Neu auf wallstreet:online? Jetzt kostenlos registrieren!
Registrieren | Login
x
Benutzername:

Passwort:

Angemeldet bleiben
Passwort vergessen?

    Boeing short: gutes Chance - Risiko Verhaeltnis

    eröffnet am 23.01.13 23:06:39 von
    Calcolatore

    neuester Beitrag 30.11.13 20:36:32 von
    myhobbynr2
    Beiträge: 108
    ID: 1.179.032
    Aufrufe heute: 0
    Gesamt: 7.343


    Beitrag schreiben Ansicht: Normal
    Avatar
    Calcolatore
    schrieb am 23.01.13 23:06:39
    Beitrag Nr. 1 (44.056.466)
    Hallo zusammen,

    mich wundert es, dass sich hier keiner Gedanken um die Folgen des letzten grossen Boeing 787 Events macht. Meiner Meinung nach stehen die Chancen mit einem short auf Boeing nun extrem gut (viel Luft nach unten und upside Risiko gering).

    Facts:
    1. Nahezu Stillschweigen seit dem Grounding der kompletten Flotte, bzw. nur sehr vage Äußerungen.
    2. Boeing hat sich definitiv zu weit aus dem Fenster gelehnt, safety first gilt anscheinend nicht mehr, denn Boeing hat der Li Ion Batterie mit LiCoO2 Kathode den Vorrang gegeben anstatt die (fast) risikolosen LiFePo4 zu verbauen.
    3. Es scheint ein Systemfehler zu sein, denn die zwei Zwischenfälle sind nicht auf ein schlechtes Liefer-batch der Batterien zurückzuführen (Feuer in Boston war bei L/N84 ausgeliefert am 20/12/2012, und Überhitzung in Takamatsu war bei L/N9, ausgeliefert am 14/1/2012).
    4. Die bisherigen vagen Aussagen der FAA und NTSB deuten auf zwei verschiedene (!) Fehler hin, das verkompliziert die Sache extrem.

    Mein persönlicher Tipp:
    Resultat wird sein, Li Ion Batterien mit LiCoO2 Kathode nicht handelbar in Flugzeugen, zu risikoreich, werden verbannt werden. Ersatz entweder durch die guten alten NiCd Akkus (wahrscheinlich) oder durch LiFePo4 (weniger wahrscheinlich). Die große Frage ist allerdings, ob das ganze System überhaupt mit NiCd funktionieren kann. Wenn nicht, dann hat Boeing ein Riesenproblem, dann reden wir nicht von einigen Monaten sondern wahrscheinlich 1.5 – 2 Jahren Verzug.

    Die Auswirkungen:
    1. Extreme Lieferverspätungen, mehrere Monate, zu zahlende Vertragsstrafen.
    2. Entgangener Gewinn zu zahlen an die Airlines für die 50 gegroundeten Flieger.
    3. Zusatzkosten für die Retrofits sobald die Lösung gefunden ist, es müssen dann mind. 100 Flugzeuge umgerüstet werden.
    4. Imageschaden …
    5. Je nachdem wie lange das ganze dauert kommen Milliarden zusammen, nicht Millionen …

    Und ansonsten:
    Obama wird wohl demnächst ein bissel sparen müssen bei seinem Militär-Budget, das ist auch nicht gut für Boeing …

    Was ist eure Meinung?
    Avatar
    AdolfSteinbrueck
    schrieb am 25.01.13 11:06:09
    Beitrag Nr. 2 (44.063.248)
    Hallo,
    BA hat noch ca.10 Milliarden $ cash und hat bis jetzt mit Käufen den Kurs oben gehalten. Nach der Devise, nur keine Schwäche zeigen, sonst shorten die institutielen Anleger massiv.
    Die Frage ist jetzt:wie lange dauert es noch oder in other words,wann ist das Geld alle.:D
    Avatar
    dives
    schrieb am 25.01.13 23:38:25
    Beitrag Nr. 3 (44.067.351)
    Hallo Calcolatore,

    danke erstmal für Deinen Faden zu Boeings Batterieproblem. Vor ein paar Tagen habe ich auch begonnen, mich damit zu beschäftigen. Ich muss sagen, Du hast den Wissensstand, wie er aus den unzähligen Pressemitteilungen herauszufiltern ist, sehr verständlich zusammengefasst.

    Zusätzlich zu den angesprochenen Problemen, ist am verwendeten Batterietyp neu, daß eine große Anzahl von Einzelzellen, nämlich gleich 8 Stück, in Reihe geschaltet werden und dabei die individuellen Charakteristiken der Einzelzellen gewissermaßen kaschiert werden. D.h. durch die hohe Zahl von Zellen kann beim Aufladen und Entladen des Batterieblocks eine einzelne Zelle schon im Laufe weniger Ladezyklen degradieren, während die anderen Zellen deutlich länger "fit" bleiben. Es entsteht dann ein Ungleichgewicht. Ein Problem, dem man z.B. auch in Brennstoffzellenstapeln begegnet. Dort freilich sind die Auswirkungen auf einen geringeren Wirkungsgrad beschränkt und führen nicht zum Versagen des Zellenstapels.

    Mit dem von Boeing beschriebenen Verfahren zur kontrollierten Schnellaufladung und sicheren Entladung ist die Degradation einer Einzelzelle nicht detektierbar. So könnte es also sein, daß die Messelektronik keine Überspannung feststellt, und zwar im Verbund der in Reihe geschalteten Zellen, es jedoch in einer einzelnen Zelle sehr wohl zur Überladung kommt, mit der entsprechenden fortschreitenden Degradation. Irgendwann im Betrieb kann es dann durch thermische Schäden am Separator zum Versagen der Einzelzelle kommen, dem gefürchteten thermischen Durchgehen ("thermal runaway").

    Allerdings kann es sein, daß Boeing nicht alle technischen Details zum Ladesystem offenbart hat und daß sehr wohl jede Einzelzelle individuell überwacht wird. Doch selbst wenn es so wäre, bleibt das prinzipielle Gefahrenpotential der Lithium-Komponenten erhalten. Ein Feuer in einem Lithium-Ionen-Akkumulator unterhält sich selbst, auch ohne Zufuhr von Sauerstoff von außen. Mit Wasser ist eine brennende Lithiumbatterie leider auch nicht zu löschen. Die ganze Einheit müsste im Brandfall isoliert werden, den austretenden brennbaren Elektrolyt müsste man auffangen, die Einbaukammer mit Inertgas fluten etc. Alles Maßnahmen, zu denen man seitens Boeing nichts hört. Hier treten aus meiner Sicht Mängel im Sicherheitskonzept zu Tage. Seitens Boeing ging man offenbar davon aus, mit der elektronischen Überwachung den Akku völlig im Griff zu haben und eine Brand in jedem Fall ausschließen zu können, so daß man auf ernstzunehmende Maßnahmen zur Eindämmung eines Batteriebrandes verzichten könne. Fraglich ob dieses Konzept einer erneuten Überprüfung standhalten wird. Übrigens, das immerhin geplante Absaugen der Rauchgase hat wohl auch nicht wie geplant funktioniert, denn sowohl die Piloten als auch die Kabinencrew hatten von Rauchgeruch berichtet. Also, da liegt wohl einiges im Argen, beim Sicherheitskonzept wie auch bei der konstruktiven Ausführung der in ihrem Umfang ohnehin schon unzureichend erscheinenden Sicherheitsvorrichtungen.

    Bedenklich aus meiner Sicht auch, daß die Einzelzellen der Batterie eine sehr große aktive Fläche aufweisen. Die brauchen sie, denn nur so ist die erforderliche Kapazität erreichbar. D.h. aber auch, daß in der Produktion wirklich nicht der kleinste Fehler bei der Montage des empfindlichen und weniger als 50µm dicken Separators zwischen den Elektroden unterlaufen darf. Und das auf der ganzen abgewickelten Länge über die ganze Breite der Zelle. Produktionstechnisches Neuland.

    Ähnliche Probleme waren ja vor ein paar Jahren bei Notebook-Akkus noch geläufig. Inzwischen hat man sie im wesentlichen im Griff, aber auch nur, weil man auf millionenfach, automatisch produzierte Standardzellen setzt. Die mehr einer Manufaktur ähnelnde Fertigung des Herstellers GS Yuasa, der die Batterien an Boeing geliefert hat, kann nicht die gleichen hohen Qualitätsanforderungen erfüllen.

    Geht eine kleine Zelle durch, so ist der Schaden i.d.R. gut eindämmbar. Bei einer großen Zelle gelingt das nicht mehr. Es kommt zur chemischen Kettenreaktion, die auf Grund der starken Wärmefreisetzung auch die benachbarten Zellen in Brand setzt.

    Die tatsächlichen Ursachen des Batterieversagens liegen natürlich noch weitgehend im Dunkeln. Aber man kann immerhin ein weites Feld möglicher Ursachen ausmachen, das täglich an Raum zu gewinnen scheint. Im Verdacht stehen in erster Linie Komponenten der Batterie, aber auch das Lade- und Entladesystem. Das wird die Arbeit von Boeing und seinen Zulieferern nicht vereinfachen. Alles scheint auf umfangreiche und die Grundlagen der verwendeten Technik berührende Untersuchungen hinzudeuten. Selbst das chemische Verhalten des Elektrolyten bei wechselnden Drücken dürfte nur unzureichend bekannt sein. Es würde mich jedenfalls nicht überrascen, wenn eingehende Untersuchungen seitens unabhängiger Experten gefordert werden. Bis zur endgültigen Lösung könnten also leicht Monate vergehen, da stimme ich mit Calcolatore überein.

    Meine Meinung zu dem Handling des Problems unterscheidet sich aber ein wenig von der o.g. Einschätzung. Die Behörden werden alles tun, um den Schaden für Boeing so gering wie möglich zu halten. Notfalls wird dies nach einigen ausführlichen und positiv verlaufenden Bodentests zur Aufhebung des Flugverbots führen. Wahrscheinlich unter der Auflage, die Batterien häufiger zu warten bzw. durch neue zu wechseln. Oder man reduziert die Ladespannung bei gleichzeitiger Verringerung des Entladeniveaus. Die nutzbare Kapazität des Akkus würde dadurch zwar verringert, die Gefahr des thermischen Durchgehens aber auch.

    Was den Aktienkurs von Boeing angeht, und um den dreht es sich hier ja eigentlich, muss man bewundernswerte Stabilität konstatieren. Gelassenheit der Anleger, Sturheit gar? Vielleicht auch nur Kurspflege, gespeist aus einer prall gefüllten Portokasse des Unternehmens, das zur negativen Presse nicht auch noch rote Vorzeichen am Aktienkurs sehen möchte. Eine Weile mag die Marke von 75 USD zu halten sein, aber sollte der flügellahme Dreamliner längere Zeit am Boden bleiben, ohne verbindlichen Zeitplan für eine Wiederaufnahme des Flugbetriebs, so dürfte die von Boeing gestartete Imagekampagne samt Kursstütze rasch an Wirkung einbüßen. Kippt die Stimmung eines großen Teils der Anleger, dann könnte es auch beim Aktienkurs von Boeing zu einem "thermischen Durchgehen" kommen.

    Der Markt wird Boeing für die Problemlösung vielleicht ein paar Wochen zugestehen. Aber auch ein paar Monate? Wohl kaum. Die Frage ist, wo der Wendepunkt in dieser Entwicklung liegt. Denn daran wäre eine entsprechende Short-Spekulation festzumachen. Oder man setzt darauf, daß es angesichts der gravierenden technischen Probleme unweigerlich zum Kurssturz kommen wird und daran weder die Kurspflege noch die Protektion durch die Aufsichtsbehörden etwas ändern werden.

    Ein Spiel "David gegen Goliath", bei dem dem Riesen plötzlich die Puste ausgehen könnte.
    Avatar
    Calcolatore
    schrieb am 26.01.13 11:03:40
    Beitrag Nr. 4 (44.067.811)
    @Dives:
    stimme dir im grossen und ganzen zu, aber Boeing hat garantiert eine Einzelzellenueberwachung mit drin, falls nicht waere das fahrlaessig. Man sieht das meiner Meinung auch am verbrannten Kabelsalat auf der Oberseite der Zellen, das muessten die balancer Kabel sein.

    @AdolsStreinbrueck:
    Boeing hatte Ende 2012 nur 260 millionen $ netto Geldbestand, wenn die im grossen Stil Aktien zureckkaufen wollen, koennen sie bald ihre Lieferanten nicht mehr bezahlen ...

    @all:
    seltsam dass 2011 die Lithium Ion Batterie der CJ4 sofort aus dem Verkehr gezogen worden ist, Zwangsumstellung auf NiCd ohne Diskussion. Wahrscheinlich ist, dass das bei der B787 nicht so einfach geht, mehr Strombedarf denke ich mal, und abgesehen vom Mehrgewicht der NiCd duerfter die laengere Ladezeit zu zu langen Bodenzeiten fuehren => nicht akzeptabel fuer die Airlines. Die CJ4 Batterie war angeblich zusammen mit A123 entwickelt worden, also muesste es eine LiFePo4 gewesen sein, wenn selbst diese relativ sichere Zelle versagt hat... dann gute Nacht!

    Aloha!
    Avatar
    Ziddo
    schrieb am 26.01.13 13:57:16
    Beitrag Nr. 5 (44.068.157)
    Hallo,

    Danke für Eure interessanten Beiträge. Kann natürlich gut sein, dass das Unternehmen mit den eigenen Cashposition versucht den Kurs künstlich aufrecht zu halten. Kann aber auch zusätzlich sein, dass Investoren die Q4 2012 Ergebnisse abwarten. Meint Ihr, dass die Quartalszahlen hier der Aktie nochmal einen Schub nach oben geben können?

    Ich werde ab sofort Short gehen. Chance/Risiko scheint mir gut. Außerdem hat "Der Aktionär" in der aktuellsten Ausgabe von gestern Abend (Redaktionsschluss) empfohlen bei Boeing Short zu gehen...
    Avatar
    Ziddo
    schrieb am 26.01.13 13:58:12
    Beitrag Nr. 6 (44.068.159)
    Danke für Eure interessanten Beiträge. Kann natürlich gut sein, dass das Unternehmen mit den eigenen Cashposition versucht den Kurs künstlich aufrecht zu halten. Kann aber auch zusätzlich sein, dass Investoren die Q4 2012 Ergebnisse abwarten. Meint Ihr, dass die Quartalszahlen hier der Aktie nochmal einen Schub nach oben geben können?

    Ich werde ab sofort Short gehen. Chance/Risiko scheint mir gut. Außerdem hat "Der Aktionär" in der aktuellsten Ausgabe von gestern Abend (Redaktionsschluss) empfohlen bei Boeing Short zu gehen...
    Avatar
    AdolfSteinbrueck
    schrieb am 26.01.13 18:38:48
    Beitrag Nr. 7 (44.068.628)
    Analysis: Lengthy 787 probe, fixing problem, may cost Boeing dear
    Reuters – 15 hours ago
    Email

    Print
    RELATED CONTENT
    View Photo
    All Nippon Airways' (ANA) Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner aircraft which made an emergency landing on last Wednesday, is seen through a window of the ANA's Airbus A320 jet, at Takamatsu airport in Takamatsu, western Japan January 19, 2013. REUTERS/Issei Kato
    RELATED QUOTES
    Symbol Price Change
    BA 75.03 -0.29

    EAD.PA 34.78 0.10
    By Bill Rigby
    SEATTLE (Reuters) - The slow progress of investigations into battery problems on Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner jets suggest the new plane could be grounded for months, raising fears that the financial hit to Boeing will be greater than had been initially predicted.
    Wall Street had been working on the assumption that safety inspectors would find the root cause of two battery incidents in the United States and Japan within weeks and Boeing would implement a speedy fix costing no more than a few hundred million dollars.
    But on Thursday, the head of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said it was only "early" in its investigation of a fire on a Japan Airlines Co Ltd jet in Boston on January 7, while Japanese aviation authorities appear no closer to resolving a battery problem that caused an emergency landing of a domestic All Nippon Airways Co Ltd flight last week.
    "Saying we are in the early stages of the investigation sent a resounding message to those who thought this was a quick fix," said Carter Leake, aerospace analyst at BB&T Capital Markets.
    "If it comes out that ultimately it's a six-month issue or a nine-month issue, everything changes. All of this optimism and all of this costing assumption, starts to become bigger numbers. Once you get past six months, you have to consider cancellations."
    Investors do not appear to be in a panic yet. Boeing shares are down only about 2.5 percent since the 787 was grounded worldwide following the emergency landing in Japan on January 16.
    "Wall Street reaction shows confidence in Boeing's ability to solve the 787 problem," said Michel Merluzeau, managing partner at G2 Solutions, an aerospace and defense consulting firm in Kirkland, Washington.
    Boeing does make four other kinds of jets, including the best-selling 737, and the company earns 40 percent of its revenue from its defense arm.
    Still, the world's biggest planemaker is producing 787s, but not delivering any, a situation that could stretch the company financially and test investors' faith.
    "One of our big concerns is that this investigation continues to drag on, and it looks like it may be more than just the battery overheating itself," said Russell Solomon, an analyst at Moody's Investors Service. "You start getting into three, six months out and it has a bigger impact and my guess is that they (Boeing) would have to potentially cut the production rate."
    BREAKING DOWN THE COST
    Besides the actual cost of fixing the 50 787s in service, plus another 50 or so in production or waiting for delivery, Boeing will have to compensate carriers unable to use 787s as planned and pay penalties for late deliveries, most likely in the form of discounts on future purchases.
    It also is not clear whether any fix - particularly if the probes lead to the identification of a major design fault - would also be costly.
    At the same time, it will be starved of the cash it was expecting for delivering 787s it is still producing at the current rate of five per month, which could add up to $300 million per month, analysts estimate.
    And the longer the planes are grounded, the more Boeing is exposed, as airlines may start to reconsider orders and - in extreme cases - cancel some, especially if the battery fix adds weight to the plane and reduces its vaunted fuel efficiency.
    Boeing, which is expected to report a drop in fourth-quarter earnings next Wednesday, is not talking specifically about costs of the 787 issue yet.
    "It's too early to know the financial effects," said Boeing spokesman Charles Bickers. "We're focused on working through the process, getting to a resolution and returning the airplanes to service."
    Douglas Harned, an analyst at Bernstein Research, puts the cost of a fix at no more than $350 million, or about 30 cents per Boeing share, in a worst-case scenario. Howard Rubel at Jefferies estimates the cost at somewhere between $250 million to $625 million, but notes that some of the cost may be borne by suppliers.
    "There's still the hope of a relatively easy fix followed by a return to service within a week or two, but there's also the strong and growing risk that they'll need to redesign the battery system, which could mean another six to nine months," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at aerospace research firm Teal Group.
    PRODUCTION DELAY LOOMS
    More important is the effect on Boeing's production rate, which is scheduled to jump to 10 a month by the end of this year, from five now.
    That jump is crucial to Boeing's plans to eventually make a profit on the 787. Most of the investment in a new plane occurs early in the program, which means earlier planes cost more to build than later ones.
    The quicker Boeing can refine the process and ramp up numbers of planes produced, the quicker it will reach the target of 1,100 planes, where it calculates it will break even on the program. At planned production rates that would take about a decade.
    If Boeing makes fewer planes than it has budgeted for and is not getting cash in the door for deliveries, that could add up to more than $1 billion per month in "incremental working capital spend," according to Solomon at Moody's.
    With $6 billion of cash on its balance sheet at the end of the third quarter, Boeing looks strong enough to deal with that, but the longer it goes on, the more the worries mount, said Solomon.
    "If a billion to a billion and a half of incremental working capital consumption is the right number in terms of cash burn every month, you start getting into three, six months out and it has a bigger impact," he said. "My guess is that they would have to potentially cut the production rate if that were the case."
    Cutting production of 787s, or halting it altogether, would be a huge blow for a plane program that is already three years behind schedule.
    "The market really only cares about one thing right now and that is, will production change?" said Leake at BB&T. "I believe it will not, Boeing can't afford to do that. It's too expensive to ramp down and ramp up again."
    Production delays would ripple down the supply chain, could cost jobs and could even mean the loss of future orders if airlines lose patience with Boeing.
    Rubel at Jefferies said this is unlikely, but in the worst case scenario could result in a $5 billion write-off for Boeing, if it loses orders it was counting on to offset expenses it has already laid out in building the 787.
    That would take its toll on earnings and likely mean taking a provision against those losses.
    "It will impact equity investors," said Solomon at Moody's. "The company will grow much more slowly if they can't ramp to 10 a month and the program is not successful."
    (Additional reporting by Tim Hepher in Paris, Alwyn Scott in New York, Jim Wolf in Washington;
    Avatar
    AdolfSteinbrueck
    schrieb am 26.01.13 18:43:31
    Beitrag Nr. 8 (44.068.635)
    von YAHOO financials 26.01.13 Gute analyse des Standes heute
    Analysis: Lengthy 787 probe, fixing problem, may cost Boeing dear
    Reuters – 15 hours ago
    Email

    Print
    RELATED CONTENT
    View Photo
    All Nippon Airways' (ANA) Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner aircraft which made an emergency landing on last Wednesday, is seen through a window of the ANA's Airbus A320 jet, at Takamatsu airport in Takamatsu, western Japan January 19, 2013. REUTERS/Issei Kato
    RELATED QUOTES
    Symbol Price Change
    BA 75.03 -0.29

    EAD.PA 34.78 0.10
    By Bill Rigby
    SEATTLE (Reuters) - The slow progress of investigations into battery problems on Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner jets suggest the new plane could be grounded for months, raising fears that the financial hit to Boeing will be greater than had been initially predicted.
    Wall Street had been working on the assumption that safety inspectors would find the root cause of two battery incidents in the United States and Japan within weeks and Boeing would implement a speedy fix costing no more than a few hundred million dollars.
    But on Thursday, the head of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said it was only "early" in its investigation of a fire on a Japan Airlines Co Ltd jet in Boston on January 7, while Japanese aviation authorities appear no closer to resolving a battery problem that caused an emergency landing of a domestic All Nippon Airways Co Ltd flight last week.
    "Saying we are in the early stages of the investigation sent a resounding message to those who thought this was a quick fix," said Carter Leake, aerospace analyst at BB&T Capital Markets.
    "If it comes out that ultimately it's a six-month issue or a nine-month issue, everything changes. All of this optimism and all of this costing assumption, starts to become bigger numbers. Once you get past six months, you have to consider cancellations."
    Investors do not appear to be in a panic yet. Boeing shares are down only about 2.5 percent since the 787 was grounded worldwide following the emergency landing in Japan on January 16.
    "Wall Street reaction shows confidence in Boeing's ability to solve the 787 problem," said Michel Merluzeau, managing partner at G2 Solutions, an aerospace and defense consulting firm in Kirkland, Washington.
    Boeing does make four other kinds of jets, including the best-selling 737, and the company earns 40 percent of its revenue from its defense arm.
    Still, the world's biggest planemaker is producing 787s, but not delivering any, a situation that could stretch the company financially and test investors' faith.
    "One of our big concerns is that this investigation continues to drag on, and it looks like it may be more than just the battery overheating itself," said Russell Solomon, an analyst at Moody's Investors Service. "You start getting into three, six months out and it has a bigger impact and my guess is that they (Boeing) would have to potentially cut the production rate."
    BREAKING DOWN THE COST
    Besides the actual cost of fixing the 50 787s in service, plus another 50 or so in production or waiting for delivery, Boeing will have to compensate carriers unable to use 787s as planned and pay penalties for late deliveries, most likely in the form of discounts on future purchases.
    It also is not clear whether any fix - particularly if the probes lead to the identification of a major design fault - would also be costly.
    At the same time, it will be starved of the cash it was expecting for delivering 787s it is still producing at the current rate of five per month, which could add up to $300 million per month, analysts estimate.
    And the longer the planes are grounded, the more Boeing is exposed, as airlines may start to reconsider orders and - in extreme cases - cancel some, especially if the battery fix adds weight to the plane and reduces its vaunted fuel efficiency.
    Boeing, which is expected to report a drop in fourth-quarter earnings next Wednesday, is not talking specifically about costs of the 787 issue yet.
    "It's too early to know the financial effects," said Boeing spokesman Charles Bickers. "We're focused on working through the process, getting to a resolution and returning the airplanes to service."
    Douglas Harned, an analyst at Bernstein Research, puts the cost of a fix at no more than $350 million, or about 30 cents per Boeing share, in a worst-case scenario. Howard Rubel at Jefferies estimates the cost at somewhere between $250 million to $625 million, but notes that some of the cost may be borne by suppliers.
    "There's still the hope of a relatively easy fix followed by a return to service within a week or two, but there's also the strong and growing risk that they'll need to redesign the battery system, which could mean another six to nine months," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at aerospace research firm Teal Group.
    PRODUCTION DELAY LOOMS
    More important is the effect on Boeing's production rate, which is scheduled to jump to 10 a month by the end of this year, from five now.
    That jump is crucial to Boeing's plans to eventually make a profit on the 787. Most of the investment in a new plane occurs early in the program, which means earlier planes cost more to build than later ones.
    The quicker Boeing can refine the process and ramp up numbers of planes produced, the quicker it will reach the target of 1,100 planes, where it calculates it will break even on the program. At planned production rates that would take about a decade.
    If Boeing makes fewer planes than it has budgeted for and is not getting cash in the door for deliveries, that could add up to more than $1 billion per month in "incremental working capital spend," according to Solomon at Moody's.
    With $6 billion of cash on its balance sheet at the end of the third quarter, Boeing looks strong enough to deal with that, but the longer it goes on, the more the worries mount, said Solomon.
    "If a billion to a billion and a half of incremental working capital consumption is the right number in terms of cash burn every month, you start getting into three, six months out and it has a bigger impact," he said. "My guess is that they would have to potentially cut the production rate if that were the case."
    Cutting production of 787s, or halting it altogether, would be a huge blow for a plane program that is already three years behind schedule.
    "The market really only cares about one thing right now and that is, will production change?" said Leake at BB&T. "I believe it will not, Boeing can't afford to do that. It's too expensive to ramp down and ramp up again."
    Production delays would ripple down the supply chain, could cost jobs and could even mean the loss of future orders if airlines lose patience with Boeing.
    Rubel at Jefferies said this is unlikely, but in the worst case scenario could result in a $5 billion write-off for Boeing, if it loses orders it was counting on to offset expenses it has already laid out in building the 787.
    That would take its toll on earnings and likely mean taking a provision against those losses.
    "It will impact equity investors," said Solomon at Moody's. "The company will grow much more slowly if they can't ramp to 10 a month and the program is not successful."
    (Additional reporting by Tim Hepher in Paris, Alwyn Scott in New York, Jim Wolf in Washington;
    Avatar
    AdolfSteinbrueck
    schrieb am 26.01.13 19:58:42
    Beitrag Nr. 9 (44.068.746)
    also in der obigen Analyse steht drin,daß BA am Ende des 3.Quartals
    6 Milliarden $ cash hatte.
    Grüße
    Avatar
    Calcolatore
    schrieb am 27.01.13 15:59:44
    Beitrag Nr. 10 (44.069.898)
    @AdolfSteinbrueck: stimmt, Ende Q3 2012 waren es 6 Mrd $ cash. Hatte die net financial position angeschaut (financial debt minus cash).


    Hier mal ein recht guter Artikel:
    787 battery fire correction may take long time
    27.01.2013
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/01/27/2451132/787-battery-fire-correction-may.html


    When a Cessna business jet equipped with lithium ion batteries caught fire in 2011 while it was hooked up to a ground power unit, Cessna and the Federal Aviation Administration moved swiftly to address the safety issues involved.

    First the manufacturer advised owners of CJ4 aircraft to replace the lithium ion batteries in the plane with older technology nickel-cadmium or lead-acid batteries, and the FAA a few days later issued an airworthiness directive making those replacements mandatory.

    Those jets were back in the air a few weeks later once the substitution was accomplished albeit equipped with heavier, less capable batteries.

    The Cessna lithium battery fire foreshadowed problems now keeping Boeing’s newest airliner, the 787 Dreamliner, grounded after a different type of lithium battery sparked fires aboard Dreamliners in Boston and Japan in recent weeks.

    Could Cessna’s reaction to its lithium battery problem provide Boeing a clue how to move forward?

    First, the company says, it needs to find out what’s going wrong.

    The National Transportation Safety Board, Boeing, the FAA and Japanese government investigators say they’re working ceaselessly to find out why the batteries failed. Fifty Dreamliners are not flying, and Boeing is delivering no more of the planes until the issue is solved. So far, there are no definitive answers.

    The safety board said its first round of investigation found no evidence that the batteries in the Boston plane were overcharged, the most likely cause of the fire. Japanese investigators say they too have found no cause for believing the batteries in a Japan Air Lines plane that made an emergency landing there had lithium-ion batteries that were overcharged.

    Initial dissection of the batteries shows there might have been a short circuit in one of the cells, but there is nothing definitive yet.

    BOEING’S REPUTATION ON THE LINE

    For Boeing and the airlines that bought the Dreamliner, finding answers quickly and restoring the Dreamliner’s safety and reputation are urgent priorities. The average list price for a Dreamliner is about $200 million, but airlines likely pay less. The groundings mean billions of dollars in capital assets aren’t earning their keep, and Boeing isn’t bringing in dollars for completed but undeliverable planes.

    Boeing is keeping mostly mum about just exactly where their investigation is leading, about what its alternatives might be and how long clearing up the mystery and fixing it might take.

    “We aren’t commenting on potential next steps until the investigation is over.” Boeing spokesman Doug Alder said Friday.

    Most experts say solving the issue is likely to take weeks and perhaps months more.

    Former NTSB member John Goglia told KIRO Radio on Friday that the investigation will likely be a long process.

    “I’m afraid that if we don’t really find the root cause of this in the next week or two, we’re going to be looking at many, many months before this is resolved,” he said.

    ASPECTS OF INVESTIGATION

    Experts speculate the investigation is leading in several directions:

    • Battery defects. Such high-power batteries are particularly sensitive to manufacturing flaws. Any foreign material could cause a short circuit inside the batteries causing the batteries to overheat and leading to the thermal overrun to spread to other cells. One cell in a battery involved in the Boston incident showed signs it might have short-circuited. The two planes involved in the two incidents were relatively new to commercial service.

    The Japanese battery maker, GS Yuasa, says the batteries weren’t defective. Investigators have toured the company’s plant. They’ve made no pronouncements about whether the company’s products pass muster.

    • Charging system problems. Boeing and government investigators are talking with the Arizona company, Securaplane Technologies, about its charging system. Overcharging the batteries could cause a fire. Again, there’s been no public verdict on whether the changing systems were working correctly, but the company has said it believes it is blameless.

    • Monitoring and safety systems. The FAA allowed Cessna to pioneer the use of a different type of lithium-ion batteries in the CJ4 under a special set of conditions that required sophisticated control and monitoring systems for the batteries. Those elaborate safety systems were designed to prevent conditions that would upset the chemistry of the batteries and to isolate those batteries if they were failing. Special systems were designed to vent smoke and fumes should batteries catch fire. No fire suppression systems cover the lithium-ion batteries because putting out a fire in them is nearly impossible and they simply are allowed to burn out. When Boeing asked the FAA to use their lithium-ion batteries, the FAA crafted a set of special conditions similar to those it had imposed on Cessna.

    In a news conference last week, the NTSB said those safety systems in the 787 had failed to operate as planned. That failure presents another issue for Boeing, Once it corrects the issues that caused the fire, the company must then address the safety systems’ defects.

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Once Boeing and government investigators find and agree on the cause of the problems, then they’ll have to create solutions.

    Experts say those solutions range from relatively simple to exceedingly complex.

    • Correct battery or charger production defects. If the investigation leads to abnormalities in the assembly of the batteries or the charging systems, those contractors can take measures to ensure they don’t recur. The cathodes and anodes in lithium-ion batteries can grow “whiskers” if improperly made causing short circuits, said one expert. Improved manufacturing techniques will likely be paired with more extensive testing of the batteries and charging systems before they’re installed.

    n Switch to alternate technology batteries. The batteries Boeing used in the Dreamliner are a variety called lithium-cobalt batteries. The company could substitute lithium-iron-phosphate batteries that some battery experts say are more tolerant to mistreatment and which are less likely to develop thermal overruns.

    The planemaker could abandon lithium-ion batteries entirely, returning to nickel–cadmium or lead-acid batteries. The company’s 777 jetliner, part of which is made in Frederickson along with a part of the Dreamliner, and its newest version of the 747, the 747-8, use nickel–cadmium batteries.

    Gulfstream Aerospace considered using lithium-ion batteries in its newest business jet, said Steve Cass, a Gulfstream spokesman. But the company decided to use the tried-and-true nickel–cadmium batteries instead. Those planes, however, don’t use electric architecture pioneered by the 787.

    The Dreamliner uses electric motors to power most of the aircraft systems instead of the high-pressure air bled from the engines of those older-generation jets. The electric systems are more efficient and require less piping and ducting than the bleed air systems. But the 787’s electrical systems must be equipped to provide three or four times the power used in the older aircraft.

    Weight is a problem with the older batteries. The two lithium battery packs in the 787, one near the front electronics bay and the other located nearer the plane’s tail, weigh 63 pounds each. A comparable nickel–cadmium battery might weigh 35 percent more. Substituting a different kind of battery isn’t likely to be a simple swap, said University of Washington chemistry professor Eric Stuve.

    “These planes are designed around a lithium-ion battery,” he said. “Changing to another type of battery could mean redesign and retesting of the electrical system,” he said. “It would be like converting your car from a gasoline to a diesel engine.”

    Lithium-ion batteries have been implicated in multiple incidents in aviation and in consumer use in recent years. Computer makers recalled thousands of laptop batteries because of overheating issues. The FAA has banned the carriage of loose nonrechargeable lithium-ion batteries in checked luggage on airliners. And lithium batteries are suspects in the crash of a UPS 747 cargo plane in Dubai in 2010.

    But some planemakers say lithium-ion’s advantages in weight and power storage ability are good reasons to advance the art. The key, they say, is learning to manage the batteries’ disadvantages.

    Cessna, which originally banned lithium batteries from its aircraft, this week said it intends to offer lithium batteries in several of its executive jets soon.
    John Gillie: 253-597-8663 john.gillie@thenewstribune.com