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.
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.
Obamanomics works!
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 critical number is backorders. The chart shows they’ve already had low orders in the past 12 months before the 787 problems started.
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.
I think the problem is that they didn’t sufficiently test the battery for performance under long-term vibration. Internal shorts yield flaming batteries.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I just posted a link to a story that you NEED to read. I didn’t know what to think....
Let me know what you make of it.
“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.
Check the article I just posted (on this thread). The more I think about it , the madder I get.
I’m missing how this is something to celebrate, as seems to be the thrust of the article.
Occam’s Razor: Boeing made a stupid design decision. Ooops!
(Now let’s try to blame this on anyone but Boeing itself...duh!)
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.
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?
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.