Profit Dollar Crashes Both Governance And Max

Long after the two Max crashes it has trickled down there is an imperfection in what makes modern jets stay flying. Is it from the factory floor where assemblers are tired of build process and leave workmanship for the next shift. Is it execs who love floating about in Golden parachutes, or is it government governance overwhelmed to even check it twice and then depend on Golden parachutes and workmanship to take care of  air devastation? A good question is raised from those with clipboards walking about asking who is responsible for the broom leaning up in the corner of a big production floor building?

FAA is overwhelmed, execs search for profit dollars and workers seek how efficiently they hid the dirty parts and saved the corporation from spending money on due diligence once the production floor. Passengers want a cheap ticket and airlines too want a fat paycheck after discount fares are offered. The spiral down is complete waiting for planet earth to gather up another airplane. Airbus is not exempt from a catastrophe. Airbus is just lucky, it too has a multitude of near misses from crashing. In a perfect world, craftsmen and women catch engineering errors. Execs look for the best pathway forward and sometimes it cost more to be safe than sorry. The US government must not spend billions of dollars every day until it can properly staff the FAA with leading experts in the field of aviation. All problems cannot be solved all the time but it can mitigate the sloppy nature aircraft are made and delivered to the various profit makers.

2019, Meh!

Boeing is doing over the year 2019 during 2020. It will re engage the Max to service and fly the 777X to Farnborough on a big hop across the Atlantic. Sales for its 787 have slowed but expect a few 787 order surprises at Farnborough aviation show. Boeing wants to show off safety and technology as its theme but it wants to secretly  demonstrate market strength as its devoted single aisle customers re energizes the 737 Max offering thus blunting an Airbus order rout during the last 12 months from Farnborough's show date. 

Boeing is quietly clearing the mishap cobwebs and fixing its 777X problems at it has already taken a delivery on GE9X engine fixes. So tweeks were needed on the 777X program development.  Where that is now completed and where it remains to fly and fly a 777X all the way to Farnborough. It will carry "testing bodies" along with that endeavor. It's not too early to say Boeing is quickly coming back in 2020 and putting 2019 aviation news pundits to bed by year's end.

Deferred Costs And Boeing's Dreams

Deferred cost is a noted Boeing contrived concept in program accounting. It takes so many billion to develop an airplane. In Boeing's case it spent about $30 Billion more developing the 787 than it had, so it programmed how many 787's it needed to build in order to pay-off that 30 $$ billion debt it had incurred. It also adjusts the number of production models it needs to build to pay for an ever expanding production debt as technology is developed and introduced to that aircraft. Kind of like a line of credit on its credit card.

Boeing needed about 1,100 of its 787 delivered to pay off this deferral of debt. Where each airplane it delivered was more efficiently built thus allowing more money available to pay down deferred 787 cost with each airplane it had built. However, the 787 incurred more debt greater than its production efficiency, so it had to increase the projected 787's it needed to deliver to reduced the deferred cost to a theoretical zero balance when delivering oh let's say 1,200-1,300, or 1600 hundred 787s. 

Each of those deferred costs broken down into units delivered while its benchmark kept increasing as the aircraft matured as the production cost increased because technology improvements were added as its development costs increased for those improvements. It's like a dog chasing its costs tail. Is 1,600 units the ultimate deferred cost benchmark? That answer remains to seen as Boeing has not yet sold 1,600 units and for what price going forward. I would speculate to say Boeing will sell enough 787 to past 1600 units but it will also take another five years to extinguish its 787 deferred development cost for the 787. The year 2025 is a more doable time frame for investors unless Boeing gets more significant breakthroughs on build costs through material efficiencies or equipment development.

Always improving is a cost factor that can be derived from from historical data. It can be a cost component factor turned into a quantifiable number as a forecasting component. Also sales or commitments is a number in the same position. It can be factored in a forward looking estimation from global history and commercial trends. Somewhere in between lies the fact. So a computer guess is needed to surmise where Boeing will reach its deferred costs nervana of zero balance after the (nth number) of units are delivered and revenue is realized for each unit against its actual current production cost.

There are two costs before the margin is establish. One portion goes towards the deferred balance and one towards the actual production of an aircraft. Once the aircraft is delivered, the accounting flows can continue through the accounting programs at an actual rate where deferred costs are actually reduced and a profit margin outside the deferred cost is applied. It becomes a tangled view of when
real value is recognized for the 787 program by investors. It is probably safe to say, investors must make money with Boeing during the near term investment cycles of stock values and during value increases or decreases. Investors may wait another five years for making money on the long term program completion from program Investment cycles. 

I am not a stock analyst and do not make recommendations for stock purchasing. I only guess like the next person what may happened in the "market place". So invest at your own capability, means or risk. 

Boeing Oust Muilenburg As Chairman

Another Max crash at the top of Boeing is a long awaited Max purge has begun, Muilenburg is no longer board chairman but has been relegated to CEO. Boeing must reinvent itself as a renaissance kind of corporation and build something flawless and immune from the critics looking for dust balls floating about Boeing fortunes.

Dennis Muilenburg looks ahead

Chairman to CEO is a preliminary round to spending more time with "your family" rather than "spending more money in time". Boeing has finally cried "UNCLE"! The time has come to start the journey down the beanstalk picking off golden parachutes hanging like low hanging fruit off its limbs. Boeing is making a turn away from headwinds and now will run with the aviation surge if one can be found.

Boeing must have one keystone aircraft to build a new perception about its ability to provide an aircraft everyone desires. Two crashes of the Max has brought Boeing in a face to face confrontation with its maker. Its customer and not the stockholder. Boeing is to big to succeed! It must reach for its trim control and now fly its aircraft like a seasoned pilot before it too crashes.

Boeing Blinks: Reengine Recycle 767

The US military chose the 767 for it tanker model going against the A330 so there was something in the sauce Boeing provided the US Military tanker program that goes beyond the A330 than just money and convenience the A330 couldn't offer.

The 767 is a good airframe. Now it is considering rengining the 767 with GenX type engines leaving PW behind to sort out what happens next. The PW engine is listed Two Pratt & Whitney PW 4062 with 62,000 lbs. However, GE has been developing its own class of engine for the 777X and 747 8 projects thus pumping billions into R&D into its behemoths for sometime far outpacing PW expenditures on similar class jet engine like the PW4062.

Now come the 797 proposition from scratch white paper. It's too expensive and late to compete with the A321 class of extended range gap filler. Boeing sees something out of the Airbus playbook that has quickly made it more powerful than Boeing's marketing effort. The NEO is working in the market as we speak. Boeing may divert using the 767 frame and attaching GE engine technology to its frame. It would use the 767-400 configuration and perhaps call it the 767-8i and 8F. It would be bigger than the 797 and fly further but could fit into continental market places well when flying to LA to NY as an example. Boeing needs to make it efficient for 1,000 - 5000 mile range and it will compete with the A330 and buy time for the 797 concept to evolve monetarily. 

What must Boeing do: 

• Improve 767 build technology. Done that! 767, (KC-46 program)

• New GEX engine. Done that!  (GE can provide a scalable engine  from its GEX program

• Have a short development cycle for minimal costs. Set up for that!

• New 767 wings. Done That! (It has a new wing plant in Everett, Washington awaiting more work in its space and a 767 wing could be slotted in in a short amount of time. It already has wing designs ready to go based from its 787 and 777X programs.)

• Plane Size: Done that!

• Passenger amenities. Done that! (from all its family of programs and supporting suppliers eager for expanded business.)

• Commonality. You complete me theme from its family of aircraft.

• Customers. A Works in progress! It is the tipping point for making this business case. Does Boeing have a strong and risk-averse business case for its customers? Can Boeing make 1,000 orders from the NEO 767 idea? That all remains to be seen.

Job one. (Win customer trust back and kill the Boeing Golden Parachute mentality.)

Best Fighter Worst Fight The F-35 Argument Continues

I'm in no position to take a side until a war is fought using the F-35. Most military heads think the F-35 out flies sliced bread which is our culture's best invention. We are all watching how the F-35I Adair fares against the Su-35 and S-400 combo in the Middle East. this proxy demonstration is watched by all talking heads of consequence having some military expertise. Can the F-35 beat the S-400 Russian missile battery Turkey opted for instead of a 100 F-35's it had on order? Turkey's F-35 order was canceled because the F-35 was too secret and advance to let the Russians have a crack at its technology when delivering the S-400 missile Turkey had bought. I'll say the S-400 is a poor man's answer to the F-35 capability.

What about the Russian Su-35 which will show up on a regional radar? Can the F-35 take it out? Yes and no and that is a financial answer. If users can guarantee an outcome then it will risk a 100 million F-35 against 40 million Su-35. However, if the Su-35 has a slim chance a nation will fall back when a SU-35 arrives in F-35 airspace as Israel has demonstrated. Short of all-out war the risk is too much to for an F-35 to strike the SU-35 with an S-400 missile battery within two hundred miles. Israel has rightly become prudent with its 18 F-35's on hand. Even with an Israel Adair load out and strategy an all-out war will bring on its F-35 beast mode which could decide how good the F-35 can be used against advanced adversary counter-strategy. 

Somebody has an educated guess how a conflict would turn out but there is a chance there would be losses on both sides. It all depends on how the military hand is played. Israel needs a full contingent to guarantee a win with 50 F-35's flying out of Israel's Nevatim airbase. The S-400 systems need neutralization early suggesting covert actions in play. Without the S-400 the Su-35 does not have a chance against the F-35 in a conflict. The risk factor of 100 million per airplane is mitigated. Israel's 5 billion American investment will have another 100 F-35 in play during an extended action thus guaranteeing an outcome is America's favor. I suspect S-400 secrets are now known at this time by western intel.

When Pigs Fly

The electric airplane will be an indicator that the battery has arrived for ground transportation. If a commercial airplane can fly 500 miles on a battery then a car can travel the same distance on the same battery. Technology creep is making a better storage battery for electrical motors with a quick recharge cycle making the battery a competitive alternative to fossil fuel engines. The world is only about 20 years away from an electrical storage solution for electric motors. Needed is a significant weight reduction in that battery and a short charging cycle for storing electrical power. The chemistry in theory has been found but the practicality  of making the alternative cheap enough has not been found. But a promise has been made it can be done so a forward push for an all electric powered aircraft goes forward.

The electric plane isn't just a far fetched idea it is what is needed to come and the necessity is the mother of the electric power travel. Elon Musk and Tesla is pushing this need in a awe inspiring journey but has it advanced far enough to entice "others" to try a concept at Universities across the world?

Cambridge start-up claims breakthrough electric car battery that can charge in 6 minutes

We’re working on methods to make powders that are scalable and where 1,000 tonnes could be made quite easily in factories. We have a prototype now, and are moving toward commercialization early next year. The tests have to be validated beforehand.

It's a matter of time and 20 years seems about right to drop fossil fuels from the Scheme of Things (SoT).

The SoT gauntlet has been thrown down and that is where we are today. Many ideas are pouring fourth and the solar system's sun is the key to unlimited electrical energy to power the planet in its endeavors.

The earth only has to supply plant based lubricants/plastics to make it all work. I'll be dead by the year 2040 but you may enjoy the change to save the planet from global warming.

Peregrine Missile Bang For Buck

Back in the day it was noted a 150 million dollar missile taking out a 40 million fighter is a bad trade-off. Well things have changed in the war strategy. Hence, the Peregrine missile by Raytheon as a medium range missile  taking out relatively inexpensive drones is the trade-off. This missile is not what it cost versus the cost of the target but the value of what it can do. If it can sink a $100 million in potential value or eliminate a billion in risk from drones, then the Peregrine missile is a great value when it strikes a drone. A drone is a poor man's sword and the Peregrine is a rich man's cane for a beating to be given. The F-35 can hold more Peregrine missiles than a AMRAAM held in a 4+ fighter. A silver bullet is better than a less expensive drone that can stop an oil field from delivery of world economy.

The Peregrine missile from Raytheon is such an investment. A million here or million there pretty soon terrorist are defanged and the defense of this nation is intact. Its cost will come down as thousands of Peregrines are produced in mass for a revolving delivery system at a jet near you. The versatility is the key. It can take out weapons from a drone or an adversary's attack jet on the same dime and with everything in between no longer in play on the battle space



It's six feet long and 150 lbs.

Flightglobal:

"The missile gains its manoeuvrability through thrust vectoring technology that is similar to what is used on the AIM-9X, says Noyes. He declines to say the missile’s exact range. The AMRAAM has a range of more than 17.4nm (32km), according to the USAF."

What Lies Beneath, The Max?

What is really underneath the Max's skin troubles the aviation world, Some old school stuff, cables and wheels could be what Boeing is passing for airplane scares sensibility into a corner. Come 1950 and the 737 is revolutionary. Come 2017, it crashes.  That is the Max problem in a nutshell. It merges the Wright Bros with the computer age. Boeing is paying everyone to pass its ideas through the gauntlet of scrutiny as it will get it flying sooner rather than later. Boeing has dithered its concept out there long enough to start the political round as the European governance is now seizing the FAA high ground away from them in the aviation realm.

The FAA took some Boeing money and now European influence can dominate the FAA. However, not so fast. This is just round one with aircraft disasters. The pendulum will swing back as greed and power always seems to dominate the human nature. It's a common element through history man has gone to the Max when money and power are at stake and Boeing or Airbus is no different with this matter. The great airplane crash will continue until man's bent towards optimal power continues.

Who Blinks First Boeing Or China?

It is not certain who has the upper hand Boeing or China. Boeing needs China badly and China needs airplanes from the duopoly of Airbus and Boeing. However, Boeing builds the best heavies flying when considering the 777 line of aircraft. But the duo aisle segment can't save an manufacturer alone in its quest of being number 1 in the world it needs its Max sold to china and there is the log jam for Boeing. No Ma and no money in asia and China can pressure Boeing in a trade war so to speak. It becomes a blinking game of who will give in first. Boeing must gets its single-aisle airborne again before it can start its manufacturing engine up to full capacity and China must buy airframes to supply its ever expanding market place. Boeing must move its single-aisle backlog Max 737 when established to fly again.

Who blinks first in this deadlock? Both will blink at the same time benefiting both Boeing and China mutually during the year 2020. China will order 200 airplanes from single-aisle to WB at a fire sale price as Boeing seeks to regain some dominance in aviation's world marketplace. The later half of 2020 is the target area in time for blinking at each other. Everything until then will be posturing and gamenship. China needs airplanes and Boeing is making it difficult for them to get them with all the mishap and development problems Boeing has experienced. Out of this should come some pretty nifty product for the world and China would like to show case a leading edge approach which should cause them to order Boeing in late 2020. The 777 will have completed testing by then and the Max should have taken off by then.

The caveat is Airbus is lurking behind the Boeing mishap draft waiting to pounce on opportunity. A little publicized fact is Airbus has its problems too with its family of aircraft. It has been lucky so far as it hasn't crashed one or two of its products through Airbus faults. Airplanes have become way too complex to assume they will fly without hiccups. The Boeing lesson is profit over safety is not a good path in this new era of aviation. Safety is the gold standard to profits and will remain so for some time to come. In the meantime, who blinks first has the greatest need to win the aviation war.