Boeing wins tanker contact. What other companies will bene?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
Topic Author
rentonhighlands
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:04 pm

Boeing wins tanker contact. What other companies will bene?

Post by rentonhighlands »

??

Are they a good buy? What other companies would also be good buys because Boeing won the contact. For example part suppliers or companies that supply goods to Boeing.
dbonnett
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:59 pm

Post by dbonnett »

Probably already discounted in those stocks.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

Probably an overall net plus for the US Economy. Good for states of Washington and Nebraska (I think). Bad for Alabama and not good for Airbus.
mark500
Posts: 392
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:37 am

Post by mark500 »

You mean Kansas. Great news for Kansas.
tibbitts
Posts: 23716
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Boeing wins tanker contact. What other companies will be

Post by tibbitts »

rentonhighlands wrote:??

Are they a good buy? What other companies would also be good buys because Boeing won the contact. For example part suppliers or companies that supply goods to Boeing.
So, at first, Boeing didn't win the contract. Then it did. Maybe it will stick this time. Maybe not. But no matter, any information you get by asking on a forum will be too late. You can only benefit from this kind of information if you have it before everyone else. You had to place your bet before the outcome became common knowledge.

Paul
markus
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Post by markus »

What will pop?
Well, you can look at PCP. This stock mirrors BA very close.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

mark500 wrote:You mean Kansas. Great news for Kansas.
Sorry about that. Kansas!

Will all of these planes be newly built, or will Boeing "rebuild/refurbish" some traded-in 767s?
User avatar
rob
Posts: 5247
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: Here

Post by rob »

Well get in and buy before it becomes public... oops..... Only way I can see that this is useful info is that you knew it before everyone else knew it... and they discourage insider trading.
| Rob | Its a dangerous business going out your front door. - J.R.R.Tolkien
User avatar
Scott S
Posts: 1937
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:28 am
Location: building my position

Post by Scott S »

This was good news for a little company in eastern Iowa that I work for. :wink:

- Scott
"Old value investors never die, they just get their fix from rebalancing." -- vineviz
User avatar
Scott S
Posts: 1937
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:28 am
Location: building my position

Post by Scott S »

dm200 wrote:Will all of these planes be newly built, or will Boeing "rebuild/refurbish" some traded-in 767s?
They'll be brand-new planes. There was a plan to refurbish some 767's a couple years ago, but that was scrapped.

- Scott
"Old value investors never die, they just get their fix from rebalancing." -- vineviz
User avatar
desertdug08
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:57 am
Location: Sunny San Antonio, TX

Post by desertdug08 »

I flew the Mighty KC-135 for many years...a tough old bird. Boeing builds great airplanes, but hard to separate politics from aircraft capability when $35 billion is at stake. The KC-135 was built with ash trashes so the crew could smoke...now you can't smoke on any AF planes....my how times have changed! :D

Cheers,

DUG
GlennC
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:55 pm

Post by GlennC »

Who will benefit?
Etrade, TD Ameritrade, etc. whenever you speculate on stocks. Also, Knight Capital Group (NITE) will also benefit as they skim from Etrade's and TD's customers (they pay for order flow from those companies).

I speculate myself, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea for everybody. Think of it like gambling. To do it professionally, you really have to know what you're doing.
I am one of those dirty active management people.
User avatar
dm200
Posts: 23214
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Washington DC area

Post by dm200 »

desertdug08 wrote:I flew the Mighty KC-135 for many years...a tough old bird. Boeing builds great airplanes, but hard to separate politics from aircraft capability when $35 billion is at stake. The KC-135 was built with ash trashes so the crew could smoke...now you can't smoke on any AF planes....my how times have changed! :D

Cheers,

DUG
Are they still flying the KC-135s from 50 years ago?
rustymutt
Posts: 4001
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:03 am

Post by rustymutt »

desertdug08 wrote:I flew the Mighty KC-135 for many years...a tough old bird. Boeing builds great airplanes, but hard to separate politics from aircraft capability when $35 billion is at stake. The KC-135 was built with ash trashes so the crew could smoke...now you can't smoke on any AF planes....my how times have changed! :D

Cheers,

DUG

What are flying now days? Living in Wichita, I've seen KC135s everyday of my life, or so it seems. We lived 2 miles from the one that crashed in 65.
I was a 9 year old. That one flew over our home before going straight into the ground. My mom watched as it happened and went crying into her room for most of the rest of that day. It had sucked up a chute of a F4 on take off.
I did a report on it in college.
Even educators need education. And some can be hard headed to the point of needing time out.
User avatar
desertdug08
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:57 am
Location: Sunny San Antonio, TX

Post by desertdug08 »

Rusty/DM200,

Yep, the Mighty KC-135 is still the back bone of the tanker fleet. I have been away from tankers for awhile, but I still think there is over 300 planes left flying in the active duty/National Guard/Reserves. And yes, some are over 50yrs old. AF also flys the KC-10 which is similiar to an L1011, but not sure the exact number. The KC-135 has been modified with new engines and avionics to extend its life, but internal corrosion is in the wing areas is the big problem.
Not a very glamorous mission, but fighters in the combat zones absolutely depend on air refueling to extend their time on station so they can cover our ground troops. Personally, I just hope that the contract is not delayed by law suits from ADS.

Cheers,

DUG
User avatar
fishnskiguy
Posts: 2635
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Castle Rock, CO

Post by fishnskiguy »

On my way to command a Trident SSBN, I spent a few days in Omaha at SAC headquarters. About the third day we flew on a KC-10 to refuel the Airborne National Command Post A/C and then on to Rapid City SD to get acquainted with the B-1 Bomber and the Minuteman ICBM in the nearby prairie.

Now, I was a forty year old Navy Captain used to flying with gray haired gentlemen who commanded large commercial A/C. Imagine my surprise when a twenty something pilot and his even younger girlfriend co-pilot show up and launch us into the sky. I should have known better. Guys his age were making night time traps in F14's on carriers on a routine basis.

I laid on my belly in the rear of the A/C alongside the refueling Airman as he flew the refueling probe to the ABNCP A/C. Very impressive.

Still, I was a bit unnerved. Kids that age should not be flying expensive aircraft :shock:

Or operating even more expensive nuclear powered submarines. :lol: :lol:

Chris
Trident D-5 SLBM- "When you care enough to send the very best."
User avatar
Dan Moroboshi
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:10 pm

Post by Dan Moroboshi »

Disclaimer: I am not an investment expert. I stink at market timing. I haven't even tried stock picking, because I know my limitation.

But if I had to try to pick a stock that would benefit from the tanker contract, it would be... Northrop Grumman (NOC)

What's that, you say? Northrop Grumman wasn't even in the competition for the tanker contract!

True, but if you've followed this whole sordid saga from the Darleen Druyun era, you might recall that Northrop Grumman and EADS were partners in the bid for the KC-X contract, after the original Boeing lease contract for the KC-767 was cancelled. They dropped out last year.

EADS had a stiff headwind in bidding for this contract. In the current economic and political climate, they really had to demonstrate a significant edge over Boeing to win. Can you imagine the complaints if EADS had won? "OMG, they're outsourcing a critical linchpin of America's armed forces! They're putting American national security in the hands of those Euro-weenie socialists!"

You might recall that Boeing recently lost out to Lockheed Martin to build the Joint Strike Fighter. So this was somewhat of a consolation prize to them.

They've taken some hits lately due to various scandals, but they're turning it around. They're moving their HQ from California to Falls Church, VA - so as to be closer to Washington DC and its endless supply of pork. (I'm not joking about that - their own CEO has stated it).

Now that Lockheed-Martin and Boeing have gotten their mega contracts from Uncle Sugar, it's Northrop Grumman's turn. You heard it here first!
pastafarian
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:55 am

Post by pastafarian »

desertdug08 wrote: AF also flys the KC-10 which is similiar to an L1011
You mean similar to the DC-10 :wink:
Default User BR
Posts: 7502
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 6:32 pm

Post by Default User BR »

Dan Moroboshi wrote:You might recall that Boeing recently lost out to Lockheed Martin to build the Joint Strike Fighter. So this was somewhat of a consolation prize to them.
Recently? Final down-select was about ten years ago. The whole tanker thing started with a leasing agreement that certain senators made a big issue and insisted on a purchase competition. Boeing ended up successfully protesting the first award. No indication of a gift to soothe their JSF feelings.



Brian
Post Reply