February 23, 2017

The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) suing Able Aerospace Adhesives and AlfaKleen chemical labs

An incident during testing in 2015 on the KC-46A Pegasus tanker has led The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) to file suit against two of its suppliers in California. The Boeing Company is suing Able Aerospace Adhesives and AlfaKleen Chemical Labs over claims of mislabeled chemicals that damaged the aircraft’s refueling system and delayed the tanker’s first flight by a month, the Seattle Times reported. The suit, filed in federal court in Santa Ana, California, seeks $10 million in damages from the companies and also refers to 10 other yet-to-be-identified parties the company believes played a role in the manufacturing and mislabeling of the chemical. Boeing is building and testing the militarized 767 jets in Washington state. The tanker can refuel military fighter jets, bombers, helicopters and freighters in the air and carry passengers, medical patients and cargo. The incident that led to the lawsuit happened in July 2015 when the wrong chemical was used during a test of the plane’s fuel system and caused corrosion.

At the movement The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) is under coverage by number of analysts. Buy rating has been given by 5 analysts to the company stock whereas 3 analysts given UNDERPERFORM rating to stock and 9 analysts given HOLD rating. The consensus recommendation by Thomson Reuters analysts is Outperform and their mean rating for the stock is 2.50 on scale of 1-5. Analysts mean target price for The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) is $171.70 while their mean recommendation is 2.60 (1=Buy, 5=sell).

If we look at stock performance in last active day trading, we see that stock has moved down -0.11% to end the day at $175.36. Company price to earnings (P/E) ratio, which measures the relationship between the earnings of a company and its stock price, is calculated as 22.89. The current share price indicate that stock is -0.46% away from its one year high and is moving 61.03% ahead of its 52-week low.

Thomson Reuters Corporation (NYSE:TRI) announced the official opening of Thomson Reuters Labs – Singapore. The Lab will collaborate with the government, customers, tech startups and universities to build partnerships and create innovative products and solutions for professional markets throughout the Asia Pacific region. The Singapore Lab is the first branch in Asia to open as part of Thomson Reuters Labs growing global network, joining locations in Boston, Cape Town, London, Waterloo (Canada) and Zürich. Located in Singapore’s central business district at One Raffles Quay, the Lab opening will be officiated by Sopnendu Mohanty, Chief Fintech Officer, Monetary Authority Singapore (MAS) and will support Thomson Reuters financial & risk, tax & accounting and legal businesses across Asia Pacific. Thomson Reuters Labs enable lean experimentation with advanced data analytics and machine intelligence to solve global challenges for customers. Specifically, the Labs provide capabilities across the many disciplines that constitute data science, delivering data exploration tools, dashboards, visualizations and proof-of-concept applications.

On 22 February 2017, Thomson Reuters Corporation (NYSE:TRI) shares moved to $43.07 after starting the day at $43.48. Number of analysts are covering this stock and currently stock has got OUTPERFORM rating from 1 analyst of Thomson Reuters, 14 analysts given HOLD rating to the stock. Analyst’s mean target price for TRI is $43.68 while analysts mean recommendation is 2.90.

1 comment

  1. This is to a large degree Boeing’s fault. They have reduced levels of oversight throughout their quality system constantly over the years in their corrupt management’s constant search for ever greater “stock option value.” Much of this cost and flow reduction to pad the bottom line comes by intentionally removing and/or falsely certifying the required QA processes were done when they were not.

    Boeing management is not stupid–they are just corrupt. They have long known that it is difficult/impossible to omit parts from and airplane and still sell it to a defrauded customer. Yes, they put severe pressure on suppliers to reduce the costs to Boeing of those parts and look the other way when they fake their QA processes to make their prices cheaper, but their chief method beyond take away contracts with labor in record profitable years and union avoidance is to only pretend to do critical QA processes and instead certify the paperwork they were done, as they know, beyond something found in some smoking wreckage, that there is no way to tell if such thousands of omitted or only cursorily and pretendingly done inspections were done or not. This is the basis of why and how Boeing’s massively fraudulent/fraud based QA department doesn’t do its critical job at Boeing and the suppliers it is responsible to oversee the QA departments of.

    I think Able Aerospace and AlfaKleen have a very good case that it was Boeing’s own corrupt QA receival inspection system (whatever is left of it) that intentionally failed in its role to catch this supposedly bad product to see if it met MIL-SPEC or not, as well as Boeing’s likely intentional dereliction or improper omission of its role of oversight of the contractor that played a major role in this bad batch getting through Boeing’s essentially nonexistent receival QA processes. PH would be the minimum test for such a solvent.

    Another likely thing that occurred is that Boeing’s bumbling mechanics improperly used the fluid, whether it was for flushing a hydraulic and/or fuel system. Since QA is a manufacturing subservient organization at Boeing instead of the independent department it should be if Boeing cared one iota about quality, mechanics performing ANY process per engineering and/or QA requirements is random, and only subject to the whim of the particular mechanic doing it.

    I know. Circa 2003 I was put into a role as Boeing Flight Test’s fuel/fluid QA as punishment for reporting my Boeing QA management’s fraud to the FAA. Before I was sent there, compliance was random at best. This was with the fuel that all of Boeing Field in Seattle used, in Boeing’s, the Militaries’, and airlines’ planes. In addition to that, all the hydraulic fluid and oil carts Boeing used to service Boeing’s commercial and Flight Test airplanes critical flight control systems. QA witness of sampling was required before most tests, but was never done before I started to do the job. Because I insisted on doing so and maintaining the integrity of the system, Boeing management got rid of my position there to ensure the old optional “honor” non-QA system was re-instated.

    And Fight Test’s QA aversion didn’t stop there. it even extended to the Life Support Shop, who were not doing the required tests and certifications for the EJECTION SEATS! Yup. Boeing management literally doesn’t care enough about the lives of their own pilots to ensure that that one department has adequate QA. No wonder they don’t give the required damn about public and crew safety of their airplanes/spacecraft.

    So, how do you get 10 million in damage from this solvent anyway? I have no problem believing that typical Boeing grease monkeys failed to flush all of the solvent out of the fuel/hydraulic system as required after it was used to clean the system. But that would only result in the O-rings or the few other rubber/plastic parts in the run being damaged. 10 million to replace O-Rings? I call BS. Even Drumpf doesn’t lie as much as Boeing Legal does. Plus, Boeing, considering their wholly corrupted QA system, probably doesn’t use MIL-SPEC O-rings in such military systems anyway. They probably substitute the same sized replacements from the local auto parts store instead to further defraud DOD. SMH.

    Able Aerospace and AlfaKleen, please read the above and check out my website for your defense. You should be able to counter-sue Boeing for the shear gall of questioning your quality system, when they intentionally and obviously didn’t perform either part of their QA responsiblity in this specific matter, and Boeing’s own entire QA system is based mainly on fraud. Your company may have made an error, but Boeing is guilty of RICO level offenses when it comes to QA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *