Boeing shareholders sue over 787 jet

[Heracles 417]

Boeing shareholders sue over 787 jet

Investors claim the plane maker made misleading statements about when the delayed Dreamliner would be ready to fly. The firm's CEO is named as a defendant in the suit, which seeks class status.

Bloomberg News

5:14 PM PST, November 17, 2009

Boeing Co., whose 787 Dreamliner jet has been delayed more than two years by production difficulties, was sued by investors claiming company executives made misleading public statements about when the aircraft would be flight ready.

The city of Livonia, Mich., employees' retirement system filed the complaint Nov. 13 in federal court in Chicago, seeking class-action, or group, status on behalf of all investors allegedly misled by statements made from May 4 to June 22.

Also named as defendants were Boeing Chief Executive W. James McNerney and Scott E. Carson, who in August announced he would step downfrom leading the Chicago-based company's commercial airplane division.

"As the date for the maiden flight of the 787 approached, defendants made a series of misleading statements to the market concerning the results of the testing process for the 787 and Boeing's ability to meet the schedule for the first flight and the delivery of the 787," according to the complaint.

Boeing, the world's second-largest commercial airplane maker, initially planned to deliver its first jets to customers in May 2008. That date has been postponed five times, most recently in June, when engineers discovered structural problems where the plane's wings are joined to the fuselage.

In a statement filed Tuesday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Boeing said a second lawsuit, making similar allegations, was filed against it in federal court in East St. Louis, Ill.

"The company believes the lawsuits are without merit and will vigorously defend them," it said.

Boeing shares rose 5 cents to $52.53.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

[Heracles 417]

If only the 'geniuses' from that city spoke less, and were less corrupt too, there would be more actual action.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I remember all the enthusiam here in the States over the delays of the A380 back when. Of course, the test flight of the A380 was actually delayed only 3 months vs. the 2 year delay at Boeing for the 787 project up to this point. Yes, Airbus had further delays after the maiden flight causing a 18 month delay for the first service flight from S'pore to Sydney in October 2007. But Boeing hasn't even gotten the 787 off the ground yet and is already 2 years behind. Looks as if the cheering stateside over EADS problems with the A380 was a bit premature. As they say: He who laughs last, laughs best.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its a pretty plane.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Its a pretty plane.

Yeah, would be helpful, though, if it could actually fly.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Its a pretty plane.

Yeah, would be helpful, though, if it could actually fly.

This is true, but it makes a nice paperweight.

[NickD 203]

Would rather wait a couple of years then have a wing fall off. Thing is, most CEO's don't know ####### about engineering nor the thousands of problems you can run into, these planes have millions of parts that just getting them to fit together is a major effort. Good thing they let their engineers hold it back until they get it right. Latest and longest running phrase has been, rush to market, perhaps whenever you purchase new software, have a zillion upgrades. This country use to test everything before introducing a new product.

[Azzudiin 26]

Investing is gambling, I doubt anyone would be screaming if they were ahead of schedule. If they can get it through testing and start delivering this one plane could save many airlines because of the dramatic fuel savings. I hope they make it work, at least one American company is still trying to make something actually in America.

[Heracles 417]

Its a pretty plane.

Yeah, would be helpful, though, if it could actually fly.

[Heracles 417]

I remember all the enthusiam here in the States over the delays of the A380 back when. Of course, the test flight of the A380 was actually delayed only 3 months vs. the 2 year delay at Boeing for the 787 project up to this point. Yes, Airbus had further delays after the maiden flight causing a 18 month delay for the first service flight from S'pore to Sydney in October 2007. But Boeing hasn't even gotten the 787 off the ground yet and is already 2 years behind. Looks as if the cheering stateside over EADS problems with the A380 was a bit premature. As they say: He who laughs last, laughs best.

One of my friends flew on the new A380 Sydney to London and Melbourne to Los Angeles. He now refuses to book a flight on any other type of aircraft. He said it was roomy, smooth and extremely quite. I was just reading report the other day that Qantas is able to charge up to $600 more on the A380 as people are more than willing to pay for it.

Huge mistake for Boeing to only take the 787 route and not compete with the A380. The other mistake is that they decided to outsource everything, which was a disaster.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Booyah!

[Heracles 417]

Would rather wait a couple of years then have a wing fall off. Thing is, most CEO's don't know ####### about engineering nor the thousands of problems you can run into, these planes have millions of parts that just getting them to fit together is a major effort. Good thing they let their engineers hold it back until they get it right. Latest and longest running phrase has been, rush to market, perhaps whenever you purchase new software, have a zillion upgrades. This country use to test everything before introducing a new product.

Funny you mention the wings as they have had huge design flaws with them and had to resort back to using aluminum; which means going back to square one. This is extremely bad as composite fiber was supposed to be the selling point of this jet. This plane is now just another 777. Airbus's A350 xwb is just around the corner, which is carbon fiber.

747 is no competition for A380.

787 failed to materialize, while the A350 XWB is around the corner.

We need another war with Europe so the US can steal German engineers again.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Booyah!

[Pooky 3,807]

Would rather wait a couple of years then have a wing fall off. Thing is, most CEO's don't know ####### about engineering nor the thousands of problems you can run into, these planes have millions of parts that just getting them to fit together is a major effort. Good thing they let their engineers hold it back until they get it right. Latest and longest running phrase has been, rush to market, perhaps whenever you purchase new software, have a zillion upgrades. This country use to test everything before introducing a new product.

Funny you mention the wings as they have had huge design flaws with them and had to resort back to using aluminum; which means going back to square one. This is extremely bad as composite fiber was supposed to be the selling point of this jet. This plane is now just another 777. Airbus's A350 xwb is just around the corner, which is carbon fiber.

747 is no competition for A380.

787 failed to materialize, while the A350 XWB is around the corner.

We need another war with Europe so the US can steal German engineers again.

Boeing's competition for the A380 is supposed to be the 747-8, an updated 747 with a fuselage stretch and new, more efficient wings. Problem is, no-one really wants it, and Boeing are running into problems with the wings here, too.

In fairness to the 787, the original layout for the A350 was utter carp and Airbus had to go back to the drawing board when their main customer, Emirates told them they needed it wider and just plain better, or they wouldn't buy it. What the 787 debacle is doing is allowing Airbus to "catch up" the 4 years they were behind Boeing.

Now the A400M is a whole other matter. At least they had the engines running this week. First flight almost guaranteed before the year's out.

[NickD 203]

Can only wonder about the thermal cycling and super cold temperatures with carbon fiber. Still prefer the DC-3, if both engines die, this plane can still glide, not drop like a rock with the current aircraft. Did some work for a company in Green Bay that is rebuilding DC-3's with far more fuel efficient turboprop engines, really nice. But their market is 3rd world countries. Maybe I should relocate in a 3rd world country.

[Heracles 417]

Boeing's competition for the A380 is supposed to be the 747-8, an updated 747 with a fuselage stretch and new, more efficient wings. Problem is, no-one really wants it, and Boeing are running into problems with the wings here, too.

In fairness to the 787, the original layout for the A350 was utter carp and Airbus had to go back to the drawing board when their main customer, Emirates told them they needed it wider and just plain better, or they wouldn't buy it. What the 787 debacle is doing is allowing Airbus to "catch up" the 4 years they were behind Boeing.

Now the A400M is a whole other matter. At least they had the engines running this week. First flight almost guaranteed before the year's out.

The 747-8 is barely selling because it's psychologically perceived as being the same old jet. The A380 is now the 747 of the 60's. What the heck was Boeing thinking to not compete with them directly and manufacturer a A380 equivalent?

I agree that the 787 (on paper) was better but since they are yet to deliver and will eventually be 4 years behind, Airbus has caught up with their newly redesigned A350 xwb. The production 787 is going to be quite different to what was promised when initially ordered. It's starting to look like an enhanced 777, rather than a totally new jet.

With China and Japan starting jet production of their own, Boeing is going to be in a world of hurt. Whereas, Airbus has positioned themselves in a good spot now. Typical US corporate mistake of focusing on cutting costs rather than deliver a solid product. Happened to the US automakers, happened to Motorola and is now happening to Boeing. Learn from Apple for a change.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Booyah!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Still prefer the DC-3, if both engines die, this plane can still glide, not drop like a rock with the current aircraft.

The old Candy Bomber. Good times.