Boeing Co. (BA)

All Comments on BA

  • commenter
    Respirate
    Aug 23 03:01 PM
    Boeing Drags Its Heels on Air Force Bid [view article]
    Good summary. I for one would be glad to see the Pentagon call Boeing's bluff. They have tried to cheat and strongarm the procurement process in the past. A fair playing field has no part of this process. I say let the crybabies at Boeing take their toys home and sit out the game; the Lockheed consortium can provide the needed equpment.

    Alas, that's wishful thinking. Corporations run the government, and because Boeing knows that, they can afford to sulk.     Reply
  • commenter
    mycargets52m
    pg
    Aug 22 01:37 PM
    The Economic Cost of the Military Industrial Complex [view article]
    Point is, for all that spending, it is more luck and happenstance than anything else that we have not witnessed another terrorist attack in the US. Throughout the Cold War, and even now, the Russians were careful enough to calibrate their actions precisely to keep below the threshold that would have led to massive retaliation, so all the tools/toys at our disposal were quite pointless.

    How exactly did the investment in our nuclear submarine and carrier fleet prevent any of the attacks culminating in 9/11? And yet we are still building more of them, for instance the "George H.W. Bush". Funny, huh? A strong defense is vital, and the technology geek in me marvels at some of this stuff as much anybody, but even now, a single kayak paddling over from Canada could pack enough biological agent to wipe out Detroit. We're lucky any would-be terrorists aren't that bright after all.     Reply
  • commenter
    stonemad
    Aug 22 01:23 PM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Rachel, wonderfull reporting, informative and to the point, keep on w/ the good work, Thank you Reply
  • commenter
    Anurag Gupta
    Aug 22 12:51 PM
    Ten Leading Nanotech Stocks [view article]
    These are NOT nanotech stocks. Just because a large company has a nanotech research division it does not become a nanotech stock. Everyone is investigating nanaotech these days. Nanotech firms are those who are bringing out real products into the market based on nanotech technology. Reply
  • commenter
    dbart
    Aug 22 12:47 PM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    WE WANT RACHEL! WE WANT RACHEL! WE WANT RACHEL!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply
  • commenter
    Terrence
    Devitt
    Aug 22 11:52 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Great job, Rachel, very informative and helpful news items...Thanks! Reply
  • commenter
    User 21806
    Aug 22 11:05 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Rachel get's my vote Reply
  • commenter
    moneysurf
    Aug 22 10:43 AM
    My Website
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Very usefull everyday info a must know. Reply
  • commenter
    secmaven
    Aug 22 09:59 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Put Rachel on this job every day! Reply
  • commenter
    Dan_Sil
    Aug 21 10:51 AM
    The Cost of Volatility To Your Portfolio [view article]
    you're really smart Reply
  • commenter
    bimbr
    Aug 21 01:39 AM
    Boeing May Withdraw from $35 Billion Air Force Contract Contest [view article]
    Tricky's solution brings to mind that military expression: cluster ...k.
    In other words... completely unworkable.

    Can't anyone get beyond national pride and focus on what makes best practical sense?
    I think the Airforce is trying to do that.
    And if it breaks the stranglehold of a few 'fatted calves' for a while, so much the better.     Reply
  • commenter
    Trciky Dicky
    Aug 20 02:02 PM
    Boeing May Withdraw from $35 Billion Air Force Contract Contest [view article]

    Given that it is the Armed Forces, USAF include, role is to defend the sovereign nation status of the United States…., it would seem that DoD/USAF would employ every strategy possible? Cost being just one variable. Does the USAF need a new tanker? Yes, Must it be US built? Maybe, Is the USAF obligated to do or find or undertake the very lowest dollar approach? No, (That might be nice and play well politically). However, the Armed Force’s purpose is to defend the country in the best possible manner at a reasonable, budgeted cost.

    Now let’s say the real tanker program will be more like $100B when all is said and done. A 200% overrun on any DoD program is the norm, so the $35B number is simply political and USAF propaganda. Below is a recommended USAF Tanker award profile and funding split that will provide the best multi-engine Bomber defense for the US for the next 50-75 years.

    An award of 60% ($60B) to Boeing to insure the viability of superior multi-engine aircraft design and technology for the US during the foreseeable future.

    An award of 30% ($30B) to Airbus/NG to ensure deep USAF involvement in any large multi-engine aircraft program in Europe that could result in advance knowledge regarding bomber technology.

    An award of 10% ($10B) to Sukhoi or Ilyushin to ensure deep USAF involvement in any large multi-engine aircraft program in Russia that could result in advance knowledge for bomber technology.

    Imagine this: a Pentagon located three star USAF General at the helm of the USAF Tanker Program. A Deputy two star USAF General and Staff resident at Boeing, a Deputy two star USAF General and Staff resident in Europe at Airbus facilities and a Deputy two star USAF General and Staff resident in Russia at their major multi-engine aircraft manufacturer. Europe and Russian Deputies and Staff would be rotated routinely to ensure maximum knowledge and retention of foreign multi-engine design and technology is available to the US military.

    USAF logistics and maintain of three tanker configuration would perhaps add another 0.15 cent to each $1.00 dollar spent supporting a single Tanker configuration. But this added expense would likely pay for itself by eliminating the need for a host of CIA agents to track and analyze foreign multi-engine developments.

    I for one would gladly pay an additional 15-20% more for a USAF Tanker Program that would place our US Military in a position to know, influence and weigh, first hand, world-wide multi-engine aircraft developments, in Europe and Russia. US Employment aspects, no worse or better than NAFTA.

    Come on USAF…, spend our defense money wisely. A one aircraft logistic cost scenario is small potatoes compared to having the USAF directly involved in funding, design & development of all world-wide multi-engine aircraft programs.
    Reply
  • commenter
    User 52095
    Aug 20 01:36 PM
    Buy Weyerhauser - Cramer's Lightning Round (8/18/08) [view article]
    How does Cramer fit in with any serious discussion? Reply
  • commenter
    asdf439
    Aug 20 09:59 AM
    Buy Weyerhauser - Cramer's Lightning Round (8/18/08) [view article]
    Cramer,the talking 6-week chart, simply tells people to do was right over the last couple of few weeks.

    If the trend continues,he is right,else he is wrong.

    Right now the market is flip-floping a lot,so he is more wrong than right.




    Reply
  • commenter
    Norman
    Lepoff, M.D.
    Aug 20 08:46 AM
    Buy Weyerhauser - Cramer's Lightning Round (8/18/08) [view article]
    I don't understand why Cramer is around any more. When BA was 100 it was a "buy, buy, buy." Anyone remember? I am sure Cramer doesn't. Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: