Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Stock Message Boards NYSE, NASDAQ, AMEX' started by Stockaholic, Apr 1, 2016.
This keeps finding resistance at the 200 sma, every month since September.
The only hope for Boeing is if they replace management with a team that is honest and competent. This makes Boeing very enticing as a short position because we know that will never happen.
While I agree, you have to remember you can never trust the government to let a military contractor go down.
Made an options play on this today thanks to @anotherdevilsadvocate -- I appreciate the heads up!
I am short; there's a new documentary ("Downfall") on Netflix.
Boeing merged with the fading McDonnell Douglas, and although they kept the name Boeing it was ultimately the McDonnell Douglas executives who ended up in control. And they had no understanding of the Boeing corporate culture. It's not the same Boeing that made a name for itself in the Pacific Northwest (now corporate HQ is in Chicago).
A 737 just crashed into a mountain in China.
They are calling the aircraft a "737-800". This designates a non-Max model, however, many airlines have been calling the "Max 8" a "-800", because some passengers associate the "Max" brand with safety issues.
So, the crashed aircraft is likely not a Max but it remains a possibility.
"Plane began sudden, rapid, unexplained, descent."
That is the modus operandi of the Max accidents.
Apparently, the plane was a 6 year old 737-800 so definitely not a Max.
Nice candle going through $140 to the upside
FYI - BA fundies.
Two days ago, the FAA gave the green light to Boeing to resume deliveries of the 787 Dreamliner. What's more, the FAA alluded to Boeing being cooperative and more transparent than they have been in the past.
Hopefully, the horrible management problems have softened a bit and Boeing can get on with the job of building aircraft.
Back to the 200 sma resistance.
A B737 Max just weathered a mayday situation safely.
It was an engine out situation. It doesn't seem related to Boeing indemic management problems. Boeing probably had nothing to do with it but a Max just landed to a reception of a dozen emergency vehicles and that is not going to buoy the stock price.
If I was considering Boeing, I would be starting to think about an entry. Of course, I am an investor. I have no idea what is going to happen to the stock on the short term.
You went from "not going to buoy the stock price" to "If I was considering Boeing, I would be starting to think about an entry"
Yes. These two ideas are complimentary.
Something happened to a Boeing Max aircraft. It flew to Sydney, Australia with an engine out. The event started with a mayday call but was downgraded shortly after by the pilots who were able to keep the remaining engine running.
It is likely to cause a minor negative influence on the stock. As that event is extremely unlikely to be Boeing's fault, this might be an entry point before the morons of the world realize Boeing doesn't build engines.
TomB's glimpse of the future...
Boeing announced it will not have any new aircraft until the mid 2030s. Their programs are essentially going to be evolutionary, until then. A lot of people are still scratching their heads about that one.
Meanwhile, Air Bus and a couple of other manufacturers are pouring billions into new models. Very strange.
Jet engine efficiency is largely a function of bypass air. Essentially, the larger the diameter the engine, the more efficient. This is why engines have gotten so huge.
The next step seems to be turboprop. Yes. Turboprop.
Current turboprops are efficient up to roughly 0.55 mach. This is why they are slower than jets. At turboprop speeds, they are more efficient than jets. At jet speed, jets are more efficient.
New technology promises to widen the turboprop efficiency range up to 0.8 mach. That includes the speed of current airliners. These engines promise 20% efficiency improvement over jets plus weight savings at the cost of new airframe designs.
If things play out as expected, Boeing will suffer some short term pain and potentially dominate the next generation turbofan aircraft.
This also applies to drones, guided missiles, etc.
I assume I don't have to detail to the demand that a 20% more efficient aircraft would trigger?
I do not currently own Boeing but suffice to say I will be watching this company with an idea of buying low and then holding for a decade. If they can dramatically improve the quality of their management staff, I will buy at market and hold indefinitely.
Are you sure you do not mean Propfan technology?
These definitely gives me Antonov/Tupolev bomber vibes. Interesting look for sure.
Seems like every flight I am on lately is an Airbus jet, so Boeing needs to get off its ass and compete.
Boeing is working on some new airframe designs that look extremely odd but they claim 10~30% efficiency gains. If these ideas bear fruit, air travel could look radically different in 10~15 years.
This may not be the best time to storm off and start airframe development using current-tech. Or, it might be. I don't know. lol!
It seems like they might have a new design plan they are striving for: https://www.popsci.com/technology/nasa-boeing-announce-sustainable-flight-demonstrator/
All I can think of is where will the fuel tanks go? Bottom of fuselage? With the higher wings, the presumed propfans used will fit in the traditional spots as well. If they can get cabin noise volume and profile to equal current turbofans, they might have a winning combination.