Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Boeing shares fall as analyst deems 787 cost recoup `Unachievable'
Boeing Co. tumbled after an analyst downgraded the stock to “underperform” and said the U.S. planemaker stood little chance of fully recovering almost $29 billion that’s been sunk into producing the 787 Dreamliner jet. The shares fell 1.9 percent to $130.11 at 11:25 a.m. in New York. The stock earlier dropped 3.2 percent, the most intraday since Feb. 24. Boeing had declined 8.2 percent this year through Tuesday, the fourth-worst performance among the 30 members of the Dow Jones Industrial… (www.bloomberg.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Boeing workers who built the 787 themselfs said that they would'nt fly on a 787!
To fully understand how Boeing went wrong during the development of the 787, download and read this article, "The cost of trying to control cost" by Chad Smith:
http://demanddrivenperformance.com/dreamliner/
To summarize, the author traces the root of Boeing's problems to the 1997 merger with McDonnell-Douglas, when MD executives began to apply the same failed practises that got them into financial difficulties at Boeing. To quote from the article, "McDonnell-Douglas in effect acquired Boeing with Boeing's money. McDonnell-Douglas executives became key players in the new company, and the McDonnell-Douglas culture, averse to risk and obsessed with cost-cutting, weakened Boeing's historical commitment to making big investments in new products."
It sounds counter-intuitive, but it was their focus on cost reduction led to these huge cost overruns.
http://demanddrivenperformance.com/dreamliner/
To summarize, the author traces the root of Boeing's problems to the 1997 merger with McDonnell-Douglas, when MD executives began to apply the same failed practises that got them into financial difficulties at Boeing. To quote from the article, "McDonnell-Douglas in effect acquired Boeing with Boeing's money. McDonnell-Douglas executives became key players in the new company, and the McDonnell-Douglas culture, averse to risk and obsessed with cost-cutting, weakened Boeing's historical commitment to making big investments in new products."
It sounds counter-intuitive, but it was their focus on cost reduction led to these huge cost overruns.
I was not aware of this piece; somewhat outdated but very interesting. The autor does not address the admittedly negative effect of Phil Condit decision to move the HQ to Chicago. That prompted another problem as there was a marked disconnect and slowness at making crucial decisions (the suttling back and forth between Chcago and Seattle I am told was, is and will be for years to come a waste of millions of man-hours lost as compared to what would have been if they stayed in the NW)
Phil Condit was an idiot. He was relieved of his post as CEO and didn't he go to jail? Apparently he was schooled and believes the phrase, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" when he decided to migrate to the mid-west.
Is this the same Bank of America that stole money from children's bank books? Are they now trying to steal the equity of Boeing shareowners?
The world needs airliners for long thin routes. The 787 will prove profitable.
The world needs airliners for long thin routes. The 787 will prove profitable.
The too big to fail bank is one of five that will steal your deposits when the next round comes along.