SEATTLE (AP) — Boeing bids farewell to an icon on Tuesday: It’s delivering its final 747 jumbo jet.
Since its first flight in 1969, the giant yet graceful 747 has served as a cargo plane, a commercial aircraft capable of carrying nearly 500 passengers, a transport for NASA’s space shuttles, and the Air Force One presidential aircraft. It revolutionized travel, connecting international cities that had never before had direct routes and helping democratize passenger flight.
But over about the past 15 years, Boeing and its European rival Airbus have introduced more profitable and fuel efficient wide-body planes, with only two engines to maintain instead of the 747′s four. The final plane is the 1,574th built by Boeing in the Puget Sound region of Washington state.
A big crowd of current and former Boeing workers is expected for the final send-off. The last one is being delivered to cargo carrier Atlas Air.
“If you love this business, you’ve been dreading this moment,” said longtime aviation analyst Richard Aboulafia. “Nobody wants a four-engine airliner anymore, but that doesn’t erase the tremendous contribution the aircraft made to the development of the industry or its remarkable legacy.”
Boeing set out to build the 747 after losing a contract for a huge military transport, the C-5A. The idea was to take advantage of the new engines developed for the transport — high-bypass turbofan engines, which burned less fuel by passing air around the engine core, enabling a farther flight range — and to use them for a newly imagined civilian aircraft.
It took more than 50,000 Boeing workers less than 16 months to churn out the first 747 — a Herculean effort that earned them the nickname “The Incredibles.” The jumbo jet’s production required the construction of a massive factory in Everett, north of Seattle — the world’s largest building by volume.
The plane’s fuselage was 225 feet (68.5 meters) long and the tail stood as tall as a six-story building. The plane’s design included a second deck extending from the cockpit back over the first third of the plane, giving it a distinctive hump and inspiring a nickname, the Whale. More romantically, the 747 became known as the Queen of the Skies.
Some airlines turned the second deck into a first-class cocktail lounge, while even the lower deck sometimes featured lounges or even a piano bar. One decommissioned 747, originally built for Singapore Airlines in 1976, has been converted into a 33-room hotel near the airport in Stockholm.
“It was the first big carrier, the first widebody, so it set a new standard for airlines to figure out what to do with it, and how to fill it,” said Guillaume de Syon, a history professor at Pennsylvania’s Albright College who specializes in aviation and mobility. “It became the essence of mass air travel: You couldn’t fill it with people paying full price, so you need to lower prices to get people onboard. It contributed to what happened in the late 1970s with the deregulation of air travel.”
The first 747 entered service in 1970 on Pan Am’s New York-London route, and its timing was terrible, Aboulafia said. It debuted shortly before the oil crisis of 1973, amid a recession that saw Boeing’s employment fall from 100,800 employees in 1967 to a low of 38,690 in April 1971. The “Boeing bust” was infamously marked by a billboard near the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport that read, “Will the last person leaving SEATTLE — Turn out the lights.”
An updated model — the 747-400 series — arrived in the late 1980s and had much better timing, coinciding with the Asian economic boom of the early 1990s, Aboulafia said. He recalled taking a Cathay Pacific 747 from Los Angeles to Hong Kong as a twentysomething backpacker in 1991.
“Even people like me could go see Asia,” Aboulafia said. “Before, you had to stop for fuel in Alaska or Hawaii and it cost a lot more. This was a straight shot — and reasonably priced.”
Delta was the last U.S. airline to use the 747 for passenger flights, which ended in 2017, although some other international carriers continue to fly it, including the German airline Lufthansa.
Atlas Air ordered four 747-8 freighters early last year, with the final one leaving the factory Tuesday.
Boeing’s roots are in the Seattle area, and it has assembly plants in Washington state and South Carolina. The company announced in May that it would move its headquarters from Chicago to Arlington, Virginia, putting its executives closer to key federal government officials and the Federal Aviation Administration, which certifies Boeing passenger and cargo planes.
Boeing’s relationship with the FAA has been strained since deadly crashes of its best-selling plane, the 737 Max, in 2018 and 2019. The FAA took nearly two years — far longer than Boeing expected — to approve design changes and allow the plane back in the air.
Sign up for CNN’s Wonder Theory science newsletter. Explore the universe with news on fascinating discoveries, scientific advancements and more.
New York CNN Business
—
In the fervor-filled days leading up to the November 16 launch of the long-awaited Artemis I mission, an uncrewed trip around the moon, some industry insiders admitted to having conflicting emotions about the event.
On one hand, there was the thrill of watching NASA take its first steps toward eventually getting humans back to the lunar surface; on the other, a shadow cast by the long and costly process it took to get there.
“I have mixed feelings, though I hope that we have a successful mission,” former NASA astronaut Leroy Chiao said in an opinion roundtable interview with The New York Times. “It is always exciting to see a new vehicle fly. For perspective, we went from creating NASA to landing humans on the moon in just under 11 years. This program has, in one version or another, been ongoing since 2004.”
There have been numerous delays with the development of the rocket at the center of the Artemis I mission: NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever flown — and one of the most controversial. The towering launch vehicle was originally expected to take flight in 2016. And the decade-plus that the rocket was in development sparked years of blistering criticism targeted toward the space agency and Boeing, which holds the primary contract for the SLS rocket’s core.
NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) repeatedly called out what it referred to as Boeing’s “poor performance,” as a contributing factor in the billions of dollars in cost overruns and schedule delays that plagued SLS.
“Cost increases and schedule delays of Core Stage development can be traced largely to management, technical, and infrastructure issues driven by Boeing’s poor performance,” one 2018 report from NASA’s OIG, the first in a series of audits the OIG completed surrounding NASA’s management of the SLS program, read. And a report in 2020 laid out similar grievances.
For its part, Boeing has pushed back on the criticism, pointing to rigorous testing requirements and the overall success of the program. The OIG report also included correspondence from NASA, which noted in 2018 that it “had already recognized the opportunity to improve contract performance management” and agreed with the report’s recommendations.
In various op-eds, the rocket has also been deemed “the result of unfortunate compromises and unholy politics,” a “colossal waste of money” and an “irredeemable mistake.”
Despite all the heated debate that has followed SLS, by all accounts, the rocket is here to stay. And officials at NASA and Boeing said its first launch two months ago was practically flawless.
“I worked over 50 Space Shuttle launches,” Boeing SLS program manager John Shannon told CNN by phone. “And I don’t ever remember a launch that was as clean as that one was, which for a first-time rocket — especially one that had been through as much as this one through all the testing — really put an exclamation point on how reliable and robust this vehicle really is.”
The Artemis program manager at NASA, Mike Sarafin, also said during a post-launch news conference that the rocket “performed spot-on.”
But with its complicated history and its hefty price tag, SLS could still face detractors in the years to come.
Many have questioned why SLS needs to exist at all. With the estimated cost per launch standing at more than $4 billion for the first four Artemis missions, it’s possible commercial rockets, like the massive Mars rocket SpaceX is building, could get the job done more efficiently, as the chief of space policy at the nonprofit exploration advocacy group Planetary Society, Casey Dreier, recently observed in an article laying out both sides of the SLS argument.
(NASA Administrator Bill Nelson noted that the $4 billion per-launch cost estimate includes development costs that the space agency hopes will be amortized over the course of 10 or more missions.)
Boeing was selected in 2012 to build SLS’s “core stage,” which is the hulking orange fuselage that houses most of the massive engines that give the rocket its first burst of power at liftoff.
Though more than 1,000 companies were involved with designing and building SLS, Boeing’s work involved the largest and most expensive portion of the rocket.
That process began over a decade ago, and when the Artemis program was established in 2019, it gave the rocket its purpose: return humans to the moon, establish a permanent lunar outpost, and, eventually, pave the path toward getting humans to Mars.
But the SLS is no longer the only rocket involved in the program. NASA gave SpaceX a significant role in 2021, giving the company a fixed-price contract for use of its Mars rocket as the vehicle that will ferry astronauts to the lunar surface after they leave Earth and travel to the moon’s orbit on SLS. SpaceX’s forthcoming rocket, called Starship, is also intended to be capable of completing a crewed mission to the moon or Mars on its own. (Starship, it should be noted, is still in the development phases and has not yet been tested in orbit.)
Boeing has repeatedly argued that SLS is essential and capable of performing tasks that other rockets cannot.
“The bottom line is there’s nothing else like the SLS because it was built from the ground up to be human rated,” Shannon said. “It is the only vehicle that can take the Orion spacecraft and the service module to the moon. And that’s the purpose-built design — to take large hardware and humans to cislunar space, and nothing else exists that can do that.”
Starship, meanwhile, is not tailored solely to NASA’s specific lunar goals. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has talked for more than a decade about his desire to get humans to Mars. More recently, he has said Starship could also be used to house giant space telescopes.
Yet, another reason critics remain skeptical of SLS is because of its origins. The rocket’s conception can be traced back to NASA’s Constellation program, which was a plan to return to the moon mapped out under former President George W. Bush that was later canceled.
But the SLS has survived. Many observers have suggested a big reason was the desire to maintain space industry jobs in certain Congressional districts and to beef up aerospace supply chains.
Much of the criticism levied against SLS, however, has focused on the actual process of getting the rocket built.
At one point in 2019, former NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine considered sidelining the SLS rocket entirely, citing frustrations with the delays.
“At the end of the day, the contractors had an obligation to deliver what NASA had contracted for them to deliver,” Bridenstine told CNN by phone last month. “And I was frustrated like most of America.”
Still, Bridenstine said, when his office reviewed the matter, it found “there were no options that were going to cost less money or take less time than just finishing the SLS” — and the rocket was never ultimately sidelined. (Bridenstine noted he was also publicly critical of delayed projects led by SpaceX and others.)
NASA continued to stand by Boeing and the SLS rocket even as it became a political hot potato, with some in Congress both criticizing its costs and refusing to abandon the program.
The SLS rocket ended up flying its first launch more than six years later than originally intended. NASA had allocated $6.2 billion to the SLS program as of 2018, but that price tag more than tripled to $23 billion as of 2022, according to an analysis by the Planetary Society.
Those escalating costs can be traced back to the type of contracts that NASA signed with Boeing and its other major suppliers for SLS. It’s called cost-plus, which puts the financial burden on NASA when projects face cost overruns while still offering contractors extra payments, or award fees.
In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Science last year, current NASA Administrator Bill Nelson criticized the cost-plus contracting method, calling it a “plague.”
More in vogue are “fixed-price” contracts, which have a firm price cap, like the kind NASA gave to Boeing and SpaceX for its Commercial Crew Program.
In an interview with CNN in December, however, Nelson stood by cost-plus contracting for SLS and Orion, the vehicle that is designed to carry astronauts and rides atop the rocket to space. He said that without that type of contract, in his view, NASA’s private-sector contractors simply wouldn’t be willing to take on a rocket designed for such a specific purpose and exploring deep space. Building a rocket as specific and technically complex as SLS isn’t a risk many private-sector companies are anxious to take on, he noted.
“You really have difficulty in the development of a new and very exquisite spacecraft … on a fixed-price contract,” he said.
“That industry is just not willing to accept that kind of thing, with the exception of the landers,” he added, referring to two other branches of the Artemis program: robotic landers that will deliver cargo to the moon’s surface and SpaceX’s $2.9 billion lunar lander contract. Both of those will use fixed-price — often referred to as “commercial” — contracts.
“And even there, they’re getting a considerable investment by the federal government,” Nelson said.
Still, government watchdogs have not pulled punches when assessing these cost-plus contracts and Boeing’s role.
“We did notice very poor contractor performance on Boeing’s part. There’s poor planning and poor execution,” NASA Inspector General Paul Martin said during testimony before the House’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics last year. “We saw that the cost-plus contracts that NASA had been using…worked to the contractor’s — rather than NASA’s — advantage.”
Shannon, the Boeing executive, acknowledged in an interview that Boeing and SLS have faced loud detractors, but he said that the value of the drawn out development and testing program would become evident as SLS flies.
“I am extremely proud that NASA — even though there were significant schedule pressures — they could set up a test program that was incredibly comprehensive,” he said. “The Boeing team worked through that test process and hit every mark on it. And you see the results. You see a vehicle that is not just visually spectacular, but its performance was spectacular. And it really put us on the road to be able to do lunar exploration again, which is something that’s very important in this country.”
But the rocket is still facing criticism. During a Congressional hearing with the House’s Science, Space, and Technology Committee in March 2022, NASA’s Inspector General said that current cost estimates for SLS were “unsustainable,” gauging that the space agency will have spent $93 billion on the Artemis program from 2012 through September 2025.
Martin, the NASA inspector general, specifically pointed to Boeing as one of the contractors that would need to find “efficiencies” to bring down those costs as the Artemis program moves forward.
In a December 7 statement to CNN, Boeing once again defended SLS and its price point.
“Boeing is and has been committed to improving our processes — both while the program was in its developmental stage and now as it transitions to an operational phase,” the statement read, noting the company already implemented “lessons learned” from building the first rocket to “drive efficiencies from a cost and schedule perspective” for future SLS rockets.
“When adjusted for inflation, NASA has developed SLS for a quarter of the cost of the Saturn V and half the cost of the Space Shuttle,” the statement noted. “These programs have also been essential to investing in the NASA centers, workforce and test facilities that are used by a broad range of civil and commercial partners across NASA and industry.”
The successful launch of SLS was a welcome winning moment for Boeing. Over the past few years, the company has been mired in controversy, including ongoing delays and myriad issues with Starliner, a spacecraft built for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, and scandal after scandal plaguing its airplane division.
Now that the Artemis I mission has returned safely home, NASA and Boeing can turn to preparing more of the gargantuan SLS rockets to launch even loftier missions.
SLS is slated to launch the Artemis II mission, which will take four astronauts on a journey around the moon, in 2024. From there, SLS will be the backbone of the Artemis III mission that will return humans to the lunar surface for the first time in five decades and a series of increasingly complex missions as NASA works to create its permanent lunar outpost.
Shannon, the Boeing SLS program manager, told CNN that construction of the next two SLS rocket cores is well underway, with the booster for Artemis II on track to be finished in April — more than a year before the mission is scheduled to take off. All of the “major components” for a third SLS rocket are also completed, Shannon added.
For the third SLS core and beyond, Boeing is also moving final assembly to new facilities Florida, freeing up space at its manufacturing facilities to increase production, which may help drive down costs.
Shannon declined to share a specific price point for the new rockets or share any internal pricing goals, though NASA is expected to sign new contracts for the rockets that will launch the Artemis V mission and beyond, which could significantly change the price per launch.
Nelson also told CNN in December that NASA “will be making improvements, and we will find cost savings where we can,” such as with the decision to use commercial contracts for other vehicles under the Artemis program umbrella.
How and whether those contracts bear out remain to be seen: SpaceX needs to get its Starship rocket flying, a massive space station called Gateway needs to come to fruition, and at least some of the robotic lunar landers designed to carry cargo to the moon will need to prove their effectiveness. It’s also not yet clear whether those contracts will result in enough cost savings for the critics of SLS, including NASA’s OIG, to consider the Artemis program sustainable.
As for SLS, Nelson also told reporters December 11, just after the conclusion of the Artemis I mission, that he had every reason to expect that lawmakers would continue to fund the rocket and NASA’s broader moon program.
“I’m not worried about the support from the Congress,” Nelson said.
And Bridenstine, Nelson’s predecessor who has been publicly critical SLS, said that he ultimately stands by SLS and points out that, controversies aside, it does have rare bipartisan support from its bankrollers.
“We are in a spot now where this is going to be successful,” Bridenstine said last month, recalling when he first realized the Artemis program had support from the right and left. “All of America is going to be proud of this program. And yes, there are going to be differences. People are gonna say well, you should go all commercial and drop SLS…but at the end of the day, what we have to do is we have to bring together all of the things that are the best programs that we can get for America and use them to go to the moon.”
A Boeing 737 Max 8 took off in China on Friday, for the first time since the government grounded all 737 Max 8 planes in 2019, according to the flight tracking website, Flightradar24.
In March 2019, Chinese aviation authorities instructed airlines in the country to ground all their Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft, citing the need for “strict control of safety risks.” The decision followed two 737 Max 8 crashes in Ethiopia in 2019 and Indonesia in 2018.
The Boeing 737 Max 8 that took off Friday is operated by China Southern Airlines and traveled from Guangzhou to Zhengzhou, according to Flightradar24. The flight comes as the Chinese travel market is recovering after the country abandoned zero-Covid policies.
In September, Boeing and its former CEO Dennis Muilenburg agreed to pay hefty fines to settle charges from the US Securities and Exchange Commission alleging they misled the public about the safety of the 737 Max following the two fatal crashes.
The SEC had alleged that, following an October 2018 crash of a Lion Air 737 Max jet that killed 189 people, Boeing and Muilenburg knew that part of the plane’s flight control system posed an ongoing safety concern yet told the public that the 737 Max was safe to fly.
After a March 10, 2019 fatal 737 Max crash, the SEC alleged that Boeing and Muilenburg knowingly misled the public about “slips” and “gaps” in the certification process of that flight control system.
Stock futures were little changed Tuesday as concern over higher rates lingered among traders.
Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 60 points, or 0.2%, while S&P 500 fell less than 0.1%. Nasdaq-100 futures hovered just above the flat line.
Atlanta Federal Reserve President Raphael Bostic said Monday that interest rates should rise above 5% and stay there for a “long time.” Meanwhile, San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly said the central bank should continue raising rates, albeit at a slower pace. Treasury yields rose slightly on Tuesday.
Those comments came ahead of a speech by Fed Chair Jerome Powell slated for 9 a.m. ET.
Investors came into the new year worried that higher Fed rates could tip the economy into a recession. However, many appear to be mounting bets that inflation is starting to ease.
The Nasdaq Composite on Wednesday posted a 0.6% gain, helped by a 6% rally in Tesla. Meanwhile, the Dow erased a 304-point gain and ended down almost 113 points, while the S&P fell 0.1%.
Monday also marked the end of the first five trading days of 2023, during which the S&P 500 gained 1.1%. According to a classic stock market indicator, that kind of early strength could bode well for the rest of the year.
Tom Lee of Fundstrat called it a “strong omen” and said the market is set up for a 20% rally this year.
The Fed wants financial conditions “to stay tight,” Lee said on CNBC’s “Closing Bell: Overtime.” “Dollar, stocks, bonds – everything’s kind of easing so they’re probably a little worried and they want to be sure inflation is in fact dead. But one of the changes especially since October is that inflation has been under shooting.”
Depending on how CPI data fares Thursday, the bond market could push the Fed to make February the last rate hike before cuts, Lee added.
Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading.
Horizon Therapeutics – Shares of the drugmaker jumped 15% after the company announced it has agreed to be acquired by Amgen in a deal valued at approximately $26.4 billion, or $116.50 per share, in cash. The deal will give Amgen a chance to build its portfolio of rare-disease treatments. Amgen shares fell more than 1%.
related investing news
Weber – Shares of the grill manufacturer jumped 23% after the company announced a deal to be taken private by BDT Capital Partners. BDT will purchase Weber for $8.05 per share, according to the announcement.
Coupa Software – The maker of business spending management software jumped 26% after the private-equity firm Thoma Bravo agreed to buy the company in an all-cash deal worth $8 billion, or $81 per share.
Under Armour – The athletics apparel stock jumped 10% following an upgrade to buy from hold by Stifel. The firm cited Under Armour’s “better margin certainty” and management of inventory among its reasons for the upgrade.
Boeing – Shares of the aircraft maker jumped 2.8% after the Economic Times reported over the weekend that Air India is close to signing an order to acquire up to 150 737 Max jets.
Rivian – The electric vehicle stock shed more than 4% on news that it’s pausing plans to make electric vans in Europe in conjunction with Mercedes-Benz. Rivian CEO RJ Scaringe said the company is pursuing “the best risk-adjusted returns” on its capital investments, which includes focusing on its consumer and existing businesses. News of the agreement with the automobile maker was first announced in September.
Monday – Shares of software publisher Monday jumped 6% after JPMorgan upgraded the stock to overweight from neutral and boosted its price target.
Cheesecake Factory, Brinker International – The two restaurant stocks fell following downgrades to sell from neutral by Goldman Sachs. The firm said inflation will continue hurting the companies into 2023. Cheesecake Factory shed 1.6%, while Brinker, the parent of Chili’s and Maggiano’s Little Italy, dropped 2.9%.
Box – The software-as-a-service company gained 6.5% after JPMorgan upgraded the stock to overweight from neutral, arguing it is outperforming other technology names and can continue doing so going forward.
Tesla – Shares of Tesla fell more than 4% after a YouGov survey showed that negative views of the electric vehicle maker have overtaken positive ones just slightly. Tesla’s brand has deteriorated after CEO Elon Musk took over Twitter.
— CNBC’s Tanaya Macheel, Yun Li, Alex Harring, Samantha Subin and Jesse Pound contributed reporting.
The market is so possessed by tech that it can’t see the forest through the industrials. If the discourse isn’t about the slowdown in the cloud, it’s about who is pulling out of the now-private Twitter, or how disappointing it is that co-CEO Bret Taylor left Salesforce (CRM). Meta Platforms ‘ (META) Mark Zuckerberg could sneeze and Amazon (AMZN) CEO) Andy Jassy cough and it’s a bigger deal than United Airlines ‘ (UAL) order for 100 Dreamliners from Boeing (BA). We don’t pay much attention to the industrials anymore. There aren’t that many of them. We are used to them being hostage to so many forces of negativity that they just aren’t worth our focus. That’s wrong. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has done so much better than the average semiconductor company, or even the above-average enterprise software company that it’s insane that we even focus on some of the latter. The 600 companies formed in the last two years rent too much of your brain space even in passing. Advertising, which turned out to be the Achilles heel of everything internet and media, just seems to have vanished. There’s not enough of it to feed the mouths of all of the players and nobody seems to be able to reach the 18- to 24-year-olds with whatever they spend. So they are shelling out a fraction of what they used to spend. It’s so bad that we cheer when a semiconductor company like Marvell Technology (MRVL), guides down and it only edges the stock down slightly. That gives the market hope that some of the inventory glut for chips is near its end. In the meantime, the unheralded industrials gap up on any S & P 500 run, where there never seems enough stock ahead to where you find sellers. I will go into the ones that intrigue — but first, let me just say that the biggest problem with so many of these techs is that there is so much supply at every level. Someone is always a seller. There’s always merchandise up a penny. And it is sizable. The orders, if you could hear them would be something like, “sell 50,000 shares every five cents thereabout for the next dollar and then I will reload when I get my report if there is enough time left at the end of the day. I don’t want to hurt the stock too much because I have so much behind it.” There is endless selling in anything related to the cloud and it isn’t just from the price target reductions. It is from insiders who sense that the era is over and they all compete with each other now, even Amazon, Alphabet (GOOGL) and Meta get that. When the biggest issue with Meta is how much time is Zuckerberg really working on his alleged metaverse pipedream, instead of the highly profitable but slow-growing Instagram, you know you are way too deep in the weeds. Now I want you to hit up the stock of Caterpillar (CAT). When you are in the deep stages of a Federal Reserve interest rate tightening I would normally say that this may be the single best short in the book. Shorting a stock means betting it will go down. But not this time. There is no way CAT can meet its orders. Every industry needs more of what they make, whether it be coal because Europe has taken so many nuclear plants offline and natural gas has risen so much in price, or earthmovers needed for all the roads that are about to be built in this country because of the Democrat’s infrastructure bill, which favors domestic product. Meanwhile, its raw costs are going LOWER. Caterpillar de-emphasized China and emphasized oil and gas. While the public companies have cut back the pace of drilling, the private equity companies are drilling like mad to cover cash flow. Take a look at how CAT acts on up days. There is none for sale. None. A decent day and it always seems like Caterpillar’s stock has rallied three points. Why not; there are 527 million shares outstanding, down 20 million shares. What enterprise software company can say that? There are no stock base compensation issues. Stock is precious. CAT sells at 17 times REAL earnings, not FAKE or MADE UP earnings. That’s what we really should call the shameless non-GAAP adjusted earnings-per-share nonsense we get from these West coasters, which seems a lot like what General Electric (GE) was doing before its collapse. I bet an order to buy 100,000 shares of Caterpillar moves it 2 points. In a year when the S & P 500 dropped 14%, CAT has gained 14% year to date. Not to mention it has an annual dividend yield of 2%. Last week, I met with Emerson Electric (EMR) CEO Lal Karsanbhai. He’s turning this old-line but excellent valve and home appliance maker into a company that digitizes your hardware, that automates your plants while cutting out waste. In less than two years, Karsanbhai has sold slow-growing divisions, bought faster-growing businesses, and joint-ventured others in ways that the arrogant software types can only dream of doing. Like Caterpillar’s stock, EMR is straight up: 4% higher year-to-date. But in the past three months, shares are up 18.5%. I think the idea of bringing in an Emerson to innovate, automate and become cleaner — it also has a huge business in environmental improvement — is one of the first calls I would make if I ran an industrial. It’s an 18 times earnings stock. Anything that happens to Boeing, I am always bittersweet about. We sold some high, we sold some low, but most importantly we were just annoyed by its constant errors. We wanted to play aerospace, though, with so much travel, so we did it with Honeywell (HON). Here’s another story that just never stops ceases to amaze. Another reconfigured company with chemicals that clean the refining process, machines that automate factories, climate controls, and some of the most important parts of an airplane including the cockpit, for not just Boeing but Airbus. Honeywell stock sells at 25 times earnings but its growth is accelerating and it has cash and a balance sheet that is ready to be put to work for anything needed. HON is another one that’s up 5% year to date and more than 17% in the past three months. We know that we have gone through arsenals of low-tech military equipment as has NATO. But this big appropriation boost last week is going to give Raytheon Technologies (RTX) orders it needs to raise numbers for 2023. The anti-missile products that Raytheon specializes in are what I think are now headed to NATO members to do what they want with them, which means take them to Ukraine to defend against the now-nine-month invasion by Russia. Meanwhile, Raytheon’s aerospace, both military and commercial, have too many orders to handle. After some re-configuring as part of the merger between United Technologies and Raytheon, the buyback is in place. The only thing holding this company back is a lack of engineers. Can the people out West learn military engineering? They better learn to do so. RTX is up 17% year to date. I could include so many companies like these, Eaton Corporation (ETN) for pumps, valves and what you need for electrical vehicle charging; Illinois Tool Works (ITW) for equipment like welding, the growth portion of autos, and polymers, and all sorts of in high demand products; or Agilent Technologies (A), a test and measurement company for all sorts of industries that require precision and pinpoint accuracy. You can’t just own these. You won’t know when they stop going straight up. And you can’t just buy them. Jeff Marks, portfolio director for the Investing Club, and I went at it last week when I said that we have to, just have to own Emerson as fast as we can. But one look at the stock tells us that it’s just gone too far too fast. The thing is, they all have. I say let’s take a serious break from the software companies that were claimed to have eaten everything else for breakfast and start discussing the real winners since the November pivot — the companies that were supposed to collapse that, instead, have reinvented themselves and are part of the new industrial economy that’s been automated and digitized and doesn’t need customer relations management because it has too many customers. (Jim Cramer’s Charitable Trust is long CRM, META, AMZN, GOOGL and HON. See here for a full list of the stocks.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust’s portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.
Jim Cramer at the NYSE, June 30, 2022.
Virginia Sherwood | CNBC
The market is so possessed by tech that it can’t see the forest through the industrials. If the discourse isn’t about the slowdown in the cloud, it’s about who is pulling out of the now-private Twitter, or how disappointing it is that co-CEO Bret Taylor left Salesforce (CRM). Meta Platforms‘ (META) Mark Zuckerberg could sneeze and Amazon (AMZN) CEO) Andy Jassy cough and it’s a bigger deal than United Airlines‘ (UAL) order for 100 Dreamliners from Boeing (BA).
Check out the companies making headlines before the bell:
FedEx (FDX) – FedEx remains on watch this morning after announcing a 6.9% increase in shipping rates and plans to cut another $4 billion in annual costs. FedEx fell 3.2% in the premarket.
Costco (COST) – Costco lost 3.3% in the premarket despite reporting better-than-expected profit and sales for its latest quarter. The company reported operating margins that were slightly below consensus. Costco said it has no immediate plans to raise membership prices, but said it would happen at some point.
Boeing (BA) – Boeing will pay $200 million to settle SEC charges that it made misleading claims about the safety risks of its 737 MAX jet after two of the planes were involved in fatal crashes. Former CEO Dennis Muilenburg will pay $1 million as part of the settlement, with both parties neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing. Boeing lost 1.8% in the premarket.
Raytheon Technologies (RTX) – Raytheon won a $985 million Pentagon contract to develop hypersonic attack cruise missile prototypes, beating out rivals Boeing and Lockheed Martin (LMT).
CalAmp (CAMP) – The “internet of things” software company’s stock rallied 3.5% in premarket action after it reported a smaller-than-expected quarterly loss with revenue that topped analyst forecasts. CalAmp saw record software and subscription services revenue during the quarter.
Ally Financial (ALLY) – The financial services company’s stock fell 2.7% in the premarket after Wells Fargo downgraded it to “equal weight” from “overweight”. Wells said Ally will feel pressure from Fed rate hikes and an accelerating decline in used vehicle prices, which impacts yields from leases.
Qualcomm (QCOM) – Qualcomm said its future automotive business pipeline increased to $30 billion in orders, up by more than $10 billion since July. The increase came primarily from orders for its Snapdragon Digital Chassis computer chip. Qualcomm, however, fell 2% in premarket action.
fuboTV (FUBO) – The sports-focused streaming service was upgraded to “outperform” from “neutral” at Wedbush, which sees the stock at a compelling entry point. Wedbush expressed confidence that fuboTV can successfully raise capital and cut its cash burn rate. The stock gained 2% in the premarket.
The SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, carrying astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken in the Crew Dragon capsule, lifts off from Kennedy Space Center, Fla., on Saturday, May 30, 2020. The SpaceX Demo-2 mission is the first crewed launch of an orbital spaceflight from the U.S. in nearly a decade.
Joe Burbank | Orlando Sentinel | Getty Images
NASA on Wednesday announced it has awarded five more astronaut missions to Elon Musk’s SpaceX, with a contract worth an additional $1.4 billion to the company.
The extra flights fall under NASA’s Commercial Crew program, which delivers astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station. SpaceX is currently on its fourth operational human spaceflight for the agency.
SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft has been competing with Boeing and its Starliner capsule for contracts under Commercial Crew. While both companies have now been awarded nearly $5 billion to develop and launch their respective capsules, SpaceX has won 14 missions and Boeing has garnered six. The latter has yet to launch astronauts with Starliner.
Due in part to the fixed-price nature of NASA’s contracts for the program, Boeing has absorbed $688 million in costs from delays and additional work on the capsule. After successfully completing an uncrewed Starliner flight to the ISS in May, the company now aims to carry astronauts for the first time in February.
The 20 flights awarded to date cover crew missions until 2030 when the ISS is expected to be retired from use.
NASA plans to launch the Artemis I mission on Monday from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, sending the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule on a more than month-long journey around the moon. —
The uncrewed launch marks the debut of the most powerful rocket ever assembled and kicks off NASA’s long-awaited return to the moon’s surface. It’s the first mission in NASA’s Artemis lunar program, which is expected to land the agency’s astronauts on the moon by its third mission in 2025.
While Artemis I will not carry astronauts, nor land on the moon, the mission is critical to demonstrating that NASA’s monster rocket and deep space capsule can deliver on their promised abilities. Artemis I has been delayed for years, with the program running billions over budget.
NASA’s Artemis I Moon rocket is rolled out to Launch Pad Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Center, in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on August 16, 2022.
Chandan Khanna | AFP | Getty Images
The Artemis I mission represents a crucial turning point in NASA’s moon plans.
Despite the delays, and absorbing much of NASA’s relatively small budget by federal agency standards, the Artemis program has enjoyed strong bipartisan political support.
Officials in 2012 estimated that the SLS rocket would cost $6 billion to develop, debut in 2017 and carry a $500 million per launch price tag. But the rocket is only just now debuting, having cost more than $20 billion to develop, and its per launch price tag has ballooned to $4.1 billion.
NASA’s Inspector General, its internal auditor, earlier this year said Artemis is not the “sustainable” moon program that the agency’s officials say it is. The watchdog found more than $40 billion has already been spent on the program, and projected NASA would spend $93 billion on the effort through 2025 – when the first landing is planned.
But even that 2025 date is in doubt, according to NASA’s Inspector General, which said that development technologies needed to land on the moon’s surface are unlikely to be ready before 2026, at the earliest.
NASA’s Artemis plan relies on the success of another monster rocket as well: SpaceX’s Starship. The agency last year awarded SpaceX with a $2.9 billion contract to develop a moon-specific version of the rocket to serve as the crew lunar lander for the Artemis III mission.
SpaceX began testing of its Starship spacecraft in earnest in 2019, but that rocket has yet to reach orbit.
A host of aerospace contractors across the U.S. support the hardware, infrastructure and software for NASA’s Artemis I – Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Jacobs lead the effort. According to NASA, the Artemis program supports about 70,000 jobs around the country.
Multiple NASA centers are involved as well, beyond Kennedy as the launch site – including the DC headquarters, Marshall in Alabama, Stennis in Mississippi, Ames in California, and Langley in Virginia.
In the event that technical issues or weather delay the Aug. 29 launch attempt, NASA has back-up launch dates scheduled for Sept. 2 and Sept 5.
Here’s what you should know about the launch:
The rocket: SLS
NASA’s SLS moon mega rocket topped by the Orion spacecraft rolls out of the Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Center on its way to launch complex 39B for a launch rehearsal on March 17, 2022 in Cape Canaveral, Florida.
Paul Hennessy | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
Standing as high as a skyscraper at 322 feet tall, the SLS rocket is a complex vehicle built on technologies used and improved on from NASA’s Space Shuttle and Apollo programs.
Fully fueled, SLS weighs 5.7 million pounds, and produces up to 8.8 million pounds of thrust – 15% more than the Saturn V rockets last century. SLS uses four liquid-fueled RS-25 engines, which flew on the Space Shuttle before being refurbished and upgraded, as well as a pair of solid rocket boosters.
SLS’s core stage gets its orange color from the thermal protection system that covers it, which is a spray-on foam insulation. For the first three Artemis missions, NASA is using a variation of SLS known as Block 1. For later missions, NASA plans to roll out an even more powerful variation, known as Block 1B.
The capsule: Orion
NASA’s Orion spacecraft
Source: NASA
NASA’s Orion capsule can carry four astronauts on missions up to 21 days long without docking with another spacecraft. At its core is the crew module, which is designed to endure the harsh conditions of flying into deep space.
After launch, Orion is fueled and propelled by the European Service Module, which was built by the European Space Agency and contractor Airbus.
For Artemis I, there will be three mannequins inside the Orion capsule to collect data via sensors about what astronauts will experience on the trip to-and-from the moon. The return to Earth will be especially crucial, as Orion will re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere at about 25,000 miles per hour. A heat shield protects the exterior of Orion, and a set of parachutes will slow it down for a splash landing in the ocean
The mission around the moon
NASAs Artemis I Moon rocket sits at Launch Pad Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Center, in Cape Canaveral, Florida, on June 15, 2022.
Eva Marie Uzcategui | AFP | Getty Images
Artemis I will travel about 1.3 million miles over the course of 42 days, spanning several phases. After separating from SLS, the capsule will deploy solar arrays and begin a multi-day journey to the moon – departing from Earth’s orbit in what is known as a “trans-lunar injection.”
NASA plans to fly Orion as close as 60 miles above the moon’s surface, before moving into a wide orbit around the lunar body. To return, Orion will use the moon’s gravity to assist it in setting a trajectory back into Earth’s orbit.
Orion is expected to splash down in the Pacific Ocean – off the coast of San Diego, California – where a team of NASA and Department of Defense personnel will recover the capsule.
In addition to the mannequins onboard Orion, Artemis I carries several payloads such as cube satellites, technology demonstrations and science investigations.
American Airlines Boing 777-300 wide-body aircraft as seen on final approach for landing at London Heathrow International airport in England, UK.
Nicolas Economou | NurPhoto | Getty Images
American Airlines posted its first quarterly profit since the pandemic started without government aid but joined competitors in scaling back growth plans after a host of disruptions this year. The carrier on Thursday forecast a third-quarter profit, however, another sign of strong travel demand, even at high prices.
American posted a second-quarter profit of $476 million, up from $19 million a year earlier, though the carrier was still benefitting from federal coronavirus payroll support last year.
Second-quarter revenue of $13.4 billion was up 12% from before the pandemic, even though American flew 8.5% less than the same period of 2019, the airline said.
American has been more aggressive than rivals United Airlines and Delta Air Lines in restoring capacity, but American’s CEO said the carrier would limit its expansion this year.
“As we look to the rest of the year, we have taken proactive steps to build additional buffer into our schedule and will continue to limit capacity to the resources we have and the operating conditions we face,” CEO Robert Isom said in a note to staff.
The airline said it would fly 8% to 10% below 2019 levels in the third quarter but said revenue would be up as much as 12% from three years earlier as high fares continue into the summer.
American shares were down nearly 3% in premarket trading after releasing results.
Here’s how the carrier performed in the second quarter, compared with Wall Street expectations according to Refinitiv consensus estimates:
Adjusted earnings per share: 76 cents versus an expected 76 cents.
Total revenue: $13.42 billion versus expected $13.40 billion.
Unit costs surged 45% in the second quarter from three years earlier as the carrier, like its rivals, faced a jump in fuel and other expenses.
American’s executives will hold a call to discuss results at 8:30 a.m. ET Thursday. They are likely to face questions on future travel demand, capacity, its labor talks with its pilots and flight attendant unions, hiring progress and aircraft needs.
United late Wednesday reported its first profit since the pandemic without the help of government aid, but said it would cut its growth plans through 2023.
