Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Boeing New Aircraft Orders Implode From 183 To Just 2 In January
Zero Hedge ^ | February 8, 2013

Posted on 02/08/2013 10:10:14 AM PST by Zakeet

After the now several week old exploding battery fiasco, Boeing is nowhere closer to resolving the recurring problem for its appropriately renamed Nightmareliner. But the worst for the company may be yet ahead: as the following chart from Stone McCarthy shows, January new aircraft orders collapsed from 183 in December to a meaningless 2 in January: a seasonally strong month, with some 150 orders a year ago, and more weakness to come as Boeing just warned its first Norwegian delivery due in April may be delayed. But while it was expected that the company's quality control failure would eventually catch up to it, the broader implication is that this month's Durable Goods number, released February 27 and of which transportation is always a key variable at least at the headline level, will be a disaster.

From Stone McCarthy:

New orders for aircraft at Boeing plunged to a mere 2 in January, down 181 from the hefty 183 in December. This is a rapid drop after four months of strong orders, and will have a big impact on the transportation component for January durable goods orders when it is published at 8:30 ET on Wednesday, February 27.



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: boeing; economy; nationalsecurity

Obamanomics works!

1 posted on 02/08/2013 10:10:18 AM PST by Zakeet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

I get this feeling that since Boeing would not bow down to the unions, the unions are bringing down Boeing. It would not be the first time they tried to sabotage a company for opposing the union. Any thoughts?


2 posted on 02/08/2013 10:20:18 AM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The critical number is backorders. The chart shows they’ve already had low orders in the past 12 months before the 787 problems started.


3 posted on 02/08/2013 10:21:32 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg
I get this feeling that since Boeing would not bow down to the unions, the unions are bringing down Boeing. It would not be the first time they tried to sabotage a company for opposing the union. Any thoughts?

The stock price is near the high end of the 52 week range, so I don't think there is sabotage. And I do believe the media is blowing the 787 problems out of proportion.

4 posted on 02/08/2013 10:24:47 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

I think the problem is that they didn’t sufficiently test the battery for performance under long-term vibration. Internal shorts yield flaming batteries.


5 posted on 02/08/2013 10:25:18 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

I was thinking sabatoge myself, from Airbus, when this whole catastrophe started. But union retaliation makes more sense to cause it. Unions seem to have no common sense and love to bite off the hand that feeds them.


6 posted on 02/08/2013 10:25:56 AM PST by tinamina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

And I do believe the media is blowing the 787 problems out of proportion.

Just the fact that the media is over reporting these problems raises a red flag for me. The do what they are told.


7 posted on 02/08/2013 10:28:13 AM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tinamina

I could be totally wrong, but generally where there ‘s smoke, there’s fire. We just don’t know who started it. I mean, no planes went down and most aircraft experince maintenance problems which generally are NOT reported by ALL the media. So why was Boeing so special?


8 posted on 02/08/2013 10:33:37 AM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg
I get this feeling that since Boeing would not bow down to the unions, the unions are bringing down Boeing.

The minute I read this story, I thought the same thing. Really now... this spate of exploding batteries this conveniently soon after Boeing tried to move some operations to RTW South Carolina... not buying the "it was just coincidental" bit.

9 posted on 02/08/2013 10:35:37 AM PST by ScottinVA (Gun control: Steady firm grip, target within sights, squeeze the trigger slowly...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

So why was Boeing so special?
********************************
New Tech that is generally not approved (LiON batteries)
New aircraft construction type for large passenger craft
The FedGov is unhappy with Boeings move away from union states
The failures occurred randomly , not even when the parts were under stress. and the batteries are a critical design element , they can’t just replace them with another type.


10 posted on 02/08/2013 10:39:12 AM PST by Neidermeyer (I used to be disgusted , now I'm just amused.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet
Buying airplanes ain't like buying laundry soap.

As the chart shows, there are months with few orders (April, May, June, August 2012) and months with huge orders.

With the Aero India Expo now going on, I wouldn't be surprised for Boeing and Airbus to announce orders this week.

11 posted on 02/08/2013 10:41:29 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

It happened in Japan.

I had one bird caught fire and the local media was all in our shorts for months. We had the local mayor pay us a visit and we had to do the old dog and pony show.


12 posted on 02/08/2013 10:53:51 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

The failures occurred randomly , not even when the parts were under stress. and the batteries are a critical design element , they can’t just replace them with another type.

So why hasn’t the Battery manufacturer been excoriated in the media?

I thought this might be interesting....

From an AP story by Joan Lowy Feb 4, 2013:

WASHINGTON - At the same time the U.S. government certified Boeing’s 787 Dreamliners as safe, federal rules barred the type of batteries used to power the airliner’s electrical systems from being carried as cargo on passenger planes because of the fire risk.

The situation is reversed now.

Dreamliners worldwide were grounded nearly three weeks ago after lithium ion batteries that are part of the planes led to a fire in one plane and smoke in a second. But new rules exempt aircraft batteries from the ban on large lithium ion batteries as cargo on flights by passenger planes.

In effect, that means the Dreamliner’s batteries are now allowed to fly only if they’re not attached to a Dreamliner.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-rule-exemption-means-batteries-led-dreamliner-053758589—finance.html


13 posted on 02/08/2013 10:54:05 AM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA; USAF80

I just posted a link to a story that you NEED to read. I didn’t know what to think....

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-rule-exemption-means-batteries-led-dreamliner-053758589—finance.html

Let me know what you make of it.


14 posted on 02/08/2013 11:00:41 AM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

“I get this feeling that since Boeing would not bow down to the unions, the unions are bringing down Boeing. It would not be the first time they tried to sabotage a company for opposing the union. Any thoughts?”

Yes, those are my thoughts as well.

Hard for me to believe a stellar company like Boeing with the experience and track record it has could mess up like this - unassisted.


15 posted on 02/08/2013 11:01:05 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (A return to Jesus and prayer in the schools is the only way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone

Check the article I just posted (on this thread). The more I think about it , the madder I get.


16 posted on 02/08/2013 11:06:02 AM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

I’m missing how this is something to celebrate, as seems to be the thrust of the article.


17 posted on 02/08/2013 11:09:20 AM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

Occam’s Razor: Boeing made a stupid design decision. Ooops!

(Now let’s try to blame this on anyone but Boeing itself...duh!)


18 posted on 02/08/2013 11:55:11 AM PST by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

The problem isn’t Boeing, it’s the government. The FAA makes it almost impossible to change any — ANY — part on a certified aircraft. One change on a large commercial aircraft requires 3-12 months, hundreds of thousands of man hours, and up to $100M. The FAA killed the LSA industry, which was set to offer new light sport airplanes for $30k-40k. They actually cost $90k - $150k for an airplane that can carry just two and is limited to local flights in good daytime weather. A used Cessna 150 can be had for $20k and up. On top of the Boeing battery problem is the loss of confidence in Boeing. Several crashes killed the market for the Lockheed L-188 Electra that was saved only by developing the Navy P-3. No such luck for the 787.


19 posted on 02/08/2013 12:09:24 PM PST by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

My point is that Boeing is not the first to make a “stupid design decision”, so why are THEY being villified? If you read http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-rule-exemption-means-batteries-led-dreamliner-053758589—finance.html you might wonder why the batteries are still flying and Boeing is grounded. Please enlighten me on how this makes any sense?


20 posted on 02/08/2013 12:10:46 PM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

I would bet the union who tried to keep them from moving is celebrating...A LOT!


21 posted on 02/08/2013 12:13:00 PM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

“...the media is blowing the 787 problems out of proportion.”

Agree - this is not uncommon for a brand new-design aircraft to have issues. Computer modeling can only take you so far - it’s actual flight-hours and cycles that can detect flaws.

But I do think Boeing upper-Mngmnt bears a large part of the blame - too many post-grad. degrees from fine schools and not a lick of aviation blood in their veins - I see it all the time with my company.


22 posted on 02/08/2013 12:16:50 PM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

The C-17 had alot of problems into its development, yet is now one of the world’s most dependable airlifters.

I think these issues can be made right.


23 posted on 02/08/2013 12:19:36 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Zakeet

Well Boeing installed Lithium Batteries in a Giant passenger Air plane that are designed to internally short and catch fire. They are then trying to get around having to redesign the batteries. And likely the air craft too, as a proper battery design would require more space and weigh more. In the mean time these Airplanes are giant sitting paper weights.

I can’t really understand why no one would want to buy one.


24 posted on 02/08/2013 12:22:12 PM PST by Revel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

But I do think Boeing upper-Mngmnt bears a large part of the blame - too many post-grad. degrees from fine schools and not a lick of aviation blood in their veins - I see it all the time with my company.

Agreed. But it still doesn’t answer why this was such big news, carried by all the major networks and newspapers. It just doesn’t make any sense unless you look at it from the “union” point of view.


25 posted on 02/08/2013 12:24:08 PM PST by marstegreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

“But it still doesn’t answer why this was such big news....”

Agree - unless it’s because Obozo wanted it to be big news.


26 posted on 02/08/2013 12:27:32 PM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
I think these issues can be made right.

Agreed. It's an engineering problem that can be rectified by an engineering solution.

But right now, and probably for a little while longer, Boeing is going to suffer for that error.

27 posted on 02/08/2013 1:39:35 PM PST by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg
Please enlighten me on how this makes any sense?

I am in no position to offer a full explanation to that question. One possible answer would be that different applications of the same basic technology (the batteries) lead to different outcomes. It works in one case and fails in the other. But perhaps Airbus will fall down that same set of stairs next week...or next month...

In any case, I do not think wild conspiracy theories need to be brought forth. Boeing SNAFU'ed on this, and whether the competition did better or just lucked out so far doesn't change that.

Take automotive companies' recalls for example. While some orders of magnitude less in impact, one company may have to make a recall on, say, power steering failures, while other companies have no issues with the same basic technology.

28 posted on 02/08/2013 1:54:41 PM PST by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marstegreg

Seems like Boeing and possibly Airbus has some pull getting this done. We never flew aircraft batteries on passenger flights. They always flew on cargo birds.

One of my aircraft had a battery explosion but it did no damage. On the DC-9 the battery is enclosed in an armored box. We came out for a flight and had no DC power, when we checked the battery the box looked like a basketball. It was almost a perfect circle but it contained the explosion and we did not have a fire.

One of the cells had shorted out and detonated some battery gases.


29 posted on 02/08/2013 11:08:52 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson