPAs (i.e., no repeat offending), invariably you will see they start with some heads of upper management roll and a monitor placed as part of the agreement - many times rolling heads is not laid out explicitly but that is how it gets implemented. No heads were rolled means no change in culture. Replacing the CEO with a lame board member is never enough. Who was the monitor? Never gets mentioned in the press. My recollection was that BA was allowed to self certify a lot of the work even after the DPA. There was never a scope for remediation.
Edit: Appaloosa bought a bunch of BA in Q1.