Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View GarryGR's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
    Thanks, Dhierin, I'm good. 'Appreciate your responses.

    Have a good day,
    Jun 5 08:41 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
    OK, thanks again, also, Dhierin; I appreciate your civil tone - I don't do as well, sometimes, sorry. :)

    I'll just make one more comment; this is a hot button issue for me and I usually don’t get an answer, to what I consider “my” key points (evidence of the lack of significance of the Boeing and Airbus order numbers). Ordinarily, I think, orders would (and should) indicate what the future holds for a company. But, on paper, Airbus's order book has been much larger than Boeing's for a number of years now (I believe that's true, right). Previous projections for growth, based on those numbers, would have put Airbus deliveries way ahead of Boeing by now but that didn't happen in 2012, despite Boeing’s tardiness on 787 deliveries.

    When I pointed out those 2012 delivery numbers, you replied "The only explanation for Boeing's deliveries being higher than Airbus' is that Boeing has a higher production rate and keeps increasing it". That’s true, of course, but I don’t see how that addresses my question. Given Airbus’s much larger order book, if their delivery schedule required it, they would just increase their production rate – which they are able to do as well as Boeing. But they didn’t; why? I say it’s more likely that they don’t have the delivery requirements, which goes to my point that Airbus’s order book is filled with orders, that on average, go out further into the future than Boeing’s order book.

    As you noted, it is difficult if not impossible to get the kind of detailed info on orders, that I would like to see tabulated, in particular when all those planes are scheduled to be delivered. You site that they are “firm” orders; but “firm orders are hardly firm, when it comes to deliveries far out into the future. The fact that detailed info for aircraft orders isn’t available, I'd say, is another good reason not to put much significance on those numbers.

    Numbers should never be taken to stand alone; you always need to have some way to audit them, generally with other numbers that support them. In the case of aircraft orders, especially the Airbus orders compared to Boeing orders, I don’t see the “auditable” numbers supporting what Airbus orders imply (Revenue, profits, dividends, deliveries/production et al).

    OK, I’ve got that off my chest. :) I guess you and I can just agree to disagree. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond; most of the time, I never get any response. And I enjoy reading your analysis (and commenting on them). :)

    Jun 5 03:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
    Dhierin, the problem with the order numbers is that there is no consistency as to when the ordered planes are to be delivered. For an exaggerated illustration, let’s say that Boeing’s 8500 orders were all to be delivered before 2015 and that Airbus’s 12000 orders were not to be delivered until 2030. Obviously, without knowing when the ordered planes will be delivered, “orders” have no context. And, without that context, i.e. x number of those 12000 orders are to be delivered in 2014, y in 2015 etc, the order numbers are not meaningful. I suspect that that’s why Boeing delivered more planes in 2012 than Airbus, i.e. Boeing’s deliveries for their orders were not as far out as Airbus’s orders.

    That’s why I say it would be very interesting to see a table, based on each company's orders, of the scheduled deliveries, by year, going forward and compare them with actual deliveries in the past and going forward.

    At any rate, the usual financial numbers are the bottom line numbers for measuring a company’s success and, as I’ve pointed out in the past, they do not confirm the implication that the order numbers would suggest. Just another reason one should question those order numbers usefulness.
    Jun 5 02:18 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Does Qatar Airlines still have a bad taste in its mouth after 787 Dreamliner delays caused it to forego $200M in revenue until April? "We like launching aircraft but not every aircraft. We are not a supermarket," the airline says, denying reports that it will be one of the launch customers for the Boeing (BA) 787-10X, a larger version of the now infamous original. [View news story]
    It is much too early to term the 787 program "infamous"! You might take a look at the early years of the "infamous" 737 program - perhaps you called that program "infamous" back then? But then, if you were around back then, you probably wouldn't be so foolhardy as to call the 787 infamous at this early date! :)
    Jun 4 03:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing, EADS And The Future Market [View article]
    Thanks, Dhierin, BUT - there's always a "but"! :)

    Your analysis assumes that Airbus orders and Boeing orders are comparable, i.e. equal in significance. However, there are no independent numbers for orders; Boeing "decides" what their yearly orders totals are and Airbus waits to see Boeing's numbers and then reports their yearly order total. :) One year, analysts had pretty much decided that Boeing had finally won the yearly orders race but after quite some time after Boeing had reported their order numbers, Airbus finally reported their order numbers and, shock-er-rou, Airbus won again! :) I remember one analyst who just ignored the Airbus numbers and continued to say Boeing won.

    Deliveries, on the other hand, are a more difficult to fudge. For example, in the decade leading up to 2012, Airbus reported taking in more orders every year except one. Then, in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did!

    What I'd love to see is a table showing the delivery dates for the orders taken in, e.g. if the delivery dates for Airbus planes are further out than Boeing's, that would explain how Boeing could deliver more planes than Airbus after a decade of fewer orders than Airbus. I've not seen anyone attempt to explain why the Airbus order "victories" didn't translate into a delivery victory in 2012. I'm guessing, which I've thought for quite some time now, that Airbus takes orders for deliveries going further out than Boeing? If you had a table showing how many deliveries those pervious yearly orders would have resulted in, each past year, vs. the actual deliveries in those years, I'm sure you'd see major discrepancies (for both companies). But, despite the unreliability of the order numbers, much to Airbus's delight (they successfully used them to project a more successful image, in comparison to Boeing, than is justified), they are still hyped in the press as if they were as significant as the financial numbers. But, as 2012 has shown, they are not even reliable as an indicator of future financial performance.
    Jun 4 03:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing (BA) receives an order for 60 737 MAX aircraft from British holiday company TUI Travel (TUIVY.PK) in a deal worth $6.1B at list prices, with the booking also including an option for another 90 planes. The order is so large that it will require the consent of TUI's shareholders. The jets will use LEAP-1B engines, which are made by CFM International, the joint venture partly owned by GE (GE). (PR[View news story]
    kwm3, you're not suggesting that Boeing pads their order numbers more than Airbus does, are you? Airbus "reported" taking in more orders than Boeing 9 out of 10 years leading up to 2012; if you added up all their claimed yearly orders, Airbus had a huge advantage over Boeing. But, then, in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did! Airbus is clearly the king when it comes to padding order numbers! :)
    Jun 1 02:42 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 787 Dreamliner is back in the air in the U.S. as the CEOs of Boeing (BA) and United Airlines (UAL) fly with 250 other passengers from Houston to Chicago aboard the jet. [View news story]
    Combie, where did you get that "2 or 3 a month" figure from? It's been widely reported that the current rate is at 7 and will be at 10 by the end of they year. How could be so "out of date" and expect anyone to pay any attention to what you have to say?!
    May 20 06:54 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Boeing: Great Company, Little Upside [View article]
    The main point of this opinion piece appears to be that Boeing will not be able to grow at the rate that analysts are expecting; significant growth is the main driver for the recent stock price increase. But, citing domestic airlines buying Airbus planes is off the mark. Even Air France buys Boeing planes. Boeing has a large backlog of orders and appears to finally be getting manufacturing up to where they'll be able to deliver on time. That's what will drive up revenue and profits significantly, for a number years, going forward.
    May 14 03:42 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The outlook for Boeing (BA) has improved according to Soc Gen's Zafar Khan who upgrades the shares to Hold from Sell and raises his price target to $94 from $86. The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers but solid Q1 results and a resolution to the 787 battery problem point to "strong cash generation in the medium term [which should] support the buyback program as well as dividend increases," Khan notes. [View news story]
    bberuch "peut-etra Societe General pense que De Gaule ete le factoire major de le victoire de WWII?"

    Say what now??? :)
    May 14 03:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The outlook for Boeing (BA) has improved according to Soc Gen's Zafar Khan who upgrades the shares to Hold from Sell and raises his price target to $94 from $86. The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers but solid Q1 results and a resolution to the 787 battery problem point to "strong cash generation in the medium term [which should] support the buyback program as well as dividend increases," Khan notes. [View news story]
    "The stock still has some "catching up" to do with its civil peers"; interesting term, "civil peers"?! Who might that be, other than EADS / Airbus?

    Boeing's PE is now at 17.67, EADS/Airbus is 27.58. Even with that rather large PE, EADS Mkt cap is much lower than Boeing's 71.50B. So Soc Gen says Boeing is a HOLD and EADS is a BUY?! OK, time will tell.
    May 11 02:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • More on Boeing (BA) Q1 earnings: Core operating earnings of $1.9B, up 14% Y/Y. Core operating margin of 9.9%, up 80 bps from a year ago. Backlog of $392B, up $2B from end of 2012. Net orders of $20B during Q1. FY2013 outlook of $82B-$85B in revenue and core EPS of $6.10-$6.30 is reaffirmed. Conference call 10:30 ET (presentation slides). Shares +3.3% premarket. (PR[View news story]
    HMmmm, excuses for having missed the big Boeing run up, huh?! Missed a nice 20% gain, well, unless you shorted the stock and maximized your loss. :) Color it any way you like, but the gains are real money. The stock has reached $90 much sooner than I expected; a nice surprise for those of us invested in Boeing; should'ah-could'ah for those who didn't. :)
    Apr 24 05:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Grab A 15% Yield From This Undervalued Dow Dividend Stock [View article]
    You lost credibility when you said, "So the fact that BA basically went sideways while the battery fiasco unfolded . . . . ?". It's so easy to check that; how did you miss the fact that BA is up almost 17% since the battery "fiasco", beating the S&P 500 by over 8%?! You could’ve made some nice money, had you invested in Boeing at the beginning of the year.

    I have to admit that I was surprised by the big move up in BA’s stock price after the battery issue came up; I was expecting a temporary crash, down to maybe the 60s, and then a later recovery in the 3rd or 4th QTR (the market can be ridiculously volatile in the short term). But, I did not sell my BA stock because, from what I read in the “creditable” coverage of the issue, this was not a significant issue. And, obviously, the institutional "big money" investors agreed, contrary to your view. Time will tell bit I’m expecting Boeing to be doing quite well, for a number of years going forward.

    Airbus is a great company, as is Boeing, but I believe the risks Boeing took on in the 787 program will pay big dividends in the future “enhancements” in all the other aircraft programs and that Airbus, by being more cautious, which is totally understandable, considering their problems with the A380 program, will be at a disadvantage to Boeing (which they’ll make up by selling their planes for less). In comparison to the Boeing 787 program, the big risks Airbus took with the A380 program are not paying any dividends. And the A350, as disgruntled Airbus customers have noted, is not an “equal” to the 787.
    Apr 21 06:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The FAA orders more than a thousand Boeing (BA) jets to be examined for potential problems with the tail plane fixing pins. The agency says the cost could be up to $10.1M across the fleet. [View news story]
    Good point, F14TCT, not really news worthy; with the 787 groundings, though, everything Boeing hits the front page! :)

    They probably posted this just to bait thomas and he took the bait! :)
    Apr 15 02:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The FAA wouldn't have tested Boeing's (BA +0.8%) 787 Dreamliners if the battery fix weren't viable. That's the message from Qatar Airways' CEO Akbar Al Baker who says his five 787s will be back in the air by the end of this month if all goes according to plan. (See: Continental to fly Dreamliners[View news story]
    That's SOP; the FAA has oversight and regulator responsibility; they don’t have the ability to do the tests themselves. They use their expertise to verify that the "fixes" Boeing and Airbus et all come up with are valid; they couldn't possibly independently test the fixes themselves – just think what that would entail.
    Apr 11 03:56 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Airbus (EADSF.PK) breaks ground in Alabama on its first U.S. assembly plant, a move many believe will one day help level the playing field between it and Boeing (BA -0.1%) when it comes to landing deals with the Pentagon. "We will be seen as a very good U.S. citizen which is always helpful [with] military contracts," Airbus' CEO said. Airbus recently passed Boeing for the top spot in orders booked.  [View news story]
    A very odd comment at the end of the paragraph, "Airbus recently passed Boeing for the top spot in orders booked"! The yearly orders race is just that, "yearly". Boeing won the most recent (2012) orders race. Having the lead in April of the year hardly counts as "taking the top spot in orders booked"!

    Putting that aside, the yearly order numbers are a rather meaningless stat; the financials are what really counts. Consider the fact that Airbus won far more orders than Boeing did in the decade leading up to 2012 (Boeing won only once in that decade) but then in 2012, Boeing delivered more planes than Airbus did! Obviously, the "not so important" orders STAT is misleading, at best.
    Apr 8 05:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment