Boeing Company (BA) Share Price

Voltage/current transients originating in the main aircraft electricals can fail the FADECs indirectly thru the common airframe grounding and/or thru the engine itself as an electrical conduit between the FADEC and the main electricals of the aircraft.

Again, given Boeing's history of wiring/wire harness/chafing prollems on its 7x7 models, KC46 tanker, and other Boeing large multiengine jets, I wood knott be surprised if a short/surge/arcing/ground transient occurred in the main electrical system and secondarily tripped the FADECs. However, with the destruction of the aircraft, it may be impossible to determine the exact source and cause of the original electrical anomaly. Presumably the intense fire may have burnt off the wiring (and wire harness) non-metal sheathing so any chafing evidence may have been destroyed in the crash. The FDR *might* show an electrical transient, butt nott necessarily where and how that transient originated.

Yett Another New FADEC video:

This is another area that I bleeve needs to be modified/fixed. Nott only should a FADEC fail nott automatically retard-to-idle or shut down the engine butt rather allow the pilot to decide how and when (or if) to retard or shut down the engine, butt there ought to be a LOUD alarm and annunciator and some BRIGHT, possibly blinking, cockpit dash lights notifying the pilots of a FADEC fail.

Again, this is reminiscent of the 737 Max MCAS debacle. Engineering the pilot ~OUTT of primary decisionmaking on key flight control authorities. The pilots ought nott to have to troubleshoot blindly when they have only 400 feet AGL and minimum controllable airspeed and bleeding speed rapidly.

So, TWO issues (which apply regardless of whether (voltage/current/grounding-induced) FADEC fails are responsible for the AI171 crash:

1. FADEC fails ought nott result in automatic engine retardation-to-idle or shutdown with~OUTT having pilot authorization.

2. A FADEC fail ought to cause an unignorable audible and visual signal to the cockpit when it occurs. This should be the case even if a FADEC fail must result in an engine fail automatically with~OUTT pilot review and authority.

As I've written in my prior posts on this, this FADEC issue applies nott just to the 787, butt to all commercial aviation models that utilize a FADEC system than automatically fails the engine when the FADEC fails with~OUTT prior pilot authority and command and/or with~OUTT prominent, impossible-to-ignore warnings to the cockpit.

These are my opinions. There may be reasons why it is necessary for a FADEC fail to fail the engine automatically, butt the cockpit needs to know this is happening and ought to have AT LEAST an override and more preferably should have the authority to pre-approve and decide how and when the engine fail is effected.

My hypothesis remains, as it has since my first post on this Day 1 of the AI171 crash, that a primary cause is an electrical system fault in the main electrical system which then triggered a dual FADEC fail simultaneously. Each engine has its own FADEC, and the only CONceivable way that *I* can think of as to how this can happen, as my reading suggests that each FADEC has its own engine-driven dedicated generator and is nott directly powered by the 787 main electricals, is for some voltage or current surge - like shorting, arcing, grounding leak - to have tripped both FADECs at the same instant.

We will possibly learn more on this from the FDR, butt possibly all that will show is a primary electricals fail and I bleeve does nott include FADEC, which I think (butt am unsure) reports directly to the engine manufacturer plus-or-minus the airline. So this may be a situation where all the FDR can tell us is that the main electricals failed, and the engine manufacturer can tell us the FADEC failed, butt that will nott necessarily inform on which of those caused the other if the two events happened essentially at the same time (micro- or milliseconds apart) because that data is nott recorded on the same system (e.g, the FDR). So it may nott be possible to prove, butt IMO it seems way more likely that a main electrical failure caused the FADEC and nott vice-verse. If a FADEC fail could cause a main electrical fail, then some engineers need to sit in the corner with a dunce cap on because that would be an unforgivable design flaw - butt I think that is unlikely - I think a main electrical system fail caused the dual FADEC fails.

FADEC ECC Failure:

I expect now we will hear much more about FADEC and specifically FADEC 4 - and the design decision to automatically fail an engine when its FADEC fails. Nott knowing all the intricacies why that decision was made, on first impression it might have been a better idea to have the system notify the cockpit upon a FADEC failure and allow the human pilots to decide how and when to idle the engine(s) based on the current flight regime the aircraft is in.

This could be very reminiscent of the 737 Max MCAS system prollem. Finding a fix modification and then retrofitting it on the entire 787 fleet. Heck, it could require retrofitting every model that fails the engine when a FADEC fails - from any manufacturer that uses that flavor of FADEC.

As we have seen over the past decade-plus of trying to have reliable, general use self-driving cars, when you try to automate the driver or pilot ~OUTT of key decisions, the design "glitches" appear - like taxis stopping in a traffic lane and just sitting, like Teslas driving into abutments and killing the rider, like the vehicle unable to recognize certain pedestrians and hitting them, minor glitches like those.

What is ironic is that Boeing and Boeing fanbois criticized Airbus for just this issue - over-automating the A320 resulting in the infamous flying-into-the-trees crash at the 1988 Mulhouse-Habsheim airshow. At that time Boeing bragged that it allows pilots to fly its planes and criticized AirBust for premature over-automation. Well, it looks like the worm has turned on Boeing on that same issue now (and with the 737 Max MCAS debacle previously) - 38 years after the A320 crash. GE may be at least partially responsible if it was involved in the decision to fail an engine when its FADEC fails for any reason. On first impression, that seems like a really badd idea, even IF the FADEC was nott responsible for the AI171 crash. Improved fuel economy is great, butt knott if it creates a safety issue. Let the pilot(s) decide whether a FADEC fail should result in an engine idle or shutdown, and how and when to do it. The pilots are nott potted plants and automated CONtrol systems are nott omniscient.

FINALLY! FADEC is mentioned - 4 hours ago:

I haven't seen the age of that crashed Boeing 787 Air India plane stated anywhere, except here:

"The plane that crashed was 12 years old. Boeing planes have been plagued by safety issues on other types of aircraft. There are currently around 1,200 of the 787 Dreamliner aircraft worldwide and this was the first deadly crash in 16 years of operation, according to experts."

https://apnews.com/article/air-india-plane-crash-black-box-boeing-cc344f02b4abfef9b29789f3d02dd4f0

I have yett to see or read of anyone discussing the FADEC as the source of the engine failure/retard to idle. A FADEC fail is an engine fail and results in the shutdown of the engine. An electrical anomaly, such as a voltage spike, can produce FADEC failures that shut down the engines, as happened to a four-engine C-17 struck by lightning which had all 4 engines shutdown as the electric surge tripped the FADECs for each engine simultaneously.

AI171 had electrical problems documented by a passenger on the incoming flight. The AC (which in a 787, which does nott use bleed air for AC) was nott working and the overhead light and FA call button were inoperative. Thus there is evidence of electric system anomalies on that aircraft immediately before the doomed flight.

A circuit surge, short, arcing, or leakage into ground could produce the same effect as a lightning strike by changing the airframe ground base voltage, tripping the engine FADECs just as it did in the C-17. Once failed, the FADEC immediately shuts down the engine(s) and it takes time to recycle/reboot the FADEC. With less than 500 feet AGL and no engine thrust, there may nott have been time for the FADECs to reactivate, restart the engines and gett sufficient thrust to recover the airplane before it merged with the ground.

In the 787, the sole source of hydraulic pressure to raise the gear is the center hydraulic system which is driven by 4 electric pumps and it nott pressurized by the engine-driven hydraulics to the ailerons and empennage. Thus the gear retraction would stop when the electrical mains failed.

This hypothesis is consistent with all the information available to date. Wire and wire bundle chafing is nott uncommon in commercial jets and has been the cause of a number of accidents per the incident reports.Wire and wire bundle chafing might possibly have induced an electrical incident that tripped the FADEC(s) as the cause of the engine failures - AND - which caused a general electrical system failure that triggered (along with the hydraulics failures) the automatic deployment of the RAT which provides minimal power to essential selected flight instruments and hydraulics to the ailerons and elevator, nott the gear - nor would the RAT provide enough pressure to retract the gear even if it was linked, which it is nott as the RAT does nott pressurize the center hydraulic system.

Whilst this is only one of many hypotheses, quite a lott of which are inconsistent with the present information and have been largely discarded, my hypothesis above I have never seen or read in any online source. I regard this hypothesis as my best guess based on the current information that has been made public online and/or via TV/cable news.

The key to the puzzle, based on the information available to the public at this time, seems to be the source of the simultaneous dual engine shutdown. A fuel contamination issue is unlikely as it would nott likely have affected both engines at the exact same time and long after the engine starts, taxiing, and takeoff roll with no observed loss of thrust or sputtering. Indeed the two engines may have been feeding from different fuel tanks at the time, butt, even if nott, the simultaneous failure without prior sputtering or intermittent smoke suggests fuel contamination was nott the cause of the dual engine failure. It remains possible that shutoff of fuel valves to both engines occurred, butt if so it likely would have been uncommanded from the cockpit - so then the question is what was the source of the fuel valve closures.

IMO, this accident investigation is nott going to be a happy time for Boeing. It is unlikely to be pilot/crew error, so at some point the mechanical/electrical/software prollem(s) will surface and, even if maintenance-related, Boeing is the responsible party for the hardware and software and flight system design and maintenance protocols/guidelines/procedures/schedules.

Especially at this time of the Paris airshow, it is a tough time to be a 787 salesman trying to close deals for Boeing.

I hope one or more of the Youtube commentators and press reporters eventually discuss the potential role of the FADEC 4 system as a possible source of the dual engine simultaneous shutdown. If it getts shot down, so be it. It's just my guess, like picking horses at DaTrack. Butt horses that are scratched from the race, like failure to retract gear and zero flaps hypotheses, are ~OUTT-of-the-running.

I would also like to see opinions from current 787 pilots on the FADEC issue. In view of the 787 being the most software-controlled commercial jet and using the FADEC 4 engine management system, these guys and perhaps the engine and FADEC manufacturer engineers who are responsible for the FADEC interface to the engine.

LOL! "That's just nonsense. A stupid theory. The crash debris shows the flaps were extended."





And the RAT autodeployed. All inCONsistent with your BS failed hypothesis.

Prob right. Monday morning QB from the cheap seats always happens after a crash...In the USA, the hiring frenzy the last four years, saw some low time peeps getting hired. That hasn't happened since the early 70's in this country. Just imagine how bad it is in a foreign country. The FO pulled the flaps instead of the gear. The video shows it. The Gear was still down when they went down. Horrible

Understood and agreed. it was just a plausible counter to some of the other wild speculation.

Facts will clear it all up.

Best to wait for the data from the DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder). It will show us the parameters from the engine and whether the thrust was insufficient (as described by the Captain). It will tell us what actions were performed such as gear or flap selections or movement. The CVR will let us hear any noises such as switch selections or unusual sounds such as the "bang" that the surviving passenger describes hearing.

There should be details in the next 30 days, maybe even sooner.

Plausible theory

This is an excellent theory on what could have caused that Indian plane crash yesterday. pic.twitter.com/NgI0gGutcv— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 13, 2025

FADEC in electrical failure or electrical power surges - the FADEC system can fail - as it did in a lightning strike on a C-17 - which then fails the engine(s).

The AI 787 used FADEC 4 electrical engine control.

One possible hypothesis is that an electrical system prollem - surging, shorting, arcing, grounding, etc. - might have induced a FADEC failure on both GEnx engines causing them to fail and loss of thrust - with insufficient time to recycle/reboot the FADEC before impacting the ground. This is just one possible scenario that could explain both engines losing thrust simultaneously - in a primary electrical cause. Altho one source claims that each engine has a dedicated separate generator for its FADEC, the case of the C-17 losing all four engines due to a lightning strike shows that the FADEC is not totally isolated from the main electrical systems in some circumstances. If the FADEC hardware is grounded to the airframe with common ground to the main electricals of the aircraft, it could also be vulnerable to voltage surge originating from the main electricals that impact the airframe ground voltage, possibly failing the FADEC. Even if the FADEC can run entirely on dedicated engine generators, a fail due to a voltage spike might require a FADEC system reboot that could require more time than the AI plane had remaining.

This is all a guess.



https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1023829

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/87535/why-does-an-engine-fail-if-its-fadec-fails

Let's hope that Boeing ... errr ... Spirit SpaceSystems, PLC (OTCBB: OOPS) is nott a subCONtractor for wiring the faulty, problematic Boeing Starliner. A pennyvesting retired ex-grease monkey might blame the command pilot for causing a prollem by "stirring the tank".

https://appel.nasa.gov/2022/01/31/spotlight-on-lessons-learned-cable-harness-wiring-and-connector-anomalies-caused-by-induced-damage-in-human-spaceflight-vehicles/

In re: More grist for the IA crash speculators

https://indianexpress.com/article/business/aviation/air-india-crash-ahmedabad-emergency-equipment-video-black-box-data-recorder-10067809/

Some additional grist for DaMill:

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2025/06/13/air-india-crash-expert-claims-rat-activation-suggests-aircraft-may-have-faced-power-failure.html

https://fl360aero.com/detail/the-story-b737-max-electrical-issue-hounds-boeing-as-latest-as-today-what-was-the-wiring-ewis-issue-during-re-certification-of-max-last-year/221

https://avm-mag.com/what-you-cant-see-can-hurt-you-how-to-protect-wiring

https://www.pogo.org/reports/tripwired-document-trail-of-faulty-airplane-wiring-demonstrates-need-for-comprehensive-review

https://www.devicetech.com/aerospace/wire-chafe-flight-safety-ewis/

Of course, any prollems with wiring, if they exist, should automatically be blamed on Spirit AeroSystems, which is now part of Boeing but was nott at the time of production of the AI 787 and can be used as a blameworthy scapegoat for any and all technical prollems on Boeing aircraft.

If only we had access to an elderly retired former aircraft mechanic who could spew unwarranted, unsubstantiated CONclusions and deflect any potential responsibility away from Boeing, such as claiming that the AI171 crash must be due to pilot/FO error by retracting flaps instead of landing gear based on viewing a grainy shot-off-a-computer screen video and determining that there could not be 5 degrees of flaps deployed per the uber-grainy, low-res shot of a computer screen displaying a computer screen image of a video captured from the computer screen by a cellphone and posted. If only we had access to that elderly ex-grease monkey and his deep hangar queen experience to tell us whether any type of electrical failure could result in an uncommanded (by the cockpit) reduction of engine thrust or even an auto-reduction to idle.

Where can we find an old grease monkey with all the immediate-butt-wronGGG unsupported knee-jerk CONclusions to answer this question? Shirley there must be at least one who pisses away retirement munny on pennyscams and reads iHub who can provide/blurt~OUTT his CONclusions on this question (and also provide legal insight on complex semiCONductor patent litigation from his deep personal knowledge and experience in that area too). Even if accompanied by emotional, hand-waving blame diversion onto Spirit AeroSystems (possibly also operating as a "pair of hands" for Micron and Samsung).

Note: I am nott asserting that an electrical system failure is a root or primary cause of the AI crash. All I am stating is that, so far the evidence that has been reported is nott inCONsistent with such hypothesis. Eventually the relevant official investigation(s) will publish their findings on this incident. Until then, just blame the pilot and FO who were prolly undisclosed SpiritAero CONtractors moonlighting from their Air India yobbs.

Another of Spirit Aero's fuck-ups - this one on a Boeing 747:

"The four-year NTSB investigation concluded with the approval of the Aircraft Accident Report on August 23, 2000, ending the most extensive, complex, and costly air disaster investigation in U.S. history up to that time.[8][9] The report's conclusion was that the probable cause of the accident was the explosion of flammable fuel vapors in the center fuel tank. Although it could not be determined with certainty, the likely ignition source was a short circuit.[2]. Problems with the aircraft's wiring were found, including evidence of arcing in the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS) wiring that enters the tank. The FQIS on TWA Flight 800 is known to have been malfunctioning; the captain remarked about "crazy" readings from the system about two minutes and 30 seconds before the aircraft exploded." [I wunder whether the TWA800 doomed passengers, or those on the previous flight of the 747, had noticed any prollems with their seat overhead light, FA call button, AC, etc.]

For illustrative hypothetical purposes only (images courtesy of Spirit AeroWiring SubCONtractors, S.A. de C.V.)

Note the four conditions in which the RAT is automatically deployed - note condition three - electrical failure:



Also, from other videos and text, the 787 has automatic configuration control. It will not allow the pilots to take off unless the flaps and slats are properly set for the takeoff conditions (weight, runway length, air density/temp) AND the system will not allow the pilot(s) to retract flaps manually at takeoff with~OUTT the gear already being stowed first AND the flight conditions (forward speed, climb/sink rate, AOA, etc.) being correct for that post-takeoff climb~OUTT. For the Air India 787 the proper configuration is 5 degrees flaps and LE slats deployed, so on the grainy video it is not possible to determine if the flaps were 5 degrees deployed or fully retracted. As just stated, the 787 autoconfiguration software will not allow a takeoff roll unless the proper configuration for that flight is detected AND it will not let the pilot manually retract flaps unless the measured flight parameters allow it and it would be AFTER gear is stowed. Any attempt to do so manually produces impossible-to-ignore multiple bright REDD lights and master alarm lights on the cockpit console and ear-splitting audio warning tones and annunciators.

Most recent commentators have both visually and audibly identified RAT deployment on the Air India 787 after lift off. Again, there are four conditions where the RAT is automatically deployed - the third one is electrical failure to the cockpit and the other three are combination hydraulic failures either in conjunction with electrical failure (such as to the four electric hydraulic pumps - but not the two engine-driven hydraulic pump) or both hydraulic and electrical failure secondary to dual engine failures.

Note from video above that the center hydraulic system REQUIRES electric pump function to provide hydraulics to, among other things, the gear retraction. Engine hydraulics only are claimed to be unable to effect gear retraction, so an electrical failure could result in a lack of center hydraulic system pressure and an inability to retract the gear according to these claims.

Some related comments:




This is info from internet sources, so take that into CONsideration. Butt, if true, it suggests that the configuration (slats and 5 degree flaps deployed) was correct and a post-liftoff retraction of flaps is very unlikely - as the software makes it very hard and absolutely intentional for a manual command to retract flaps before gear is up and unless the sensed flight regime is within the permitted envelope.

This is just grist for hypotheses and is, as always, subject to change as more information becomes available.

There is a question that I have nott seen answered: can an electrical failure disrupt engine controls so that, e.g., the engines retard to idle uncommanded from the cockpit. Anybuddy know that answer? If it can, then that is another item that is at least CONsistent with the primary fault being electrical. Shirley, some blowhard retired mechanic can answer this question. Or mebbe Spirit did the wiring on this aircraft and chaffing of wires resulting in shorts and/or grounds because ... well ... it can't be Boeing's fault because its manufacturing is, as we know, flawless, especially with regard to electric wiring and wiring harnesses both of which are unchaffable if done by Boeing because Boeing never makes mistakes..

Accidents are impossible until they happen. This is why even top notch nuclear engineers did not believe the RBMK reactor design could ever explode (at least from a nuclear reaction; hydrogen explosions were still thought possible); it was thought physically impossible, until it happened. And the test-related electrical failure of the Reactor 4 disaster at Chernobyl was the primary cause of that catastrophe.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chernobyl/comments/mflxy2/why_did_the_engineers_believe_it_was_impossible/

Butt then again, mebbe the Soviet Union's Ministry of Energy and Electrification subbed ~OUTT the operator management of the test to Spirit and they wronGGGly installed the reactor door plug.

And remember, when you absolutely, positively must reject any hypothesis that may lead to an error by Boeing, just shout "Spirit did it!" numerous times and shake your fist while waving your other hand and possibly a foot also.

Prolly eventually the cause of the AI crash will be explained, butt right now the best available are hypotheses that are nott inCONsistent with the data (incl. the observations cited in the videos above).

Come to me papa $180s and we can cover short and go long but we can settle for $190s

https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-shows-nothing-working-air-180001190.html

Electrical services on the Air India flight that crashed with 242 passengers onboard were not working hours beforehand, it has been claimed.

A passenger on an earlier flight, named on social media as Akash Vatsa, posted videos showing facilities such as air-conditioning, service buttons and television touch screens not responding when he tried to operate them.

He can be heard saying in the clip: “Nothing is working, nothing, not even the light.”

https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft-maintenance-technology/aircraft-technology/commercial-airline/news/21125738/faa-faces-dilemma-over-737-max-wiring-flaw-that-boeing-missed

https://aviationweek.com/boeing-harnessing-problem-kc-46-tanker

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/miami-herald-sunday/20240825/281956023123322

https://airlinegeeks.com/2024/03/11/wiring-issue-latest-of-max-troubles/#

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/SAFO13006.pdf

https://apnews.com/article/3cb990b1081d943d980021b3cc627f02

Boeing needs to hire better electricians across many of its production lines.
https://spacenews.com/parachute-and-wiring-issues-to-delay-starliner-crewed-test-flight/

No worries, I'm shure the self-denoted IP law expert on NLST (who is deeeep underwater there in that turd) will just blame Spirit yett again - pure bogosity:

https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/666472-plane-crash-near-ahmedabad-7.html

Support at $180s load up there have patience let it come in

We'll have to wait for the FDR and CVR to be recovered and analyzed before we truly know what happened to this 787 aircraft.

But simply looking at the video of the takeoff? It certainly looks as if there were no flaps extended. Both in the video and still shots I have seen, I do not see any flaps extended.

As the aircraft lifted off and proceeded, you can see the flight path droop and then the nose lift - as if the pilot was trying to regain the altitude lost. This to me signifies either a loss of thrust from the engines, or not enough lift being generated by the wing. If the flaps were not extended, that would be the cause - certainly at the full passenger and fuel load it apparently carried. But they would have had a take-off configuration alarm blaring during the take-off roll. Doesn't make sense.

Now, if they lifted off and the pilot flying called for the landing gear retraction....and the first officer retracted the flaps in error? THAT would do it too. But I really do not see any visual evidence of the flaps ever being out.

We'll know exactly what caused it - eventually.

If it was the flaps not being out, someone with the proper equipment to look closely at the video will be able to immediately tell.

On Fidelity:
Update: Air India Boeing 787 Crashes Shortly After Take-Off From Ahmedabad
MT NEWSWIRES 6:45 AM ET 6/12/2025
Symbol Last Price Change
BA 214down 0 (0%)
QUOTES AS OF 04:10:00 PM ET 06/11/2025
06:45 AM EDT, 06/12/2025 (MT Newswires) -- A Boeing(BA) 787-8 aircraft operated by Air India crashed Thursday shortly after takeoff from Ahmedabad, India, en route London'sGatwick airport, Air India said Thursday on social media platform X.

Boeing (BA) shares were down over 7% in recent premarket activity on Thursday.

Air India said Flight AI171 was carrying 242 passengers and crew, including 169 Indian, 53 British, one Canadian and seven Portuguese nationals. The air carrier said injured are being transported to the hospitals.

Boeing (BA) said the company was "aware of initial reports" and is "working to gather more information."


MT Newswires does not provide investment advice. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.

Renewed Boeing cash dividends may be some time off still. Good news is newly announced plant expansion, such as in St Louis, will demand buckets of cash.

I can see new highs in the future. 245.00 is a nice number.

On Fidelity:

Jefferies Adjusts Price Target on Boeing to $250 From $230, Maintains Buy Rating
MT NEWSWIRES 10:23 AM ET 6/4/2025
Symbol Last Price Change
BA 213.27up -0.16 (-0.075%)
QUOTES AS OF 10:35:33 AM ET 06/04/2025
10:23 AM EDT, 06/04/2025 (MT Newswires) -- Boeing(BA) has an average rating of overweight and mean price target of $215.36, according to analysts polled by FactSet.

(MT Newswires covers equity, commodity and economic research from major banks and research firms in North America, Asia and Europe. Research providers may contact us here: https://www.mtnewswires.com/contact-us)

Price: 212.38, Change: -1.13, Percent Change: -0.53


MT Newswires does not provide investment advice. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.

New 52 week high! $215.80

Deutsche Bank's turn. On fidelity this morning:

Deutsche Bank Adjusts PT on Boeing to $235 From $217, Maintains Buy Rating
MT NEWSWIRES 5:39 AM ET 6/3/2025
Symbol Last Price Change
BA 211.47up 0 (0%)
QUOTES AS OF 04:10:00 PM ET 06/02/2025
05:39 AM EDT, 06/03/2025 (MT Newswires) -- Boeing(BA) has an average rating of overweight and mean price target of $215.36, according to analysts polled by FactSet.

(MT Newswires covers equity, commodity and economic research from major banks and research firms in North America, Asia and Europe. Research providers may contact us here: https://www.mtnewswires.com/contact-us)


MT Newswires does not provide investment advice. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.

BA $212.00. When will dividends return?

On Fidelity this morning:

Update: BofA Securities Upgrades Boeing to Buy From Neutral, Raises Price Target to $260 From $185
MT NEWSWIRES 11:20 AM ET 6/2/2025
Symbol Last Price Change
BA 208.465down +1.145 (+0.5523%)
QUOTES AS OF 11:27:44 AM ET 06/02/2025
11:20 AM EDT, 06/02/2025 (MT Newswires) -- (Updated to include BofA's commentary)

BofA Securities upgraded Boeing(BA) to buy from neutral and raised its price target to a Street-high of $260, citing increased confidence in the company's turnaround under the leadership of Chief Executive Kelly Ortberg.

The company's aircraft have become a preferred trade tool for the Trump Administration, as evidenced by recent deals with the UK (32 aircraft), Qatar (210), UAE (28), and China's decision to lift its ban on Boeing(BA) planes, analyst Ronald Epstein wrote in a Monday note.

These developments could shape the blueprint for future global trade negotiations, favoring the company, the analyst added.

Boeing has an average rating of overweight and mean price target of $214.60, according to analysts polled by FactSet.

(MT Newswires covers equity, commodity and economic research from major banks and research firms in North America, Asia and Europe. Research providers may contact us here: https://www.mtnewswires.com/contact-us)

Price: 208.80, Change: +1.51, Percent Change: +0.73


MT Newswires does not provide investment advice. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.

$212.28 today!

"Problem Solved? Boeing Redesigns 777X Thrust Links"

"Boeing has reportedly redesigned the engine thrust links for its long-delayed Boeing 777X widebody aircraft. According to a report by Aviation Week, the American aircraft manufacturer plans to install them later this summer.

Thrust links transfer loads between the engine and the wing structure. The redesigned thrust links will address a fatigue issue in the load-bearing components, which had previously caused a four-month delay in certification testing."

Boeing has since addressed the issue and resumed certification flights in mid-January 2025. According to the new report by Aviation Week, the plane maker now plans to install redesigned thrust links as part of a broader set of design improvements for the 777X. Initially planned for certification in 2020, the Boeing 777X was intended to be the next generation of the popular 777 widebody aircraft, with improvements in efficiency, range, and passenger comfort.

However, the Boeing 777X certification has faced multiple delays due to various technical challenges encountered during testing. One of the major setbacks occurred in 2020 when an “uncommanded pitch event” caused the aircraft’s nose to rise unexpectedly without pilot input, resulting in years of delays. More issues emerged in mid-August 2024, when thrust link failures were discovered during flight testing, halting the certification process once again. These delays were further worsened by a labor strike later that year.

Notably, Lufthansa is expected to be the first airline in the world to receive the 777X once it completes certification with both the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), according to Kelly Ortberg, president and CEO of Boeing. The Boeing 777X family includes the 777-8, 777-8F (freighter), and 777-9 variants. Lufthansa has ordered 20 of the Boeing 777-9 and seven Boeing 777-8F aircraft for its cargo division, Lufthansa Cargo."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/problem-solved-boeing-redesigns-777x-thrust-links/ar-AA1FokEA?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=e1981a855ca1409ef552ed6d2c19097e&ei=28

On Fidelity today:

US Justice Department reaches deal with Boeing to allow planemaker to avoid prosecution
REUTERS 2:29 PM ET 5/23/2025
Symbol Last Price Change
BA 202.49up -0.92 (-0.4523%)
QUOTES AS OF 02:32:55 PM ET 05/23/2025
WASHINGTON, May 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department said on Friday it has struck a deal in principle with Boeing(BA) to allow it to avoid prosecution in a fraud case stemming from two fatal 737 MAX plane crashes that killed 346 people.

The agreement allows Boeing(BA) to avoid being branded a convicted felon and is a blow to families who lost relatives in the crashes and had pressed prosecutors to take the U.S. planemaker to trial.

Boeing (BA) has agreed to pay an additional $444.5 million into a crash victims' fund that would be divided evenly per crash victim on top of an additional $243.6 million fine.

The Justice Department expects to file the written agreement with Boeing(BA) by the end of next week.


(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Chris Reese)

"Boeing back in 'dynamic' production mode, engine supplier Safran says."

"PARIS (Reuters) -U.S. planemaker Boeing has returned to a more "dynamic" production profile after years of uncertainty surrounding setbacks to its 737 MAX passenger jet, the head of engine maker and key Boeing supplier Safran said on Thursday."

"Production of the benchmark narrow-body jet stands at almost 38 a month, the ceiling imposed by U.S. regulators after the blowout of a door plug on an Alaska Airlines aircraft last year, Safran CEO Olivier Andries told an annual meeting."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-back-dynamic-production-mode-141716979.html?err=1

Another high, $208.

Nope. Boeing is going up and - barring some sort of incident with an aircraft - will continue to rise from here. Oh, I'm sure there will be down periods here and there. But for the most part, my opinion is that BA will be much higher in the coming years, than it is now.

Boeing is not just about civilian aircraft. It has huge contracts with the government as a defense contractor. The government will make sure BA sticks around.

Continues very strong and demand is almost unlimited by the world's airlines. Every mega cap fund will hold BA.

Up goes Boeing down goes Boeing...The hype is over so it should settle back in the $160-$170 range..This government Bailed out company in 2020 is now going to be up for IRS scrutiny and back payment to the government from the 2020 bailout..Possibly could go down as low as $150 a share again now that it's letting the government hand go.. Think the US government for salvaging a company that would've never survived without the government bail out funding of 2020 during Covid

Boeing is settling Out of courtfor $444 million for the 2018 and 2020 747 plane crashes where there were no survivors.

Boeing inks record-breaking deal for Qatar Airways to buy up to 210 planes
By Kevin Breuninger, CNBC • Published May 14, 2025 • Updated 2 hours ago
Log in or create a free profile to save articles
U.S. President Donald Trump, Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg attend a signing ceremony in Doha, Qatar, on May 14, 2025.
Brian Snyder | Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump, Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg attend a signing ceremony in Doha, Qatar, on May 14, 2025.

Boeing secured an agreement to sell Qatar Airways up to 210 aircraft.
Qatar Airways also signed an agreement with GE Aerospace for more than 400 engines to power the Boeing planes.
Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg appeared alongside President Donald Trump in Doha for a signing ceremony on the deal for the 787 Dreamliner and 777X planes.
The deal could draw more scrutiny toward President Donald Trump's defense of Qatar's offer to gift the U.S. a luxury 747 jet that will act as the new Air Force One.

Boeing and Qatar Airways on Wednesday announced a deal for the Middle Eastern airline to buy up to 210 jets, notching the U.S. planemaker's largest-ever order of widebody aircraft.

The order — the biggest in Qatar Airways' history — includes 130 of Boeing's 787 Dreamliners and 30 of its much-delayed 777-9s, with options for up to 50 more planes, the companies said in a press release.

Qatar Airways also signed an agreement with GE Aerospace for more than 400 engines to power the Boeing planes, those companies said in another joint release.

The purchase of widebody aircraft engines is the largest in GE Aerospace's history, according to the release.

Boeing and Qatar Airways struck the agreement during President Donald Trump's state visit with the emir of Qatar, part of the president's four-day tour of the Middle East.

Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg appeared alongside Trump at the Amiri Diwan in Doha for the signing ceremony.

"This is a critical next step for Qatar Airways on our path as we invest in the cleanest, youngest and most efficient fleet in global aviation," Qatar Airways CEO Badr Mohammed Al-Meer said in a statement. "This is so we can meet the strong demand in the airline as we seamlessly connect passengers to the world better than anyone."

Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Stephanie Pope said the "record-breaking order" with Qatar Airways "solidifies their future fleet with our market-leading widebody airplane family at its center."

The 426-seat, twin-engine 777-9 is part of Boeing's 777X series, which has yet to produce any deliveries and has still not been certified by the Federal Aviation Administration.

The White House earlier Wednesday valued the plane deal at $96 billion, and said it will support 154,000 U.S. jobs annually and more than one million domestic jobs in total.

Boeing and Qatar Airways, however, said the deal will result in roughly 400,000 jobs in the U.S.

Boeing's website says it currently employs around 170,000 people globally.

"It's the largest order of jets in the history of Boeing," Trump said after Ortberg signed the agreement at the Amiri Diwan.

The deal could be a boon for Boeing, which has not posted a profit since 2018.

The plane maker has been beset by major safety concerns, manufacturing defects, cost overruns and a nearly two-month-long machinist strike last year.
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/business/money-report/boeing-strikes-largest-ever-787-jet-order-with-qatar-airways-white-house-says/3745483/

Weekly Chart

"Boeing deliveries nearly double in April. Shares soar above $200 as China deliveries rise. .

"SEATTLE (Reuters) -Boeing said on Tuesday it delivered 45 commercial jets in April, nearly twice the 24 airplanes it delivered during the same month a year ago.

Aircraft deliveries are closely tracked by Wall Street because planemakers collect the majority of their payment when they hand over jets to customers. Years of crises and production problems have left Boeing heavily saddled with debt, and it needs to increase deliveries to bring in more cash."

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-deliveries-nearly-double-april-150804003.html

Go Boeing!

Boeing continues upward march on large order announcements. BA Now $194. Up 4.5%
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uk-announce-10-billion-boeing-152550798.html

The President just announced a deal with UK. They will be buying $10B in Boeing aircraft and food products like beef.

Hourly Chart

I bow to your brilliance.

"Looks like the 50 DMA is doing a Touch and Go on the 200." LOLOL! Of course, you know that TA astrology is worthless. Buffett doesn't even have a computer in his Omaha office and he does pretty well.

Looks like the 50 DMA is doing a Touch and Go on the 200.

Boeing Stock Glides Lower on China Delivery Halt
By: Schaeffer's Investment Research | April 15, 2025

🔸 China suspended jet deliveries from Boeing amid a trade war with the U.S.

🔸 BA is down over 8% since the start of April

Aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co (NYSE:BA) is pumping the breaks on its recent rally. The security was last seen down 1.8% at $156.50, after Bloomberg reported that China ordered carriers to suspend jet deliveries amid the trade war with the U.S. The country's top three airliners, Air China, China Eastern Airlines, and China Southern Airlines, had planned to take delivery of a combined total of 179 Boeing planes in the next two years.

It's worth noting that Morgan Stanley stated there was minimal downside risk from China's delivery halt. The country only makes up 6% of total Boeing deliveries, compared to 10 years ago when it was easily 20% on any given year.

During this past month's tariff-related volatility, Boeing stock saw a sharp selloff followed by an extended bounce starting April 7. Familiar pressure at the $160 level seems to have kept the rally in check, however. The equity is historically an April underperformer, down 8.5% since the start of the month, and also carrying an 11.9% year-to-date deficit.

Calls have been more popular than usual in the options pits. BA's 50-day call/put volume ratio of 2.02 at the International Securities Exchange (ISE), Cboe Options Exchange (CBOE), and NASDAQ OMX PHLX (PHLX) ranks higher than 84% of readings from the past year. Should some of this optimism start to unwind, it could provide further headwinds.

Read Full Story »»»

DiscoverGold

Boeing Stock Falls as China Tells Carriers to Stop Jet Deliveries, Report Says

https://www.investopedia.com/boeing-stock-falls-as-china-tells-carriers-to-stop-jet-deliveries-report-says-11715282

BA, bounced off the 52 week low this week