Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-26-2012, 12:47 AM   #1
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Forbes on Boeing

Sorry, but I couldn't resist putting this up here after reading it just now. We're so used to being told by the media and industry analysts why American companies in general suck and why our company specifically is doing everything wrong it's a bit surprising to come across something acknowledging that the efforts we make internally every day are paying off.

Since I don't know how long the link will remain active I've copied the whole text here. Sorry for the length. Don't wade through it unless it's a subject you're particularly interested in.

--------------------------

"One Boeing:" Aero Giant Poised For Record Results
Forbes Online 09/25/2012
Author: Loren Thompson

The future isn’t what it used to be for the Boeing Company. It’s better — better than at any other time in the company’s history, thanks to an eight-year crusade by Chairman & CEO Jim McNerney to meld the fractured operation he inherited into a truly integrated enterprise.

Last week I spent two days talking toBoeing executives in Washington State and California where most of the company’s employees are concentrated, and I came away deeply impressed with howBoeing’s behavior has changed. Gone was the longstanding disdain of engineers for politics in the nation’s capital. Gone too was the friction generated by legacy cultures that couldn’t forget old rivalries.

What I found instead was “One Boeing” — the phrase employees use to describe an enterprise in which everybody is on the same team, and working hard to keep the business way ahead of its competitors. The company that CEO McNerney took over in 2005 on the heels of two failed predecessors was a fractious confederation of old Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International and Hughes Electronics employees full of redundant facilities and divided loyalties. Earnings were uneven and core franchises were at risk. Repeated scandals had damaged its reputation at home and abroad.

Today’s Boeing is a very different place. Operations have been streamlined, facilities have been rationalized, cultures have been unified. And it shows: unlike in past recessions when results plummeted to such depths that three-quarters of Boeing’s Seattle workforce had to be laid off, the sub-prime crisis barely dented company results, which have bounced back after a single bad year (2009) to strong and sustained profitability. ValueLine predicts company revenues will rise 17% this year to $81 billion, while earnings per share will be $4.75 — only the third time in the last dozen years they have gotten that high. It projects EPS continuing up to $7.25 in 2015-17 as sales approach $100 billion.

That’s pretty heady stuff, and investors aren’t quite sure they believe it. The share price has struggled despite a steady stream of good news, with attention now focused on potential cuts in Pentagon spending. However, if you track the trends in Boeing’s key businesses, it isn’t hard to find reasons for optimism. The company is outperforming commercial-transport rival Airbus on product quality and appeal, despite the pricing advantage the European company gets from government subsidies. And on the defense side, a new generation of managers has turned aroundBoeing’s military satellite and aircraft operations, delivering 40% of corporate revenues and returns this year despite the surge in commercial-transport orders.

I won’t attempt to analyze Boeing’s finances here since every aerospace analyst in the business has already beaten me to the punch. Instead, I’d like to make note of a few features I’ve noticed at Boeing outside the boundaries of traditional analysis that signal a strong outlook for the company. These are the sorts of things that are hard to quantify, and yet often make the difference between success and failure in an enterprise.

The first feature is the aforementioned focusing of Boeing internal culture on teamwork and cooperation, values that seemed to be on the back burner for a while after the company bought several big military competitors between 1996 and 2000. Boeing leaders soon discovered that you can’t just bolt on an alien culture to a preexisting enterprise and expect good results, even if the newcomers are genuinely world class.

CEO McNerney has devoted much of his tenure at Boeing to fashioning an integrated corporate culture out of the various pieces, and it is only recently that the company has arrived at a point where it can fully leverage all of its legacy skills and franchises into the marketplace.

A second feature is the company’s emphasis on product quality and support in its commercial operations. People who just track market share in the commercial-transport sector miss a lot of what’s going on there, especially given the distorting effect of European subsidies on orders. For instance, the single-aisle Airbus A320 still has not managed to match the reliability of the Boeing 737 Classic — even though the Classic began being replaced by the more reliable 737 Next Generation 20 years ago. Airbus’ super-jumbo A380 jetliner is currently undergoing the kinds of repairs that are almost never needed on new transports due to design errors. Let’s not even discuss the design issues contributing to the loss of an Air France A330 with all on board in 2009. The simple truth is Boeing builds better planes, and then supports them better once they are fielded.

A third feature is the peculiar synergy between Boeing’s commercial and military businesses. That synergy derives most importantly from the fact that demand in commercial and military aerospace markets tends to vary inversely, so that it is strengthening in one segment as it is weakening in the other. Having a substantial presence in both market segments thus has allowed Boeing to smooth out cyclical revenue and return streams in each. Beyond that, though, Boeing has demonstrated throughout its history an ability to apply commercial technology to military markets and military technology to commercial markets. The latest installment in this story is the versatile P-8A patrol plane developed for the Navy from the 737 airframe, and the high-capacity Wideband Global Satcom system developed for the Air Force from commercial satellite technology.

A fourth feature of the Boeing enterprise that has appeared more recently is an enhanced awareness of political processes. There was a time not so long ago when Boeing executives hated to get involved in politics — so much so that some of them even refused to visit the nation’s capital. Back then, Boeing’s Washington office was a lonely and underpowered place. But the aversion to politics began to change with the expansion of Boeing’s defense operations in the 1990s and the growing recognition that Airbus subsidies were enabling the European company to win market share unfairly. So Boeing leaders have become players in the political process, and now have a first-rate Washington office that interacts at all levels with regulators and politicians — usually winning on key issues such as trade-treaty enforcement and export credits.

A final feature that is not new but a key competitive discriminator is Boeing’s extraordinary talent for technological innovation — one of the few things about the company that CEO McNerney has not changed. The same company that introduced the first pressurized cabin transport in 1938, the first successful jetliner in 1958, and the first jumbojet in 1968 continues to set the standard for the aerospace industry today with the 787 airliner. The 787 uses more high-strength, low-weight composite material than any other airliner in history, and Boeing’s rivals are unlikely to match its performance for a long time to come. Similar innovations are emerging from Boeing’s satellite factory, the largest in the world, in Los Angeles and its Phantom Works aircraft research facility in St. Louis. For all the changes of recent years, Boeing remains grounded in the aerospace industry’s strongest engineering culture.

McNerney has surrounded himself with a management team capable of fully leveraging Boeing’s advantages in the marketplace — managers like outgoing commercial-transport head Jim Albaugh and defense-systems head Dennis Muilenburg who have transformed the enterprise. The biggest challenges the company now faces require the cooperation of a political system willing to fend off the unfair trade practices of foreign competitors. But as far as Boeing’s internal culture and operations are concerned, they’re at peak performance.

There are other companies as well positioned in the marketplace as Boeing, like Apple. But Apple isn’t likely to maintains its lead by exporting manufactured products from America the way Boeing does, and something tells me it won’t look anywhere near as impressive as Boeing does nearly a century after its founding.

-------------------------------
__________________
Advertisement

Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 09:43 AM   #2
Guru
 
City: Georgia
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 952
So, should I buy stock? Or would I be behind the curve.
__________________

Rambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 10:46 AM   #3
Curmudgeon
 
BaltimoreLurker's Avatar
 
City: Stoney Creek, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moon Dance
Vessel Model: 1974 34' Marine Trader Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,631
If you're learning about it now, you're behind the curve. Don't ask me how I know.

But I did get a few right in my day - ADM before ethanol was a craze was my biggest winner.
BaltimoreLurker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 04:33 PM   #4
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler View Post
So, should I buy stock? Or would I be behind the curve.

I've made a lot of money over the years in aerospace stocks but you have to understand that it's a very cyclical industry. That is one of the benefits we're seeing with the "One Boeing" concept. As mentioned in the aticle it is helping even out the opposing cycles in the commercial aviation and defense markets.

Aerospace stocks are not like computers, software, pharmaceutical, etc. stocks. The movement is generally slow and undramatic. It can be a good thing to get into as a long term investment.

The gist of the article is not that Boeing has done something great in a short-term way that will boost the stock value like a new iPhone or whatever, but that the company has restructured both its organization and culture to be better prepared for whatever the future has in store for the industry.

So there is no curve to be behind in this case. The industry is still the same and is subject to the same cycles. Whether or not Boeing is a good portfolio investment depends on what you want out of your investments. It has never been a company--- nor have any of the major aerospace companies--- that you can make a "fast killing" with.

The industries I have been the most successful with in terms of investment profits have been railroads, ocean shipping (oil and bulk), oilfield development, and aerospace. But while the return on investment has been high-- in the case of railroads extremely high--- they have all been very long-term investments.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 05:47 PM   #5
Guru
 
City: Georgia
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 952
I'll check it out. It's probably been on my radar before, and Lord knows if the mutual funds I have are invested there or not, but I suspect they have a toe in that pool. In my stock holdings account I buy good companies and hold them for a long time.

The things I have now have gone up in value, even factoring the past few years activity. And they turn out dividends too. We love cash.
Rambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 08:33 PM   #6
Guru
 
windmist's Avatar
 
City: Port Orchard, WA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Violet A
Vessel Model: Nordic Tug 42
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 908
Thanks for posting this article Marin. As Boeing is in my backyard, this gives me a feel good. This also highlights why a good CEO is well worth the multiple millions they receive as compensation. Their salary and other compensation is just a pittance compared to the added value they create for the company. Something the Obama trolls will never comprehend.

Ron
windmist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 09:20 PM   #7
TF Site Team
 
FlyWright's Avatar
 
City: California Delta and SF Bay
Country: Sacramento, CA, USA (boat in Vallejo)
Vessel Name: FlyWright
Vessel Model: Marshall Californian 34 LRC
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 10,195
We overflew Paine Everrett Field yesterday and saw several dozen 787 and other aircraft being parked and stored on nearly every unused ramp and taxiway on the airport! Many even had their engines removed for long-term storage. My copilot stated that these were from canceled orders. I've never seen so many new airplanes sitting awaiting buyers before.

Rambler, I would never buy an airline or aircraft company stock. They are notoriously poor performers in a weak economy. Trouble may be on the horizon.
FlyWright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 09:27 PM   #8
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by windmist View Post
This also highlights why a good CEO is well worth the multiple millions they receive as compensation. Their salary and other compensation is just a pittance compared to the added value they create for the company. Something the Obama trolls will never comprehend.
And not just Obama & Co. Even people here at the company. Sure, McNerney's salary and benefits make mine look like Monopoly money. But if I think about the responsibilty he has, about the decisions he has to make, about the strategies and courses of action he has to set, about the pressures and demands he has to function under, and then try to conceive of me trying to do the same thing, it's laughable.

Boeing currently has about 170,000 direct employees worldwide. If you roll in our contract employees and the employees of our partners, suppliers, and vendors I have no clue how many people that is. A million? More?

Then, just for grins, roll in the employees of the companies and businesses that are not directly connected to our company but get a major portion of their business from those of us who are. The car dealers and restaurants and department stores and grocery stores and Microsoft and Amazon and Apple and the list goes on.

Forget the fact that I'm not by the wildest stretch of the imagination even remotely qualified to do the job McNerney does, you could not pay me enough to do it. There is no way in hell I would want, or could even deal with, that level of responsibility.

So I have never begrudged the leaders of this company who were good at the job--- and not all of them have been--- the money they earn. It is but a tiny fraction of the money that their abilities enable the rest of us to earn.

Now McNerney is not doing all this on his own. He has a leadership team to help and advise him. But the buck ultimately stops at his desk. So as far as I'm concerned he earns everything he makes.

The attitude that success for the less fortunate can be found in taking away from the fortunate is just nuts. To say nothing of flying in the face of human nature so it's doomed to failure anyway.

The goal should be to elevate the less fortunate by giving them the opportunites to become fortunate, not penalizing the fortunate because they are.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 09:50 PM   #9
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWright View Post
We overflew Paine Everrett Field yesterday and saw several dozen 787 and other aircraft being parked and stored on nearly every unused ramp and taxiway on the airport! Many even had their engines removed for long-term storage. My copilot stated that these were from canceled orders. I've never seen so many new airplanes sitting awaiting buyers before.
They are not from cancelled orders and they are not awaiting buyers. They are the result either of production delays or delivery/payment issues with the buyer. And the engines have not been removed. They were never put on in the first place. Airplane buyers--- airlines or leasing companies--- buy their engines totally separately from the airplanes themselves. Their purchase contracts and warranties are with the engine manufacturers, not Boeing. All we do is put them on. And engines are really, really expensive.

The buyers and the banks financing the planes don't want to be paying for engines they can't use yet. We can install engines in a few days. So planes that are experiencing delays for some reason--- either as a result of production issues or issues with the buyer--- are assembled without engines and parked with yellow concrete blocks that weigh the same as the engines hung from the engine mounts on the pylons. This keeps the plane balanced on the ground and prevents the wings from taking an unloaded "set." When the airplane is ready for delivery, we remove the blocks and install the engines that have just been delivered for that plane. We have done this from the days of the 707.

Even when everything is humming along smoothly it's not uncommon to see a 777 or 747 or 767 in a stall with concrete blocks instead of engines. This is usually because the delivery has been delayed, generally due to finance issues with the buyer. The buyer does not want to be running up a bill for the engines so the plane is either assembled without them or the engines are removed and sold to another buyer and we put them on that buyer's plane. These arrangements are all made between the buyers and the engine manufacturers. All we do is put them on or take them off.

While production delays are responsible for most of the parked 787s some of the delays have been due to the buyer, not Boeing. One early customer which has a very large order of 787s delayed the delivery of their planes for months while their government and the airline squabbled over legalities over payments. But the production lines in Everett and Charleston kept right on building planes. So this airline's planes were completed, the blocks hung on the pylons, and they were parked wherever we could find room for them until the airlines internal and external squabbling was finally over and they agreed to start taking deliveries which was just the other week. These planes will now get their engines and enter the production flight test phase before they're delivered. This has affected planes completed both here and in Charleston.

A lot of the 787s parked in Everett are waiting for rework or updates that fix problems or improve systems. With any new airplane model we learn a lot about them in a big hurry when they start entering service. As fast as issues come up they are corrected but these corrections then need to be applied to the planes already built. So this is what a number of the parked planes are waiting for. It makes more sense in many cases to delay the delivery of the plane and install all the updates prior to delivery than to pull a plane out of revenue service to do the installation.

While there have been some cancelled 787 orders the total number of cancellations is relatively small. And cancellations do not affect the production status of the planes because they are simply assigned to the next buyer in line. Or buyers who have delivery slots some years out can move up. So if ABC Airlines cancels an airplane order it means that XYZ Airlines gets their planes that much sooner. No planes are parked due to cancelled orders, particulary models like the 787 which has a huge backlog of customers desperate to get their hands on them.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 10:11 PM   #10
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
I came from the 787 program last year. Most of those planes you see without engines are left that way to avoid starting the clock on the engines while the last changes and traveled work is completed. Once installed and run, they must be maintained, turned and serviced. It just makes better sense to leave them off until ready to finish the airframe and ready for B1.

There are currently 74 787's sitting at Payne Field. Do the math on how much cash is sitting there waiting to change hands. There's a lot of tax advantage to having them sit on Boeing's books too.

They're sure not sitting for want of customers... they're the hottest thing going these days.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 10:25 PM   #11
Guru
 
City: Georgia
Country: USA
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWright View Post
Rambler, I would never buy an airline or aircraft company stock. They are notoriously poor performers in a weak economy. Trouble may be on the horizon.
So maybe it's time, or soon will be, to buy when it's down.
like I said, I can buy and hold it. Not looking for the quick kill.
Rambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2012, 10:51 PM   #12
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler View Post
So maybe it's time, or soon will be, to buy when it's down.
like I said, I can buy and hold it. Not looking for the quick kill.

Flywright is correct. Airlines/aircraft manufacturers don't do well stock-wise in a downturn. Right now we're in a bubble and both us and Airbus are racking up big orders, particularly from Asia/SE Asia/India/Middle East.

But the aerospace industry is like the caboose on a train. When the front of the train stops the caboose keeps going for awhile as the slack is taken up by all the couplers. So in all the years I've been here, we always keep doing well for awhile-- usually about a year---- even when economies are starting to dive. But then it catches up with us and our orders and deliveries slow.

The same thing happens in reverse when economies start doing better. The front of the train starts up but the caboose just sits there until all the slack is run out of the couplers in the train. That's us. In the downturns I've witnessed while being at Boeing, our recovery seems to get underway a good year or more after the economy's recovery has started to pick up.

I'm talking commercial airplanes here. For whatever reason the defense side of the company so far tends to run in exactly the opposite cycle. So when commercial is down, defense is up and visa versa. Whether this continues to happen remains to be seen. Given the US' financial situation I would not bet any money that it does.

So that's something to consider when contemplating aerospace/air transportation as an investment.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 06:03 AM   #13
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,537
"Airbus’ super-jumbo A380 jetliner is currently undergoing the kinds of repairs that are almost never needed on new transports due to design errors."

There not called AIRBUST for nothing!
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-2012, 02:26 PM   #14
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
It would be incorrect to say or imply that our planes sail through life with no problems. The 787 has experienced a wide variety of well-publicised delays. A good part of this is because, at least in my opinion, the 787 "bit off" more than any other jetliner program so far in terms of developing new manufacturing techniques, new assembly techniques, new airplane systems, and new program management processes. Everywhere one turns on the program things have been done that had not been attempted before.

The 777 is the world's largest twin-engine jetliner but its basic construction and systems are not that far removed from our earlier planes. The 777's fuselage, as large as it is, is made pretty much the same way the 707's was. In constrast the 787's fuselage is wound on a mandrel and cured in an autoclave. So major differences from past programs across the board.

Boeing's philosophy on new airplane programs in all the years I've been here is that we will delay the program rather than deliver a plane that's not ready. This is NOT to say that problems and issues won't crop up once we start deliveries--- there is no way to anticipate or experience everything and some problems won''t show up until the plane is in service. But in the case of the 787 there were issues that appeared that required redesign or fixes to be developed but they were not so severe that the program schedule had to be delayed. And as the delays mounted you can imagine the pressure to not have another one. But in each of these cases, the program opted to take a delay and deal with the issue immediately rather than press on and have to deal with them later.

I don't know if Airbus follows this same philosophy.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 08:53 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
City: Fort McAllister, Ga
Country: Us
Vessel Name: Hot Shot
Vessel Model: Mainship 390
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 95
Very interesting thread gentlemen. I can still remember my first plane ride climbing aboard a Bahamas Airways DC-3 in 1963, walking up hill in the isle and seeing those big radials come to life in smoke and flame. We have come a long way in, oh my God it's been almost 50 years!
Pluto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 09:32 PM   #16
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
As a wee lad I flew on a United DC-3 from LA to Stockton, CA after flying to LA from Honolulu on a United DC-7. It was a night flight and the thing that still sticks in my mind about the DC-3 flight is the sight of the blue flame licking back for several feet out the exhaust.

One of my favorite photos shows Orville Wright standing in front of a DC-3 (or maybe 1 or 2). What a contrast to the Flyer and in such a relatively short time. And the pace of technology advancement is accelerating more today. For the last couple of days I've been directing a shoot on our 737 Ecco Demonstrator and the technologies that are being tested and proven on that plane are simply amazing.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 09:59 PM   #17
Guru
 
SomeSailor's Avatar
 
City: Everett, WA
Vessel Name: Honey Badger
Vessel Model: 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marin View Post
For the last couple of days I've been directing a shoot on our 737 Ecco Demonstrator and the technologies that are being tested and proven on that plane are simply amazing.
What a small world. I have two of my projects flying on the EcoDemonstrator. Can't say much about them, but they're gonna change the way the flying public views air travel over the next few years.
SomeSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2012, 11:37 PM   #18
Scraping Paint
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Vessel Model: CHB 48 Zodiac YL 4.2
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeSailor View Post
... they're gonna change the way the flying public views air travel over the next few years.
Oh no, you've found a way to reduce seat pitch even more?
RickB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2012, 12:50 AM   #19
Scraping Paint
 
City: -
Country: -
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,748
You'll have to take that one up with the airlnes, Rick. Seat pitch is their deal, not ours.

Years ago British Airways launched a trans-Atlantic 757 service between Birmingham, England and New Jersey and, IIRC, Toronto. The market was the industrial business travel between these three cities. The market was worth serving but it wasn't big enough to warrant a 767, at the time the most used plane on trans-Atlantic routes. So they decided to use 757s.

Normally (and still) operators jam as many people as they can into a 757 because it's a real money-maker, but that long, single-aisle fuselage makes for a real cattle car look that passengers hate, and BA was no exception.

But they did something completely different for their trans-Atlantic 757s. They completely redid the interior. Even in coach the legroom was the same as what was being used in business class in those days. We went to Birmingham and did a video about this service and were aboard a couple of the planes. They were wonderful. Lots of room, the long-tube cattle car look was gone.... it was like being in a private jet almost, even in the cheap seats in the back.

So the airlines could make it nice for you if they wanted to. But nice costs money and like Pavlov's dog, the flying public has been trained for decades by cutthroat competion to expect free or nearly free air transportation. Like the city bus. So...... the airlines jam the people who want low fares in like sardines. The seat tracks will let them do whatever they want.

Now thanks to fuel prices and landing fees and environmental fees and whatnot the airlines have finally wised up and have come to the conclusion that you can't lose money on every sale but make it up in volume. Hence the baggage charges and toilet charges (RyanAir) and carryon charges and Lord knows what's coming next. And you're still jammed in like sardines in the cheap seats because that's how you stay in business in the airline industry.

For a real treat fly on an A380 configured for vacation package service with 800 of your closest friends.
Marin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 06:30 AM   #20
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 16,537
"So the airlines could make it nice for you if they wanted to.


Back in the day , United used Caravelles configured in all first class EWR-ORD and other business routes.

Only 64 pax seats , so it sold out rapidly.

Interesting then most flights were ALL MEN ONLY , , no ladies , wives , or sexrateries .

Think what the "rights" folks would do with that setup today!!

FF
__________________

FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012