Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 14782  
Subject: Re: BA ( Boeing ) Date: 1/18/2013 9:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
Given that BA is a major manufacturer that makes products in the US (i.e. lots of jobs), using the observation that the gov't stepped in to help the auto industry, my guess is that BA would likely be in line for a bailout if things really get that bad.

Boeing assembles planes in Seattle (and to a lesser extent in South Carolina), but gets sub assemblies from all over the country. They would have substantial clout with employers and manufacturers in practically every Congressional district that might matter in the event of a company-threatening problem.

More to the point, they are also a huge military contractor, and the Pentagon would hardly allow them to go under. It's conceivable that a plan might be hatched which would give a haircut to bond holders or stock owners, but it's inconceivable that Boeing would cease to exist.

Whatever happens with this electrical sub-system I don't think it will affect the ultimate success of the 787:

Every aircraft employing new technologies - and even those which are modest upgrades - suffer problems out of the gate. Unless there are fatal accidents, the memories disappear pretty quickly.

Punchline is that the demand for the 787 is really big and Boeing is the only one selling ice cream.

The Airbus 380 has a passenger capacity 15%-20% larger than the Dreamliner. Airlines will balance that against the Dreamliner's 20% fuel savings (along with other factors, like legacy fleets, obviously). The fuel savings is significant, but fuel is only one component, so you might achieve an 8-10% overall cost savings (ignoring downstream maintenance of the new technologies, about which I know nothing). Balance that against the Airbus higher capacity (which will depend on load factors and not be 100% utilitized, obviously) and it's not quite as clear cut as first blush estimates might seem.
 
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

Foolanthropy 2014!
By working with young, first-time moms, Nurse-Family Partnership is able to truly change lives – for generations to come.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

Looking at Currency Ratios
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement