Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 5. Turbofan design problems April 26, 2024
- Airbus 1Q2024 results: Airbus CEO: “A350 in-service experience drives positive reputation and orders” April 25, 2024
- A350-1000 or 777-9? Part 3 April 25, 2024
- Boeing CEO promises company is turning around…again April 24, 2024
- Solid start for stand-alone GE Aerospace despite cuts to LEAP output April 23, 2024
Pontifications: The see-saw remarketing of China’s 737 MAXes; Air India gets 55
Aug. 1, 2023, © Leeham News: Air India is taking 55 Boeing 737 MAXes originally built for Chinese airlines and lessors, LNA has learned. These are part of the order announced in February for up to 150 MAXes. The order was finalized during the June Paris Air Show.
Two of 140 Boeing 737 MAXes built for Chinese airlines in storage at Moses Lake (WA). Boeing sold 55 of these Chinese airplanes to Air India, resulting in the dramatic drop disclosed during the second quarter earnings call. Credit: Leeham News.
This deal accounts for the sharp reduction in inventoried MAXes reported last week during the Boeing 2Q2023 earnings call. It also represents another development in the see-saw saga of whether to remarket the 140 MAXes built for China.
First, Boeing was going to remarket around 140 737 MAXes ordered by Chinese airlines and lessors but which remained in inventory due to Beijing’s refusal to authorize delivery.
Then, a mere three months later, Boeing CEO David Calhoun—who announced the remarketing effort in the first place—said Boeing would pause remarketing the aircraft.
Changing focus
“Calhoun said the focus today is returning airplanes in China to service,” LNA wrote in reporting the January 25 earnings call for the year-end 2022 year. “There’s a reason to be optimistic about clearance to delivery from inventory, but Boeing won’t predict the resumption date. Boeing today is only “partially” remarketing the Chinese airplanes. ‘We’re on pause with that until we understand what China wants to do,’ he said.
Four sources told LNA that remarketing the MAXes ran into issues when Boeing Global Services couldn’t identify software and hardware interfacings that required changes from MAXes ordered by China but remarketed to other airlines. Boeing denied a connection, but new owners of the aircraft insisted this was the case.
Now, during last week’s 2Q2023 earnings call, about 39% of these Chinese airplanes were remarketed.
“We ended the quarter with approximately 220 MAX airplanes in inventory. This includes 85 for customers in China and 55 that have now been remarketed as part of the plan we have previously discussed, said CFO Brian West last week on the earnings call.”
That’s a remarkable decline: 55 airplanes since the end of the first quarter, ending March 31. Boeing then reported there were still about 140 MAXes out of 225 configured for Chinese airlines in inventory. There were about 200 MAXes in inventory on June 30.
No explanation
Boeing’s corporate communication department offered no explanation for the dramatic drop in airplanes destined for China. A spokesman said Boeing had nothing to add to the earnings call announcement. The quarter-over-quarter inventory dropped a mere five airplanes.
New production aircraft can wind up being counted as inventory if not delivered by the end of the quarter. But Boeing previously said it hoped to deliver between 8-10 inventory airplanes per month in addition to new production aircraft. Production ostensibly is 31 per month, but supply chain issues have made this erratic.
Boeing’s second quarter 10Q filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Boeing said the 55 airplanes were “remarketed.” Indeed, according to one Wall Street analyst, this accounts for the unexpected surge in advance payments and cash flow.
Market intelligence, however, informed LNA that all 55 aircraft were taken up by Air India. They must be reconfigured to Air India specifications. Software for the cockpit systems must be reconfigured and software and other upgrades emanating from the 21 month grounding of the global MAX fleet must be completed.
Certification of the 737-7 and 737-10 is still on track for this year and next, respectively, Boeing said. First delivery of the 737-7 won’t happen until 2024, however. The first delivery of the MAX 10 is expected next year as well.
Back to reality
The glow is off the Paris Air Show. Reality is setting back in.
The mood at the air show was very upbeat. Commercial aviation and the airline industries are “back.” Large aircraft orders were placed before and during the air show. Eco-aviation, albeit overhyped, was the soup du jour. Optimism oozed out of every pore.
Now, the party mood is over.
True, aircraft are full, even on most international flights. More orders are expected as the airlines continue to recover.
But supply chain problems, a short but costly strike at Spirit Aerosystems (a key supplier to Boeing), a newly discovered problem with the Pratt & Whitney GTF engines and more are bringing the euphoria down to earth.
There is also a growing realization that many of the alternative energy concepts in eco-aviation are little more than pipe dreams that have little chance of success.
What a contrast to this recent bit of hot-air PR (from May):
“Boeing is optimistic it will soon restart long-stalled exports of its 737 MAX jets to China, especially with President Xi Jinping slated to visit the U.S. later this year, the planemaker’s top executive said Tuesday.
“The reason is simple: China’s airlines can’t afford to sit on the sidelines and watch other carriers — like Ireland’s Ryanair — lock in capacity at a time when Boeing and Airbus’ factories can’t keep up with booming sales.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-ceo-calhoun-confident-max-deliveries-in-china-will-resume-soon/
“But Boeing previously said it hoped to deliver between 8-10 inventory airplanes per month in addition to new production aircraft.”
BA hasn’t been clearing MAX inventory at that rate in months — in Q2, only a handful of deliveries were from inventory.
Since deliveries from inventory tend to yield essentially zero (or even negative) unit earnings (due to de-mothballing costs and extra discounting to compensate for frame age), this promised surge of inventory clearing won’t be adding to the balance sheet — but, at least the frames in question won’t be suffering further corrosion in the parking lot.
***
“Boeing then reported there were still about 140 MAXes out of 225 configured for Chinese airlines in inventory”
That means that 85 MAXs in inventory aren’t for China. So, why wasn’t BA clearing them in Q2…at a time when airlines are supposedly screaming for planes? It seems that appetite for this inventory isn’t as great as some had assumed.
There is an interesting accounting angle to this situation. Set aside whatever puffed up valuations have been used for undelivered inventory, once it has been delivered, the opportunity to carry it at some creative valuation is gone. So as the inventory declines, the balance sheet begins its long march toward reality. Now there is still the small issue of the 787 accounting block. And hopefully they have not done a Jack Welch and booked as an asset future expected revenues from maintenance contracts or parts.
I was having lunch with a friend Monday and this topic was discussed. He posed the question that given how far from reality the Boeing stock price is relative to the financial health of the company, how many other actively traded stocks are in a similar situation. Of course, we cannot know that. The only reason we know about this company is because we have spent decades inside it, and they can’t hide anything. But, on a reassuring note, at least most stocks (unlike Boeing) actually have a PE ratio, even if it is a tad on the astronomic side relative to what the underlying company would be worth in an M&A transaction. So maybe the typical diversified portfolio is not that out of whack. One is tempted to start rattling off Burton Malkiel quotes like the one about stupidity well packaged …
“…how many other actively traded stocks are in a similar situation” [?]
“A huge number of ‘Zombie’ companies are drowning in debt. This CEO sees a reckoning as interest rates soar”
“The era of zombie companies may be coming to an end as interest rates rise, forcing unprofitable firms to burn more and more cash. But according to Trainer, the downfall of zombie companies will ultimately be beneficial for the economy and help teach younger investors who have lived through an era of speculative excess about the importance of risk management.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/huge-number-zombie-companies-drowning-120000776.html
***
“Zombie companies are those whose profits are so low they can’t even pay the interest on their debts. They’re becoming an increasingly large part of the economy — and they risk pitching us into another full-scale crisis.”
“It includes such established firms as Boeing Co., Carnival Corp., Delta Air Lines, Inc., and Macy’s, Inc., which used to be highly profitable but have been struggling recently.”
https://jacobin.com/2022/05/zombie-firms-neoliberalism-debt-productivity-crisis
‘Zombie companies are those whose profits are so low they can’t even pay the interest on their debts.’
Not sure I agree about Delta:
https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/doc_financials/2022/q4/DAL-12.31.2022-10K-2.10.23.pdf
https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/doc_financials/2023/q2/DAL-6-30-2023-10Q-7-13-23-As-Filed.pdf
Debt Expense:
2021: (1,279)
2022: (1,029)
2023 (6 months): (430)
Trending in the right direction
————————————————–
Year…………………………….2022……2021
Operating Income/(Loss) 3,661 1,886
6 months 2023: 2,215
Year…………………………………………..2022……2021
Income/(Loss) Before Income Taxes 1,914 398
6 months 2023: 1,812
——————————————————–
As far as Cash goes, this is where it seems to be going:
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:
Flight equipment, including advance payments (4,495) (1,596) (896)
Ground property and equipment, including technology (1,871) (1,651) (1,003)
For the years 2022, 2021, 2020
—————————————————————
Pax load factor is back above 80%.
2022
Revenue passenger miles (millions) 195,480
Available seat miles (millions) 233,226
Pilots got a sweet contract, FAs are next so they don’t unionize and the mechanics want to match the new industry leading contracts at other airlines. All the US majors are facing risings costs and the pax still want their $199 fare. Something is going to give and it will not the pax.
Pax have less money for travel. They have to eat, pay rent/mortgage etc. The boom is over.
@ Pedro
In that regard:
“Americans continue to pile up credit card debt, edging close to $1 trillion”
“U.S. consumers now owe $986 billion on their charge cards, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York data released Monday. That’s a 17% jump from a year ago and a record high, analysts at Bankrate said. The debt keeps piling up partly because stubbornly high inflation is forcing households to lean on their credit cards to cover monthly expenses, financial experts said.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/credit-card-debt-total-us-data-2023/
The post-pandemic travel splurge is fizzling out…
Craig
‘So as the inventory declines, the balance sheet begins its long march toward reality. ‘
There is such an easy fix to that – just put expenses and customer discounts into Inventory:
‘At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 737 program:
deferred production costs of $4,739 and $2,955’
$1.784 billion increase in 6 months.
‘Commercial aircraft programs inventory included amounts credited in cash or other consideration (early issue sales consideration) to airline
customers totaling $3,625 and $3,586 at June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022.’
At this point, why don’t they just put Calhoun’s salary in Inventory and call it an Asset, too?
Great suggestion. Deferred productive asset!! But Dave’s contract has to extend indefinitely.
“So as the inventory declines, the balance sheet begins its long march toward reality.”
Reality is somewhat subjective. If investors remain happy, then the company can continue to exist. Obviously, a debt-free company that returns handsome profits is a very easy thing for investors to be happy with. A indebted company that is trading – after a fashion – evidently is still something that investors can be happy with. Their trick is to get out, not be the last one holding the potato when the belief evaporates.
For Boeing’s investors, that “belief” is probably controlled by Airbus and, soon, Comac. Airbus has majored on stealing market share from Boeing, and has reached some sort of temporary equilibrium. Comac are another matter. If they start taking big chunks of Boeing market share, investors will realise time is up.
This is why Boeing’s announcement of “no new models until 2035” is so dangerous for the company. That’s plenty of time for Comac to get experience and launch another better model. It’s also plenty of time for Airbus (should they choose to do so) to go for the jugular.
It also guarantees that Boeing will have no recent experience of successful program delivery, and nothing but a history of poor delivery to look back on at the moment when they really, really would need to get its next one completely right. It all feels like a very risky way of walking out of the last chance saloon still alive.
It’s a strategy that feels like a repeat of the mistake made in the 1980s. Back then, Airbus were considered not to be a threat. Oh boy. Today, Comac are “not a threat”. Well, they probably will be.
Indebtedness can also bring down countries. Such a prospect has previously allowed atrocious politicians to come to the fore and start wars…
It’s All In The Numbers
—————————-
About that inventory:
This is in the most recent 10-Q
https://s2.q4cdn.com/661678649/files/doc_financials/2023/q2/522fee3f-9240-4f24-b46f-0ab8c29472df.pdf
‘At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 737 program:
deferred production costs of $4,739 and $2,955’
$1.784 billion.
Why has the DPB increased on the 737 Max program by that much over the past 6 months?
Why didn’t you expense the other $1.784 billion?
(rhetorical question)
————————————————————–
‘At June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022, commercial aircraft programs inventory included the following amounts related to the 787 program:
deferred production costs of $12,193 and $12,689’
$496 million.
787 deliveries during the same period?
31.
That means each Dreamliner delivery is reducing the DPB by $16 million. At that rate it’ll take 762 aircraft to zero out the production balance. If nothing goes wrong.
———————————————————–
‘Commercial aircraft programs inventory included amounts credited in cash or other consideration (early issue sales consideration) to airline
customers totaling $3,625 and $3,586 at June 30, 2023 and December 31, 2022.’
$39 million.
That much extra was given to airlines in compensation (or early issue blah blah) during the first 6 months.
And that, for Boeing – is in Inventory. They increased an Asset account by $39 million, by giving away compensation to customers. Not an expense. Not as a decrease to sales. Not as a discount to customers.
It’s an asset.
—————————————————–
Program Highlights (how to fool people)
This is the bad news, with the spin:
‘BCA loss from operations was $998 million for the six months ended June 30, 2023 compared with $1,116 million in the same period in 2022
reflecting higher 737 and 787 deliveries, partially offset by higher spending on research and development and abnormal production costs.’
The way they make it sound, is that they spent all this money on R&D – because spending on R&D is a good thing, right? Abnormal production costs are secondary.
Then comes the inescapable truth:
‘Abnormal production costs for the six months ended June 30, 2023 were $955 million including $693 million related to the 787 program and
$262 million related to the 777X program. Abnormal production costs for the six months ended June 30, 2022 were $885 million, including $595
million related to the 787 program, $188 million related to the 737 program and $102 million related to the 777X program.’
Abnormal production costs: $955 million
R&D Spending: $43 million
Loss from Operations: $998 million.
———————————————————–
Another point to ponder:
2022 H1 Abnormal Production costs: $885 million
2023 H1 Abnormal Production costs: $955 million
Frank. It was probably allowable to place the expenses to open the 4th 737 line in Everett into a DPB. That seems to be tha answer as the creation of all that tooling as well as the railcar unloading upgrades needed to get the fuses up the hill isn’t free.
The US air travel boom appears to be fading
https://twitter.com/markets/status/1685991232680443904
As a frequent flyer, no its not. Fares may finally come down but the pax will be there
I’m talking about booking.
There are also signs of a cooling off in Europe.
Plenty of people flying at the moment, but bookings for the autumn/winter season are trending downward.
@Bryce
Which is normal in the airline industry. Traditional summer is always packed and sold out, this is the quarter airlines make the money and also increased capacity.
Fall/winter – yes traditionally traffic slows, airlines reduce capacity and it’s time for us maintenance guys to get the planes in for much needed checks and modifications.
Here in the US, Thanksgiving and Christmas travel will get packed again.
Cycle repeats itself year over year.
Forget the pandemic that was a one off… thank goodness.
So this sky is falling is a mute argument 😉
The observation came from IcelandAir last week. As an airline, I imagine that they’re aware of seasonal trends. Looks like there’s something more going on…
File this under:
More Details to Bury
————————-
https://s2.q4cdn.com/661678649/files/doc_financials/2023/q2/522fee3f-9240-4f24-b46f-0ab8c29472df.pdf
‘Aircraft order cancellations during the six months ended June 30, 2023 totaled $10,061 million and primarily relate to 737 aircraft’
That’s over $10 billion in cancellations during 2023. At $40 million a pop, that’s 250 Max’s cancelled.
At a time when airlines are allegedly falling over one another to get aircraft…
I was thinking the exact same thing
The price of 737MAX will rise as the number of PW1100G A320neo’s are grounded due to lack of spare engines as some airliners use both. Surprised that DAL is not there trying to pick up Chinese 737MAX8’s on the cheap from Boeings parking lots and have Delta Tech ops convert them to DAL standard together with Boeing and the FAA.
On the other hand, the spate of recent cancellations puts (further) downward pressure on 737 MAX pricing…
As am I, those a320s aren’t getting any younger, some MAX8s would be an easy add with the -10s on order. They are still struggling to incorporate those Lion Air 737-900ERs so they may not have the capacity either.
Claes…. I suspect the real change will be the firming of near term 737 lease rates
Yes, lots of popular aircraft lease rates will increase. Still how fast can P&W, Delta tech ops and MTU turn those engins and input all other upgrades needed (like new burner liners) besides getting parts and assemble all engines already in shops and waiting intake (like the A220 engines). It is a bit like RR had before of full shops and loads of T1000 A/B/C/TEN waiting to go thru their enigne shops for repairs and upgrades.
Earlier this week on Simple Flying:
“Boeing Says 777X & 737 MAX Certification Delays Could Lead To “Significant Order Cancelations””
“If we remain unable to deliver 737 aircraft in China for an extended period of time, and/or entry into service of the 777X, 737-7 and/or 737-10 is further delayed, we may experience reductions to backlog and/or significant order cancelations.”
“The planemaker has already begun to record order cancelations for the 777X, although not in much detail. In stating its backlog to the end of June 2023, Boeing noted that aircraft cancelations “totaled $10,061 million and primarily relate to 737 aircraft.” Further in, it also says that there has been a “net decrease of 777X and 737 aircraft.””
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-777x-delays-could-lead-cancelations/
‘aircraft cancelations “totaled $10,061 million”‘
enumerated with listprice or contract value?
orders tend to stand big by use of list pricing 🙂
i.e. if contract values are stated here that means
that announced orders for $25+B have been flushed down the drain.
From 2022:
‘Aircraft order cancellations during the year ended December 31,
2022 totaled $11,251 million and relate to 737 and 787 aircraft.’
Which is different from ASC 606 adjustments:
‘The net ASC 606 adjustments for the year ended December 31, 2022 resulted in a decrease to backlog of $4,675 million primarily due to a net increase of 777X aircraft in the ASC 606 reserve, partially offset by net decreases in 737 and 787 aircraft in the ASC 606 reserve.’
——————————————————–
I think you have to go with the contract, not list pricing. Valuation in general, is usually the lower of either historical cost or fair market value. (accounting conservatism)
What could be more indicative of the value of something you are selling, than a contract with a customer?
Otherwise what’s to stop BA from saying that the list price of a 787 is $500 million, report that as a backlog figure to investors – but after discounts they get $140 million in actual revenue.
If those aircraft were ordered before the MAX grounding, then they were eligible for cancellation without penalty. That means that BA had to repay received PDPs (at least $1B), or credit them toward other pending orders. That made a nice hole in the balance sheet…
BDS won’t be coming to the rescue any time soon — still six Category 1 deficiencies on the KC-46A:
https://www.defensedaily.com/usaf-working-to-resolve-six-category-1-deficiencies-on-kc-46a/air-force/
And, on the subject of the 767-based KC-46A, this hard landing of a UA 767 in Texas 2 days ago nearly caused two fuselage sections to separate — severe damage is visible in the photo.
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/united-767-fuselage-bends
The same happened a few years ago with an ANA 767.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ana+767+hard+landing+damage&&view=detail&mid=C51670B9BA5A826CD410C51670B9BA5A826CD410&&FORM=VRDGAR
737 fuselage sections have separated in several, well documented crashes, and now the 787 has joined the list with its litany of shimming issues (which negatively impact the ability of joints to absorb shear/torsional stresses during flight).
Bit of a pattern at BA, it seems.
Bryce.
The 767s damaged in hard landings were older 767s assembled with the old stringer splices where multiple shims were hand fit at each stringer location. The KC46 is not assembled this way. The entire 767 fuselage section joining method was changed in 2014 to an arrangement of machined terminal fittings at the splices. The team called them “Paddle Fittings” and they were recognized as the 2014 Engineering team of the year in Everett. This dropped assembly workflow by DAYS and allowed the FedEx and UPS option prices to get to where the customer needed them. It virtually eliminated in factory skin changes and the improvements in smoothing the fuselage longitudinal stiffness and eliminating “hard spots” go’s a long way to reduce the aircrafts chances of being damaged when landed nose wheel first……….
I wonder if Boeing will make a net profit on those re-sold 737MAXes.
Don’t worry — per @Frank’s post above, any loses incurred can just be booked as assets 😉
Looks like the accountants at a certain OEM were inspired by the recent Barbie movie…
That’s simply wrong
Reader Zoom is technically correct:
‘any loses incurred can just be booked as assets’
Should read:
‘any expenses incurred can just be booked as assets’
It’s only a loss once it falls onto the income statement. Had BA included that $1.7 billion in their H1 results, it would have turned a loss, into a greater loss. They avoided this by claiming that money spent to be an asset – hence it ended up in Inventory.
Boeing is going to gently expense those figures as times goes by, kicking the can down the road when things (hopefully) look better. For now it’ll just sit in Inventory.
I can’t help but wonder what they spent that $1.7 billion on? What happened in the past 6 months that caused them to spend that huge amou t on the Max program? Part of the Max 7 & 10 cert process?
A few possibilities:
Lawyer fees, compensation to crash families, compensation to airlines for delayed deliveries, de-mothballing costs for MAXs in inventory, repair costs for the stabilizer problem, help to keep Spirit afloat, …
Depressing figures. We have learned to believe what we see, not what we hear, what is promised. I was at Paris,huge booth, flying displays, chalet. Felt like a facade..
Also hall 4 felt tense, self oriented, rearward looking.
Maybe a stronger input from LM, NG, Collins, NASA and government agency’s could give US Civil Aerospace a boost. This doesn’t look good.
Thanks for this comment.
Regarding the 55 MAXs going to India:
(1) An Indian newspaper article from Dec. 2022 indicated that these would be ex- China Southern:
“The order tilted in favour of Boeing as the plane maker was able to guarantee immediate delivery of 50 planes that were earlier intended for China Southern, which was supposed to take delivery of 103 Max jets.”
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/air-india-close-to-signing-order-for-150-boeing-737-max-jets/articleshow/96118930.cms#:~:text=Air%20India%20will%20likely%20place%20a%20firm%20order,supposed%20to%20take%20delivery%20of%20103%20Max%20jets.
(2) In May last year, China Southern appeared to dump the MAX from its fleet induction plans through 2024:
“On Monday, Bloomberg reported that, based on Ma’s comments, China Southern had removed more than 100 B737 MAX jets from its near-term fleet plans.”
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max-dumped-china-southern-fleet/
(3) Planespotters currently indicates 10 ex- China Southern MAXs as “not built”/ NTU. Others are designated as “on order”.
https://www.planespotters.net/aircraft/production/boeing-737-max?sort=airline&p=8
There are currently 55 undelivered MAX-8s with C8Y168 cabin configuration (Air China 23, China Eastern 6, Fuzhou 2, Shandong 13, Shanghai 11). Planespotters recorded a first flight for one of these planes in June (MSN 60940). That’s odd, unless Boeing plans to deliver it soon.
The problem with data out of context is it then becomes a floating object in space, hmm, that is interesting but what dos it mean?
From my China background reading, I think China itself is confused right now, the economic picture is murky, the tea leaves are not lining up.
One area in motion is the real estate market, there was a huge clamp down on what Greenspan referred to as Excessive Exuberance (in ref to the US over blown market at the time). One really big firm went belly up. In a way it was like when Leeman went, huge upset.
Now the tea leaves have shifted, the Government realized the follow on consequences of squelching that market (or it was made obvious) and they are making statements that can be interpreted as, ok, we are backing off the clamp down.
What we do know is China leadership does not want turmoil, no one does of course but lack of market corrections for real market conditions is a kick the can down the road and hope something changes (not a good policy but when you run things and can do it, that is what is going to happen)
You have Covid end and a burst of travel, China Airlines saw they were short carrying capacity and the MAX that had been delivered got put back into service.
What was said to Boeing about the backlog we probably will never know, possibly Boeing felt that was momentum and backed off the re-marketing of said MAX aircraft.
With a lack of follow through and possibly a throttle back in the pax surge, Boeing concluded or discussions were going no where and the offer made to Air India.
You can see the blurry picture but not the details and what really matters is actions. Boeing has determined they will not deliver those stored MAX aircraft and has shifted what they are going to do with them.
Obviously Boeing can put the MAX aircraft that are in China and previous delivered back into service and deliver aircraft from the pool at the same time, also obvious if the customer is not taking them, spin it and put out a stupid statement. like “we are concentrating on putting aircraft back in service”.
So its just one more page in the book and as this is the real world, you can’t skip to the end and see what the outcome is.
So it goes. Sometimes you can see the future from data (the Titanic Captain knew it was going to sink before it actually did) so we will see a data point show up in regards to China, MAX or other aircraft but right now, its obvious things are in flux and we don’t know, Boeing may not know and China may not know.
If talks were going anywhere Boeing would hold the aircraft and obviously they are not so they sell them to clear out the parking lot.
There is not much about China in the Western press that’s worth reading, most of it being self-serving drivel or wishful thinking. When an industrial behemoth like Boing is (metaphorically) sitting by the phone waiting for China to call, an important shift in power has already occurred.
https://twitter.com/thesiriusreport/status/1686295802539339776
@Vincent
Excellent comment 👍
The second C919 starts commercial service.
In a nutshell, during the pandemic the government issued enormous amounts of extremely low interest government debt — about $4.2 trillion of it. But now interest rates, including on government debt, are higher than they have been in 15 years and investors are dumping their old low-interest debt. As they dump, the resale price of the old debt goes down. The more it declines, the more investors want to dump. And thus, a panic is born.
Imagine that you paid $100,000,000 for a plane, with 90% financing at 1%. You have $10,000,000 of your own money at risk…and you expect to carry the rest at a cost of $900,000 per year. If you have $5,000,000 of net rental income, you subtract the financing cost and are left with $4,100,000 – a very good return on a $10,000,000 investment.
But then, let’s say your interest charge increases to 6% as it just did. Your cost is now $5,400,000 each year. Meanwhile, the post COVID boom was a flash in the pan and has abated and the critical business travel never came back and has now plateaued and as a consequence your rental income has been cut in half – to only $2,500,000. Now, you are losing money…with a negative return of 29% per year.
Your aircraft is now revalued to reflect its new Net Present Value and your equity capital has been wiped out. In other words, this return to mean in interest rates will do to commercial aircraft values what the Russian army did to Bakhmut. This (gross oversimplification) does not even take into account the imminent war with China and the effect that will have on global and not so global air travel. That much talked about seven year backlog of orders? Fugazi.
An ironic side note; Boeing (its stock price at least), being a constituent of the Dow will benefit from the resultant capital flows of this new interest rate era and political instability.
Sigh,
I remember when this site was all about aircraft, rather than accountancy!
If the accounts aren’t in order, the OEM can’t make aircraft 🙈
Come back in 2035, when the new BA aircraft is supposed to EIS
Droll- very droll.
😉
Airlines are driven by the MACRO. Air-framers are driven by the airlines.
The reason we still have the relic that is the B737 is because of MACRO.
“Strike could cost Spirit AeroSystems 20 to 50 737/MAX deliveries”
“Spirit has revised its guidance for deliveries to between 370 and 390, down from 390 and 420”
“The new four-year agreement will result in approximately $80 million higher labor costs per year, says Spirit, of which $28.3 million has been included in the Q2 results. Analysts told Reuters last week that they are concerned about the likely price increase that Spirit will have to pass on to Boeing.”
“Spirit has now completed all the rework in Wichita, so is delivering conforming airframes to Boeing now while Boeing is roughly halfway through all the repairs, which includes removing the vertical tailfin on an assembled airframe.”
https://airinsight.com/strike-could-cost-spirit-aerosystems-20-to-50-737-max-deliveries/
“Contracts on the 787, A350 and A220 programs predate the current era of “hyperinflation” and will need to be revisited later, Chief Executive Officer Tom Gentile said on a conference call. ”
“What spooked the market is the discussion of programs and profitability” during the earnings call, said George Ferguson, an analyst with Bloomberg Intelligence.
“The planemakers are propping up Spirit with cash infusions rather than addressing the root problem and easing contract terms that would affect their own profit margins, Ferguson said.
“Spirit shares fell as much as 25%, the most intraday since the early days of the coronavirus pandemic when the crisis disrupted air travel. They were off 24% at 12:44 p.m. in New York.
“It’s going to take Spirit longer to return to generating cash, a concern that’s coming into sharper focus for analysts and investors with some $1.25 billion in debt coming due in 2025.
“On top of the $80 million a year in added labor costs tied to the new contract, Spirit faces heightened demands for quality that are going to drive its costs up further, particularly for the 787, Gentile said.
““It’s really important for the entire aerospace value chain to be financially healthy,” Gentile said.
“Spirit expects to burn through between $200 million and $250 million in free cash this year.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-02/boeing-supplier-spirit-slides-as-2q-cash-burn-tops-200-million
Spirit AeroSystems plunges 30% after bleak cash-flow outlook shocks investors
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/spirit-aero-reports-higher-cash-burn-strike-hit-quality-issue-2023-08-02/
“Spirit also said it absorbed $28.3 million in costs related to the new labor deal, as well as $7.3 million in strike disruption charges in the second-quarter”
“How much longer Spirit AeroSystems management is willing to accept that three key commercial aircraft programs are at forward losses before it acts and negotiates better deals with Airbus and Boeing? That question was put forward in different ways by different analysts during Wednesday’s Q2 earning call. And the message seems to have been picked up: “There is a sense of urgency by the management here, we hear you, we understand,” CEO Tom Gentile said. ”
https://airinsight.com/how-long-spirit-aerosystems-will-accept-more-forward-losses/
Unfortunately this mess (spin off of Spirit) is going to come back to haunt BA sooner or later. Will Dave act like an adult or paper over the problem for the next year or two?
👀
-> ” … Boeing, on the 787, forced SPR to accept a master agreement with step down pricing that implied a negative margin on the first 1,405 aircraft.
That way Boeing averted being in a permanent forward loss on the program.”
https://twitter.com/wildbluejester/status/1686973326432854016
-> American Airlines is in talks with Airbus and Boeing to acquire at least 100 new 737 Max or A321neo family planes to replace older A320s and 737s
https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1686742310753652736
AA hasn’t been shy about taking MAXs from inventory, so here’s BA’s chance to get some frames out of Corrosionville — provided that the price is right 😏
Ordinarily, I think one would conclude that this ought to be Boeing’s order to lose, based on availability, price and home advantage, but they seem to be in such a mess atm that anything must be possible. Arguably Airbus are sold out for years to come, but the naysayers on here and elsewhere have been suggesting that some of their big orders are flaky so there could well be wriggle room to accommodate them – and are AA not potentially flaky themselves? It’s not that long since they went bankrupt!
Don’t OEMs usually hold back a few slots here and there so that they can accommodate star customers, if necessary?
There are always cancellations going on: for example, IAG quietly cancelled a few A320s in Q2, so those slots are now up for grabs: in total, AB had 36 cancellations in H1.
***
I’m rather suspicious of many of the bumper orders that were recently placed — has an air of the “roaring 20s”. Sounds like a path to a glut — particularly with the threat of a recession/downturn still hanging in the air.
IAG didn’t cancel anything.
The way it works these days is that IAG do all the ordering for their group airlines and they’re recorded as such on the Airbus / Boeing production list.
Nearer production time the slots are ‘transferred’ to the relevant airline. The case you mention is that the A320s were taken off IAG’s orders but added onto British Airways’.
When it comes to single aisle aircraft IAG always state the frames can go to any of their airlines when they order them. They may have an idea which airline they’ll go to at the time of ordering but they’ll only confirm it much later.
For wide-bodies it’s generally stated at the time and most of the time it’s obvious which airline they’ll go to.
We still don’t know where the MAXs IAG have ordered are going and the first one is supposed to be delivered in 2023.
@ Russell
You’re correct as regards the IAG transfers (in february) — sorry for the confusion.
“Wizz Air orders a further 75 A321neo Family aircraft”
“Toulouse, 2 August 2023 -Wizz Air, the fastest growing European ultra-low-cost airline, has signed a firm contract for an additional 75 A321neo Family aircraft, taking its total order for the largest member of the Airbus single aisle to 434, and for Wizz’s A320 Family overall to 565 aircraft.”
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-08-wizz-air-orders-a-further-75-a321neo-family-aircraft
***
Ryanair’s firm MAX-10 order is for 150 units…which is 1/3 of the number of A321s that Wizz has ordered.
500Wh/kg
https://twitter.com/pstAsiatech/status/1686708203378089984
More shimming misery — this time on the 747-8:
“FAA addresses Boeing 747-8 fuselage cracks caused by shimming errors”
“In all cases, cracks “had grown in longitudinal and transverse directions, but there was no other damage or deformation in the surrounding area”.
“After Boeing had conducted an investigation into the cracks, the manufacturer found that when the aircraft was being assembled, “un-shimmed or incorrectly shimmed gaps that were larger than engineering requirements caused excessive and sustained internal tensile stresses and resulted in stress corrosion cracking in the stringers”.
“As a result, the FAA has issued the new directive, requiring operators of all Boeing 747-8I and Boeing 747-8F aircraft to complete detailed inspections for cracks and on-condition applicable actions, as the condition “could lead to a failure of the skin adjacent to the bulkhead at STA 2598, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane”. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/faa-ad-b747-8-shimming
***
Today’s quiz:
When was the last time that BA reliably manufactured an aircraft model to specification?
-> According to the FAA, it received a report about cracks that formed on a Boeing 747-8’s “stringers, common to the end fittings, at stringer location S–42L/R and S–46L/R on the aft side of the bulkhead at station 2598”. The agency said that the aircraft had 5,517 flight cycles (FC) and 32,468 flight hours (FH) when the cracks were found.
Furthermore, Boeing discovered five cracks at stringer locations S–2L, S–6L, S–8L, and S–2R on the forward side and S–5L on the aft side of the bulkhead at STA 2598 on two further aircraft of the type during Foreign Object Debris (FOD) inspections. The FAA also had previous reports of similar cracks on Boeing 747-8s.
BA will have to pay for the repair costs — more erosion of the balance sheet.
And the inspection/repair of more than 1000 in-service 787s has yet to begin — that will burn a messy hole in finances. Perhaps that process should now be accelerated, in view of the new evidence of shimming-related structural damage in the 747-8s.
And then we have the 737’s shimming woes:
“The United States (US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) that addresses missing shims on Boeing 737 NextGeneration (NG) aircraft, namely the -600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER.
“According to the FAA, the AD was prompted by “reports of missing shims, a wrong type of shim, shanked fasteners, fastener head gaps, and incorrect hole sizes common to the left and right sides at a certain station (STA) frame inner chord and web”. To comply with the directive airlines will have to inspect for existing repairs as well as cracking and, if required, perform on-condition actions.”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/faa-issues-new-ad-addressing-missing-shims-on-more-than-1900-boeing-737s
-> Remember a few years ago when a 737 landing at Barrow, AK had its flight deck Display Units blank because of a software bug processing the 270 true heading on approach?
https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1687087091639885824
And, on a related note, regarding the MAX:
“According to the captain, approximately 2 miles from SUPPR, on an intercept heading and while descending, “the screen was black, both FMC’s blanked” except for the aircraft communications, addressing and reporting system (ACARS) prompt and no FMC prompt.”
https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-boeing-737-max-wrong-runway-pittsburgh/?newsletter_popup=1
***
Most Scrutinized Plane in History ™
As one might expect, the pilots were blamed.
@Zoom
“.That’s simply wrong..”
—
Of course that is false.
No proof and let us not let ourselves be abandoned by this kind of nonsense, from those who understood that they knew nothing about aeronautics but fell back on Boeing’s accounting to distort it and satisfy their pious wishes by simple ridiculous anti-US ideology and who has no place here.
I risk being a killjoy for joy by telling them that. Their day is just ruined
Credibility : ZERO
Lol!
The trend continues:
Spirit (airline) has ditched its order for 31 A319neos, and upgauged all 31 frames to A321neos.
https://airinsight.com/spirit-airlines-gtf-issues-hurt-no-more-a319neos/
Hum… Interesting…
An awkward testimony and recognition by yourself about the mixed success of the 110-130 seats GAP.
In other words, the A220 is going nowhere?
You’re talking about trends, aren’t you?
Let’s understand each other…
Looks like someone doesn’t understand the difference between old gen and new gen…🙈
Oh… Explain to us since you are a notorious expert Lol!
Or shut up…
They really need a better PR crew- amongst many other things. 😉
No funding for anything better…more offshoring to low-income countries appears to be the new approach 🙈
Lol ! You need a vacation too, it seems…
Like Bryce, you need a vacation too, it seems…
Going from the A319neo to the A321neo, without going through the A320neo closer than the A319neo, is just proof that it’s just a pretext.
P&W GTF engine is present on all A32Xneo family versions.
The truth is that Spirit has realized that the A319neo/A220 market is not an option for them.
The analysis that Bryce didn’t give a damn to provide/understand.
Take a vacation…
Some takeaways from that article:
– Spirit is jumping right to the A321, not even taking any A320’s in that batch of 31.
– They’ve been hit hard by the GTF issue
– They predict to be overstaffed with pilots by Q4
– They lost money in Q2. Revenues grew over last quarter/half over the previous year. This is not good. Taking out special items, they’re in the black.
– Load factor was 83%. Aircraft utilization in the second quarter 2023 was 11.3 hours.
—————————————————————
“…we estimate our third quarter operating margin will range between negative 5.5 percent and negative 7.5 percent,” said Scott Haralson, Spirit’s Chief Financial Officer.
– Q2 & Q3 are supposed to be strong quarters, because of the summer.
“If we weren’t burdened with the NEO engine availability issues, we could achieve full fleet utilization and more normalized margin and CASM ex-fuel
production by year-end.”
—————————————————-
I think it’s kinda scary that an airline with a load factor of 82% (for the first 6 months) loses money. They have just under 200 aircraft, so bringing on a new type like the A220 would complicate things. Jetblue has ~300 aircraft and has 3 types (going down to two), so that seems to be around the number you need to lessen the effects of different pilot pools.
The change in aircraft order might have something to do with the merger between SAVE and JBLU. It’s seems that Jetblue is going to go with just two types of aircraft – you either fly on an A220 (100 aircraft) or an A321Neo/LR/XLR. Until the purchase.
Spirit is going to bring some 120 A320Neo’s to the table (including 40 to be taken), along with 65 A321Neo’s (63 to come). I wonder if JB will try to switch some of those 40 out to the A321Neo – or is it too late?
High load factors…but lower unit revenue:
“Why U.S. Airlines Face a ‘Weird’ Market This Summer”
“The U.S. domestic market is in an interesting spot. Airlines report robust travel demand but, at the same time, some are seeing weaker yields through the historically strong peak summer travel season.
“A basket of six primarily U.S. domestic carriers, including Alaska Airlines, JetBlue Airways, and Southwest Airlines, posted a solid average load factor of 85% in the second quarter. At the same time, their average capacity increase was nearly 12% year-over-year. Unit revenues, or RASM, fell by an average of 5%.”
“The historic response to this strong-demand-weak-yields dynamic is simple: cut capacity. Flying less is one of the quickest and easiest ways an airline can boost fares and thus revenues. The tradeoff, however, is that less flying with the same fixed cost base translates to higher unit costs, or CASM.
“But the market is a bit quirky. Yields, while declining compared to 2022, are broadly up — and up significantly — from 2019 levels. In other words, U.S. travelers are still more than willing to pay more for a flight today than they did four years ago. And, on the matter of expenses, the industry has and continues to struggle with unit costs, or CASM, excluding fuel that are well above pre-pandemic levels. This makes cutting flights — or capacity discipline as the industry euphemistically calls it — less appealing.
““It’s a really weird dynamic,” Melius Research analyst Conor Cunningham said.”
https://airlineweekly.com/2023/08/why-u-s-airlines-face-a-weird-market-this-summer/
“The historic response to this strong-demand-weak-yields dynamic is simple: cut capacity.”
You could also raise prices, which would fall in line nicely with the inflationary devaluing of money.
On the other hand, I’m just having a look at Ryanair’s financials:
https://investor.ryanair.com/traffic/
94%, 95%, 96% – May June & July
They made 1.37 billion euro’s in H1.
Maybe for a LCC or an ULCC you need loads around 90% to make it. Perhaps 83% won’t cut it…
Perhaps the consumer is currently in a more delicate situation than we realize, and isn’t necessarily willing to pay (even) more for air fares?
Best approach seems to be to cut costs to the hilt, à la (U)LCCs — which allows very keen ticket pricing, with attendant high load factors.
I’m constantly receiving marketing e-mails from a whole list of airlines, offering very attractive longhaul and shorthaul fares*. That wouldn’t be happening if the boom wasn’t cracking here and there…
* e.g. €700-800 for round trip flights from Europe to SE Asia on Qatar Airways…equates to ca. €27 per flying hour !
(!) Looks like Bryce and Vincent need a vacation.
While the world is going well, Some have families.
CEOs such as D. Calhoun and even S. Deal are on vacation and even take private jets to go to their board meetings and leave on vacation right after.
There are some who sat there in all year front of their keyboards and only moved back and forth between their keyboards and their toilets.
As deplorable as life has given them, They continue to laugh and puff out their chests like pimply, dull teenagers in their classes.
You see, that makes me laugh. 🤙
…In the meantime,
what do Bryce think of the A220 ex Cseries program?
He still hasn’t answered. When it comes to having a serious aeronautical discussion, he evaporates like a little demon…
Bryce is coming back, did you go on vacation? Lol!
Non-negative use of the phrase “serious aeronautical discussion” in any of your comments equates to an oxymoron 😉
Back off Checklist.
Hamilton
Sorry to Mr Hamilton for this incident
I saw your comment quite late
Thks
The truth is that Airbus doesn’t have a solid strategy while Boeing has locked the widebody 787/777 up, supplanting the Airbus widebody jet
The A350-1000 is a disaster. Just look at the number of 787/777/777X sold over the past 15 years.
Humbled in this part, Airbus’ most relevant idea was to reengine the A320ceo at all costs from 2010.
The only possible option to stay on the market given the gloomy prospects of the A350, which never sold as much as the 777 program and which will never sell as much as the 787 Dreamliner.
In a pathetic:
“…They launched the 777X, we are also going to reengine the A330 from 2014″…
Which will have lost several symbolic battles against the devastating 787 ) Dreamliner.
So the last card to play was that Airbus shows that it is a nice little prince of Canada and the world by taking over the Cseries program already in failure from 2018 going to cross swords against the Boeing witch, blah, blah, blah
Please, I only ask to understand.
Can someone explain to me what is the real strategy of Airbus?
Shareholders prefer Boeing you understand why their stock price is more attractive
Thks
Airbus wide body A350/330 strategy on long term is not obvious after last MTOW increase /OEW decrease :
A350-1000 : a possible up grade of their 97klbs based on new Ultrafan tech within the next 5 years
A350-900 : a PIP in 2025
A330 neo : few improvements ( T/O and climb perf)
By comparison with B777-9/8F potential it looks poor in the context of their AB major NB effort.
current 70/30 marketshare ( in value) on WB for the next 15 years
@Mike
Given the culture inherited from Airbus minimalism since they realized that the A340’s and A380 despite a more than mediocre A350-1000 for already +15 years do not sell despite the efforts made to attack Boieng in vain in the widebody.
They will make the mistake of re-engining indeed with an UltraFan that is not yet mature engine Rolls Royce being quite lacking in terms of “standard” engine reliability, so just imagine something that is not mature.
“Double digit engine” would imply an increased range in the ULR with the little-sold 777-8. So if we have to take into account that the A350-1000 will have to be stretched to 76.XX, it could be a good idea, but I see no consistency that the A350-900 does not in turn benefit from a streched fuselage of 69.XX m.
You leave the field open to the 787 Dreamliner at the bottom of the market. Otherwise why do you think Airbus launched the A350 as taking (supposedly) both the 777 and 787 ) Dreamliner market.
Their strategy is ambiguous since 26 years Given the culture
To misquote King Henry II, “will nobody rid of this waste-of-bandwidth individual?”
Not only waste of bandwidth: also verbally abusive. Recently referred to other commenters as “gangrena”…and above we have (for example):
“As deplorable as life has given them, They continue to laugh and puff out their chests like pimply, dull teenagers in their classes.”
Like something from Dante’s Inferno.
Commenters have been reprimanded/suspended for far less…
simple answer…Airbus’s A320 family with a “firm order backlog” market share of 59 per cent compared with Boeing’s 737 family of jets.
Add in the A220 and the NB ratio grows even more
Comac, opened an office in Jakarta and became the first customer service office outside China
https://www.kompas.id/baca/english/2023/07/31/en-perusahaan-penerbangan-china-buka-kantor-pertama-di-ri
Significant, esp considering the historically
touchy relations between India and China.
Quite a potential market.
Disregard my mistaken comment RE COMAC and Jakarta, which has not appeared yet- no edit button.
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with that comment: although you wrote “India”, the same actually applies to “Indonesia” — which has a testy relationship with China in view of ongoing territory disputes in the South China Sea.
Indonesia is, indeed, a huge potential market for COMAC, given the country’s size, nature (thousands of islands), population and current development status.
Great initiative for the future of air transport.
With Boeing, the 21st century can finally begin 👍
https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/1683852447767228422?t=tME-PFnvbnx61sEbwI6WmQ&s=19
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2023-07-25-U-S-Airlines-to-Support-NASA-Boeing-Sustainable-Flight-Demonstrator-Project
“With Boeing, the 21st century can finally begin”
High time — seeing as the present NB product offering is firmly stuck back in the 1960s 🙈
From a NASA/Boeing/VPI report published back in 2015 w.r.t. TBW concepts:
“High aspect ratio, short chord length and relative thinness of the airfoil sections all contribute to relatively low wing torsional stiffness. This may lead to aeroelastic issues such as aileron reversal and low flutter margins. In order to counteract these issues, high aspect ratio/low sweep wings may need to carry additional high speed control effectors to operate when outboard ailerons are in reversal and/or must carry additional structural weight to enhance torsional stiffness. The novel control effector evaluated in this study is a variable sweep raked wing tip with an aileron control surface…”
Not sure that increased flutter / reduced torsional stiffness combine well with hinged/folding wingtips — that’s a lot of dynamic load for the hinges to contend with.
“(Bloomberg) — Airbus SE delivered 65 aircraft to 36 customers last month as the planemaker ramps up output in order to meet its full-year target.
“The planemaker shipped 381 aircraft through the end of July, according to an emailed statement Friday. That represents about 53% of its annual goal of 720.”
“The planemaker also said it received gross orders for 60 aircraft last month.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-04/airbus-delivers-65-planes-in-month-in-bid-to-meet-annual-goal
***
10 of the July orders were for A350s, from two undisclosed customers.
Total AB orders so far in 2023 now amount to 1101.
ALC: “Last Friday, we received a further incremental delay from Boeing on our MAX deliveries.”
https://airinsight.com/delays-spur-sales-of-used-aircraft-for-air-lease-corporation/
> ..further incremental delay from Boeing on our MAX deliveries.”
Winning™.
-> United buying 113 acres in Denver for $33 million. We asked the airline if it could use the purchase to move its HQ from Chicago
https://twitter.com/davidshepardson/status/1687472330090369024
“Rumors Suggest American Airlines May Bring Back Its [24] Airbus A330s”
“American Airlines deleted its press release from April 2020 announcing the retirement of several aircraft types, including the A330s.”
“As of late May, most of the A330s were still in Roswell and had not been passed on to other owners”
https://simpleflying.com/rumors-suggest-american-airlines-bring-back-airbus-a330s/
Of the 55 ex-China MAXs that are earmarked for Air India according to the article above, it looks as if (at least) 10 will be going to LCC Air India Express.
https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2023/08/05/air-india-to-get-55-new-chinese-boeing-737-max-ten-got-registration-exclusive/
Sorry this is not inline- a thorougher link for the wrong-runway 737MAX™ incident, where both FMCs blanked:
https://avherald.com/h?article=4fb1fae4&opt=0
Sure, blame the pilots.
Most Scrutinized Plane in History
it will be of no consequence
The 737MAX is safe and reliable
Boeing Says 777X & 737 MAX Certification Delays Could Lead To “Significant Order Cancelations”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ed2_wKhbss
‘Boeing’s timeline slip on the 737 MAX could have impacts beyond being unable to deliver the new variants to customers. It has also flagged potential risks in maintaining its orderbook for the 777X should there be any more delays to certification. ‘
Shaky just got a whole lot shakier…
Vincent©
…”Sure, blame the pilots…’
—-
Always blame the pilots. This is what Airbus had done first to save the skin of Airbus during the difficult beginnings of the A320 (1988, 1990, 1992 crashes)
This is an Airbus specialty.
It’s easy to blame in an era of social media.
Your behavior is just despicable
The program had to be saved at all costs.
I understand that your selective memory of a good fanboy that you are, european and French a fortiori, makes you say things that are totally unacceptable, false, petty and all the qualities that an individual of your species may have who cannot to be objective in addition to being in the most total ignorance. We could not accept this kind of remark
There’s nothing to be proud of
Vincent
Always blame the pilots.
This is an Airbus speciality had done first to save the skin of Airbus during the difficult beginnings of the A320 (1988, 1990, 1992 crashes). The program had to be saved at all costs.
I understand that your selective memory of a good fanboy that you are, European and French a fortiori, makes you say things that are totally unacceptable, false, petty and all the qualities that an individual of your species may have who cannot to be objective in addition to being in the most total ignorance.
But Cannot have a serious basis for discussion…
Looks like you either didn’t read Mr. Hamilton’s warning, or just decided to ignore it…
Haven’t seen the comment Of S. Hamilton before.
It would be nice if you backed down too…
I’m not doing anything that requires me to back down.
You, on the other hand, are consistently violating reader comment rules.
You have received a lot of warnings.
Lol you are trying to intimidate.
You are not an example of propriety What do you play
I have nothing to receive from a person like you. Keep your comments
Thks
Why don’t you go up to Mr. Hamilton’s warning and apologize to him directly there, rather than doing it as a mere p.s. in a comment addressed to me?
***
“Keep your comments”
You might consider following that course of action yourself 🙈
Bryce, when you and I have had differences in opinions on this board, I have never felt abused. Your actions have always been on this side of the line. The traffic from Checklist even I find disturbing. Its not you. Press on
I have yet to receive any warnings (perhaps yet to come!) but I do find the comments of Checklist to be consistently offensive in their tone and content – and quite often written in fluent gibberish. Those of Bryce on the other hand seem to be reasonably cohesive and measured except when provoked by those of an opposing view. I’d be sorry to see one of them moderated but would cheer if the other was, I’ll leave others to decide who they think I might be talking about!
This thread must be drawing to a natural conclusion but it would be nice to have a future A v B discussion without the one set of vituperative but barely comprehensible comments!
Roger
…”would be nice to have a future A v B discussion..”
—-
Lol! I understand now why you are so against me.
An A VS B discussion ?
You didn’t say “A and B discussion” but “A vs B”. This is just a subtlety that reveals your intentions…
Looks like @Checklist doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “versus”…
He also seems to think that he can divine what @Roger’s “intentions” are (sounds sinister).
The inexorable descent continues…
Lol! In terms of politeness I have nothing to receive from you. I presented but apologies to Mr Hamilton. On the other hand, coming to sully people’s honor as you do shows your level of immeasurable baseness.
Your comment is very insulting
and provocative. Which proves that I’m a thorn in your side every day when it comes to saying pretty stupid things about Boeing and the industry and the USA.
It seems to bother you greatly…
So, let’s get this straight:
After receiving an explicit warning from Mr. Hamilton, and just minutes after apologizing to him, you fly off the handle again and accuse another commenter of “immeasurable baseness”…?
The penny is just never going to drop, is it?
I used the term A vs B because that is what every conversation here eventually turns into. Versus (or vs) should not necessarily be a vituperative term, it simply means a comparison, but people like yourself like to polemicise any comparison (e.g. by dragging out the “A320 is unsafe because of the Habsheim accident” argument). Your argument seems to revolve around countless variations of “USA good, anyone else rubbish”, which I suggests flies in the face of reality The A350 programme that you describe as poor has just passed 1100 orders, I don’t think many would agree with your assessment.
The reality is that it was late to market and so many potential sales had already gone to the 787.
Ultimately, people like yourself (the more extreme B fanboys) will have to get used to the fact that the USA does not have the unassailable right to rule the aerospace kingdom and the europeans, brazilians, chinese – and even perhaps the russians in the fullness of time – are just as entitled to compete. The sooner the better, preferably!
Bryce you and I may disagree on the merits of each others position from time to time, but I never feel disrespected….. Press on….
Scott, that feeling is entirely mutual.
Thank you.
Let’s get back to the subject. Airbus had previously blamed the pilots. The Habsheim crash in 1988 put an AF pilot in prison…
So please leave the 737MAX alone and be objective even if it should disappoint Roger 👍
Roger A vs B you Saïd Lol !!!
https://youtu.be/M9HUMl9YYs0
https://youtu.be/KO7R6FVKL-I
Note that it is still landing. There was a design flaw if the A32
Mr. Roger, am I not consistent enough? Rude ? I can’t do anything for you in the face of the facts
Checklist said…. Let’s get back to the subject. Airbus had previously blamed the pilots.
So what, Boeing also blames plots. There is more than enough pilot error to go around, and at times crew criticism is fully warranted. Look at the trip7 loss at SFO, pure crew crm failure just as the Mumbai A320 that hit the golf course. We deal with it here all the time.
What IS exceedingly difficult to deal with is jingoistic postings of the alleged superiority of one manufacturer just because its American. FWIW, I worked there and know where the bodies are buried. Boeing is not the utopian manufacturer some portray it to be , but them again, neither is AB. We are here to discuss that and other things as gentlemen.
@ Scott
That is the thing isn’t? Both manufacturers have done and are doing some unseeingly things. Some here are relatively young ( I can tell by the posts,) and unless Google says it, it never happened. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If some of the “fans” here knew the machinations Airbus was doing in the 80s and 90s, they may be a lot less condescending.
On the flip side, if Boeing had been less arrogant during that time, ticking off United in the early 90s, Delta in the early 2000s when it was going through BK, gave the go ahead for the 7j7, things would be different.
Sometimes perspective here is lost.
The name of this site is “Leeham News and Analysis” — note the word “news”.
As the word suggests, “news” concerns itself with that which is new.
On the other hand, the word “history” concerns itself with that which is not new.
An “analysis” of the current news may or may not merit comparison with history — that depends on the situation.
At present, most of the news about BA is negative. Trawling up negative news about AB from the past is not going to change that, or improve the dire situation that BA is in.
Whatever AB’s transgressions in the past may have been, they didn’t cause historic groundings, precipitate Congressional Inquiries, bring shockingly shoddy (and fatal) design and quality control failures to light, flush the company’s reputation, or bring the company to the brink of a financial abyss.
Bryce,
Respectfully, Airbus is the current world record holder for Rotary Wing World Wide Groundings with their Super Puma debacle. Grounding of that fleet had worldwide repercussions as that fleet was over represented in the North Sea oil fields, and there were significant crew disruptions. As this was severely disruptive to the North Sea Oil economies, it did become the subject of intense discussions in the English, Dutch, Irish and French equivalents of Congress. It WAS caused by crappy gear design inside the main rotor gearbox and one of the service bulletins issued before the grounding basically required an inspection of the gear surfaces before any flight. So yes, there’s enough blame to go around and attempting to differentiate the company as you have here may be a tad disingenuous. I DO completely accept the fact that BA has made horrificly bad blunders of late and there is a huge pile of crap to fix, but attempts at comparisons between the 2 companies as you are trying to do here could be a little more accurate………
@Scott Correa
That’s fine if you want to bring rotary wing into the discussion — although it has only a fraction of the impact of Commercial Aircraft in terms of finances / market size, flight movements, passengers carried, etc.
For comparison:
– ALL BA’s current “big banner” fixed wing aircraft programs have QC/FOD issues (MAX, 787, KC-46A).
– Two have had historic groundings — the MAX for extent and duration, the 787 for nature [manufacturing process shortcomings].
– All have program losses.
– One still doesn’t meet basic cockpit alerting standards.
– One requires 1200 in-service widebody frames to be inspected / repaired in connection with shoddy manufacturing, with the potential of scrapped frames due to decreased service life.
– The element of intent: we know that BA deliberately cut corners and manipulated data on MCAS, and attempted to defraud the FAA and other regulators so as to save money/time.
Personally, I find that the SuperPuma issues pale in comparison to that litany of misery — but we’re all entitled to see that differently.
Bryce… Don’t forget the DC-10 grounding, that started it all.
As far as size of the helicopter operation vis a vis Airbus, I see your point. That said, you said AB never had a fleet grounding or congressional review, and clearly we see that happened in 4 different countries. Ultimately we both have Great points. Never say never, and size matters.
And Im so grateful that I was able to get all my retirement funds unwound from BA after I left, because its so bad now, I’m not sure they wont file for bankruptcy or spin off the retirement plans to a 3rd party and screw everybody…… BA is not the company today that it was when I worked there. I am almost ashamed to say I spent over 30 years there
@Bryce,
Its ok to be an Airbus homer, fan or admirer, they make good products. Just wish you admit it, so we can stop this charade of your “objectivity”. Because no matter what Boeing’s financials are, I seriously doubt the tone of your posts will change.
In regards to your last paragraph, you would be surprised how many of those same points applied to Airbus too. But again, for some reason Googles does not feel obliged to keep media articles from the 70s,80s and barely 90s.
And none of this is stated with malice. One can disagree and still be cordial.
@williams
Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not an “Airbus homer” — I’m actually interested in all aircraft OEMs.
But I’m fascinated by big aircraft OEMs that continue to trip over themselves and flush themselves down the toilet — regardless of what country they’re in 😉
I have search engines that provide me with up-to-date menus of all international news articles relating to BA, AB, Embraer, COMAC and LM.
One of those menus continually overflows with negative articles — can you guess which one? 😉
No point in shooting the messenger.
As for BA’s finances: don’t hold your breath 😉
@Williams.
What is this Perspective of which you speak???? lolololol
You’re on point. I agree
Bryce adds well-sourced value to this comments section; that other entity- whatever “it” is- does not, with its ad hominem attacks and truly bizarre rhetoric.
Muddying the waters seems to be its only job.
Thanks for the thumbs-up.
The feeling is entirely mutual.
I cannot police all the comments all the time. As a broadcast warning to everyone, shape up or I will close comments to everyone.
Hamilton
Vincent
…”Muddying the waters seems to be its only job….”
—-
Do you at least acknowledge that Airbus has blood on its hands with the 3 crashes of the A320?
Thks
How can you possibly justify addressing that (bizarre) comment to Mr. Hamilton…?
Bryce, Bryce, Bryce…
There is no comment that was addressed to Mr. Hamilton.
Don’t make fun of yourself
Go along your path.
God bless America👍
Ignore the troll. Don’t engage. He’s trying to provoke you so Hamilton shuts down the comments section. Let Scott deal with him.
Seems to be a poster in here who wishes you to do exactly that. Please don’t let a rotten apple spoil it for the bunch.
You should not have too Mr. Hamilton, we are adults talking about the aviation industry.
Its bizarre that some look at this as a soccer match. A winner and a looser. Unless one owns stock or getting a retirement check from them, I don’t get the emotional attachment. Are you a frequent flyer? Then your only concern that either Boeing or Airbus delivers safe aircraft.
Frankly, Aviation was more interesting with McDs, Boeing, Airbus, British Aerospace and Folker. Now you guys get excited when a 200 NB order be it A321 or 737s. Weird, guess it goes back to perspective.
Analysis :
Airbus’ strategy with the A220-500 is incomprehensible, like much of their program it’s going nowhere. Around 2030 will be the end of Airbus when the replacement for the 737MAX will be offered to airlines.
Boeing being dominating on the widebody over its rival, Airbus could not afford to reach too long.
They will launch their response to Boeing in disaster, as we saw in 2006 with the A350. Passed several times on the drawing board and relaunched to have the same standards as the Boeing widebody, Airbus still managed to be dominated by the 787 and the 777/777-X.
In Toulouse they will no longer be able to rest on a 20-year gap with the 737. When Airbus launches an aircraft too close to the launch of a new Boeing jet, it is a bloodbath for them. It will be very interesting to see how painful the spanking will be when Boeing holds Airbus in check including in the widebody and also in the narrowbody.
For the moment Airbus remains seated with its A320neo, and would like this moment to never end. But very soon the game will change.
—
https://twitter.com/Boeing/status/1683852447767228422?t=5PxoAAOX9mBR-0V2CnXMig&s=19
God bless Boeing,
God bless USA👍
–*–
With Airbus’ ambiguous strategies, shareholders and the stock market prefer to lean towards Boeing.
-> The Boeing stock took $10 to settle at $231.36.
This is a great first in 4 years.
-> Airbus stock Price: 130.80 EUR (143.54USD)
The 777X is a program that is progressing slowly but surely. D. Calhoun had been very strategic when he sounded the alarm about the 737MAX-10.
He claimed that if the Senate didn’t approve an extension to certify MAX-10, the CEO said he could be kicked out of Boeing’s portfolio.
It was a trick that worked well. It does much the same with the 777-X.The airlines that ordered the 777-X did not need to cancel it.
I am not convinced of a possible cancellation even if Calhoun says it, it’s a strategic bluff
https://twitter.com/BoeingAirplanes/status/1672500078433452032?t=6_YN_I89JUfcTcS_aqpwqg&s=19
(!) (!) The 777 and 777-X is aircraft that Airbus would have liked to have in its portfolio but unfortunately for Toulouse it is a Boeing. A Boeing which also forced Airbus to embrace the same standards in 2006 to survive.
-> Big bin
-> Crew Rest Area above the cabin for flight crew.
-> Position of the low cabin floor to optimize the visual space.
A whole lesson drawn from the Boeing philosophy to obtain a correct A350 but at the price of an A380, A340-500/-600 and a low-selling A350-1000.
If Airbus had the 777/777-X none of the 3 programs/variants would have been launched.
They add up to three, a low ~600 aircraft sold paid for and reimbursed by the European taxpayer.
The 777/777-X total +2000 sales sold. The question remains, is there really a strategy at Airbus even today?
Thks
(!) Disturbing facts from Airbus.
In the early 2000s Airbus reportedly predicted that 1,400 A380s would be sold in the 2000-2019 period. Lol!!! It’s exactly the same achievement that was the sales of the 787 Dreamliner, the fastest-selling aircraft of all time, and it’s a Boeing.
(Lol ! Airbus whanted predict that)
God bless Boeing 👍
Hm, for the sake of balance, can you please tell us what the projected sales for the 747-8 were?
Roger
Absolutely,
This is (finally) a relevant question.
In the early 2000s, Boeing successfully launched the 777-300ER, a High Gross Weight version, with 10,000 additional liters if “usuable fuel” in the wings were possible compared to the -200ER version launched 8 years before. GE provided a more powerful GE90-110/115B engine. CFRP “Racked Wing Tips” increased the Wingspan by 60 m. at +64 meters,
which are other characteristics that allow it to fly even further
The 787 ) Dreamliner launched immediately after, occupied the “bottom of the market”, it is a medium-sized aircraft with a design range of large aircraft such as the 777-300ER.
Being “very electric”, in CFRP materials then powered by the brand new GEnX engines certainly studied for the Sonic Cruiser with more swept-back CFRP wings. These GEnX were better than the Engine Alliance and the Trent 900 of the A380, also launched in 2000. Boeing’s strategy was clear, twin engines of smaller size, “point-to-point philosophy” so cherished by Boeing since the end of the 90s.
Boeing only applied its policy in agreement with itself. It became more than relevant to draw all the quintessence of the GEnX engine for the benefit of the 4-engines 747. Known under the name of “747-Advanced” at first, it was the Freighter version which was preferred and justified, because the 777-300ER was already a successor passenger 747-400/ER. It is moreover the launch of the 747-8F which was a priority at its launch before the “-8 Intercontinental” (not point-to-point) in December 2005 with CargoLux as launch customer.
Thé Boeing’s strategy was consistent with itself. The 747-8F is not a mistake, because it killed the A380-800F when Airbus canceled it in the middle of a debacle, 6 months after the launch of the 747-8F, the version -“8 Intercontinental” was launched later with Lufthansa. Unlike the A380 flop, the 747-8 program was based on a more modest re-engine development.
In other words,
Boeing NEVER expected big sales with the 747-8 program.
Boeing rather highlighted his policy of efficient twin engines.
Thks
“Boeing NEVER expected big sales with the 747-8 program”
Says who??
According to their market research.
Boeing repeated as a mantra that widebody twin engines predominated in their market outlook/market research.
VLAs were at the bottom of the scale with or without the 747-8 program.
Something factual,
Is it so hard to understand?
Why BA launched the 747-8? How many sales were expected? Did it meet the expectation??
Pedro,
you seem stubborn. Just look at Boeing’s (historical) Market Outlook for VLA sales.
Whether it was in 2000, 2005, 2010 or even today (2020-2023) it was a small part, and that was a secret to no one, except for you obviously.
Boeing’s market outlook have been more realistic than Airbus’s until recently. You beat around the bush concerning “the whys” and the “how” since in any case Boeing has ONLY reengined the 747.
Not crazy enough to launch a new program, moreover, in the gigantism such as Airbus did with the “Mega Double-Decker A380”.
I know that Airbus fanboys still bear the scars.
It’s neither the USA fault, nor Boeing’s fault and even less mine
Thks
@Pedro
According to the link below, BA projected 300 sales of the 747-8.
The program eventually reached just 155 sales before being terminated.
Just 48 of those were for the passenger version.
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-747-9-years/
Looks like the design of the 777-8 is still not finalized:
“Boeing quietly stretches the 777X-8”
“Boeing has changed the technical specifications of the 777X-8, stretching the aircraft, which has in turn increased its passenger capacity and range. ”
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-quietly-stretches-the-777x-8
***
Probably to introduce more basic commonality with the 777-8F design, which is slated for intro in 2027 (before the passenger version) — or does anyone else have other potential explanations?
The 777-8 is currently slated for intro in 2029, according to new planning recently revealed by Tim Clark.
‘As of June 30, 2023, the plane-maker has booked a total of $587 million of abnormal costs related to the 777X program, anticipating that the total abnormal costs bill would be around $1 billion until the production of the aircraft type resumes later in 2023.’
Cheklist wrote………
Blah blah blah………..
You beat around the bush concerning “the whys” and the “how” since in any case Boeing has ONLY reengined the 747. End Blah Blah Blah…….
As a senior member of the Production Planning team on the 747-8, I laugh at your assertion that the -8 is a re-engine only program. It was Re-winged, Re-Engined, has a new center wing box, has thicker fuselage skins in many places to provide for enhanced rotorburst protection as well as all the remaining skin panels being new to accomodate better fasteners and those changes drove a complete change in all the electrical system wire bundles because the lengths and terminations all changed. It was stretched. It has new floor beams nose to tail, The empennage is new. The hydraulic system is new piping to utilize lightweight skydrol. Almost all of the frames are new to end circumferential cracking inspections. Fully 85% of the aircraft is new. It would be so good if you knew what you were talking about since you are clueless at times like this. I’m honestly surprised that Bryce hasn’t mentioned THIS airplane as the example for BA overreaching on certification by commonality, because it wasn’t even close.
>>I’m honestly surprised that Bryce hasn’t mentioned THIS airplane as the example for BA overreaching on certification by commonality, because it wasn’t even close.<<
First: thanks for the very detailed, factual info.
Second: with regard to your "friendly little dig"– I told you above that I'm more interested in ongoing intrigues than in past ones. The 747-8 was certified 12 years ago, back in the good old days of self-cert — that was "wild west" territory, and it's semi-ancient history at this stage.
What *does* interest me is the *current* revelation that shimming shortcuts on the 747-8 are causing cracking, which precipitated last week's AD.
What also interests me is the fact that, with self-cert off the table, BA seems to be unable to get planes certified at anything resembling a normal pace. Even simple derivatives like the MAX-7 and MAX-10 seem to be an uphill climb.
Third: I think @Frank gave some very good advice above with regard to ignoring "a certain creature from Scandanavian mythology": no matter what reason you put in, you'll just get more jibberish out. That having been said, it is nice to see your retort 😉
Bryce, no digs intended.
With respect to the thinking that poor shimming is at the root of the 747-8 cracking, its not quite that simple. Metallic structures, and all aerostructures for that matter, are balance between being too heavy and not having enough durability. A 747-8 at a mid life inspection with over 30k hours on it IS EXPECTED TO CRACK. That’s why there was an inspection at this joint to look for them. At C and D check maintenance intervals, a lot of detailed inspections are performed in accordance with the Crack Management Plan. There is a difference between a crack and a crack of consequence. If there is a metallic airplane with that much time on it that hasn’t cracked, it was overbuilt. I would be far more concerned if we didn’t find cracks. I actually view this news as good news, the inspection processes layed out in the crack management plan worked. A recurrence of a crack in a specific location was deemed to be undesireable and the process issued fleet instructions for C/A. The system worked.
Now to the issue of cert process speed. When an understaffed Engineering Group like the FAA is suddenly given ALL the certification verification work, timelines stretch out. The unfortunate thing is that EVERYBODY got screwed by Boeings lapses in professionalism. Gulfstream, Cessna, Embraer, Airbus, Doty/Messier, Goodrich Aerospace and anybody else running packages thru the FAA are affected. BA is not currently unique in this aspect, even if they caused it. There’s a lot of unintended consequences going on.
Frank is right about a lot of things, Hes pretty smart for a Canuk. I also approve of his relationship with Pablo, the all knowing Rottie
Have a great day.
Probably, also simplifies manufacturing.
It’s exactly that…
Like the 777F based on the 777-200LR launched respectively in 2006 and 2000…
Thks
The (small) Chinese carrier Suparna Airlines — currently all-Boeing — has announced the future induction of 30 C919s:
https://airwaysmag.com/suparna-airlines-comac-c919/
As a reminder, the US population is only 5% of the world population. The future economic growth is in Southeast Asia. As for Suparna Airlines which has been around for 20 years and has 25 Boeing 737, it shows the slow but steady move away from Boeing in China When was the last new Boeing order from China? 2017?
Interesting comment highlighting Chinese vs. American demographics.
This gives food for thought as to the future development of aircraft, their size, their missions etc.
However, I would like to point out that the C919 is the same size as the MAX-8, in other words, 2 more rows, 12 more seats than the A320.
This gives us an answer to the fact that the C919 has been ordered more than the 737MAX8 since 2017.
It is strange that COMAC is still not planning a simple strech of the C919 (C920?) which could be the same size or larger in size than the A321neo.
What’s really going on?
Thank you again for your relevant comment
@David Pritchard
I can imagine that, at present, the Chinese are working tirelessly to get the CJ-1000A engine up and running — once that’s in the bag, they’ll start churning out C919s at a more impressive pace.
Higher fuel burn probably won’t be a showstopper: the Chinese (and Indians) are importing vast quantities of cheap oil from their buddy up north.
Once the basics are up and running, the refinements will begin.
Bryce.
OMG we agree.
When I was in Mfg Planning at DAC Long Beach and we sent them the MD80 kits, I knew it was the beginning of the end of our industry as we know it. It will not be in the too far distant future that I see Airbus slugging it out alone against the Chinese. BA as currently structured is not capable of recapturing market share being lost to AB. Unfortunately for the West, China is in this game for keeps and is prepared to do whatever it takes to get there. Looking at their advances in Radar and 5th gen fighters as well as cramming decades of engine development into their current engines, they cannot be discounted. Have a great day
We’ve agreed on things before — and the world kept on turning 😉
Where the rise of China is concerned, I think that the average European is *FAR* more cognizant of the inevitability of this process than the average USian — so it’s refreshing to see the odd exception here on LNA.
Everything in life is a Gauss curve.
Thanks for that comment, Scott C.
Re 777-8 variant
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/boeing-quietly-stretches-the-777x-8
…”The change was first noticed by Max Kingsley-Jones, a Senior Consultant at Cirium..”…
—-
Well if a senior consultant doesn’t realize until 2023, then in all humility I should be a great consultant..
More seriously
Many have been aware of the change that occurred after the launch of the 777-8F
The 777-8 gained a additionnel row of 10 seats bringing it to 2-class 397 seats that’s as much as a typical 2-class 777-300ER arrangement.
Regarding the increased range I don’t know why. It may actually be scaled like the 777-8F in size and slightly increased “usuable fuel” probably due to the increased weight for the 777-8 Freighter. At this stage I don’t understand why the 777-8 is still offered given the ULR niche it covers…
Emirates wasn’t happy about the increased length of the 777-8 because it’s now too big (ie, # of pax). This has been floating around the airline gossip mill for months.
That’s right, Tim Clark was upset that the 777-8 was too close to the 777-9. At the moment I don’t see how the 777-8 could really be produced. An article published almost a year ago showed the Emirates CEO’s dismay.
But I think the 777-X program should be enough as it is. A passenger and a freighter for the next 20 years…
Thks
At this point in time, that appears to make the most sense. Common knowledge seems to indicate the newest technology in the form of engines, wings and fuselages will first be used on the NSA. Or possibly the 767 replacement.
@SamW
At Boeing I would see a double development with two different CFRP fuselages and two different TTWB wings.
The goal is to aggressively cover a GAP and discourage any competition from venturing.
The GAP would be 2-class 140-160 seats and 2-class 180-200 seats.
The advantage is to have 4 best CFRP wings ever built by 2035 (787, 777-X, TTWB-Size 1 and TTW B-Size 2) with a world lead with 4 modern aircraft
(!) IMHO, a 767 MAX CFRP wing will not be aggressive enough, since anyway Boeing will have the best widebody and narrowbody ever and Wizz will be the first autonomous aircraft if the two NSAs are not…
God bless Boeing
and the USA
-*-
Thks🙏
Funny, the plane was designed for them over the concerns of other airlines like British Airways. And now Emirates is not happy?…….Wish I could say I was shocked.
I think Emirates expected that BA would have the 777X in service and flying in their fleet, by now. This is the big elephant in the room.
Everything else is just another reason to be PO’ed with Boeing.
The 777X was launched in 2013…but we recently learned that the 777-8 won’t be coming until 2029.
16 years…and you think it’s strange that Emirates is “not happy”?
Confidence inspiring! /s
-> Boeing wants “a temporary exemption…until March 1, 2027 to allow it time to incorporate necessary design changes for the Stall Management Yaw Damper on the Model 737-7 airplane,” even before the type is approved.
https://twitter.com/WandrMe/status/1688651738167857152
Well, I posted last week on new US legislation that will allow all sorts of exemptions like this:
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/house-votes-to-speed-approval-of-safety-fixes-to-boeing-jets-despite-critics/
With self-cert off the table, BA needs all the extraneous help it can get in order to get its products “certified”.
Pedro. The sections that are being temp exempted are for lightning strike and emp testing. The lightning strike requirement probably doesnt matter as the device flys around in a faraday cage and is immune from lightning. The EMP requirements are a bit more logical as the device does fly with an airborne radar and a failure of the tadar shielding could expose the unit to HIRF.
@William
It was Boeing who took the decision to redesign the 777-8 to simplify production, the 777-8 is now based on the 777-8F. But whatever it is, it remains an ULR aircraft, it’s a niche market
I also remember that Emirates in 2005 had promised to acquire some 747-8I (Intercontinental passenger) if Boeing strech it to 76m in length.
If Boeing betrayed something here, I agree with them.
I’m not shoked for m’y part.
https://lematin.ma/journal/2006/Actualite-Internationale_Emirates-achete-20-Boeing-747-8-Cargo/68587.html
Thks
@Pedro
“Sad” to bow to SouthWest for a small handful of 737MAX-7s. It’s not even worth it.
(What a waste of time and what a headache with the FAA!)
Focusing on the 737MAX-10 is top priority for me…
@FranckP
I don’t believe the 777-9 is an elephant in the room, even less for Emirates.
Although it is true that since Corona-Circus until today all Emirates A380s have not yet resumed service.
It’s not wishful thinking but I think there will be a real need for a 777-9 size and efficient jet like this.
Going from A380s to entirely 787-9/-10s and A350-900s size makes absolutely no sense.
I don’t think the human mind attempts something that extreme without having to regret anything.
There is always a need for visual evidence.
It is the contrary case which is a wishful thinking.
Believe me, T. Clark will remain attached to 777-9.
It’s his last hope!
“FAA warns of safety hazard from overheating engine housing on Boeing Max jets during anti-icing”
>> U.S. regulators are warning airlines to limit the use of an anti-icing system on Boeing 737 Max jets in dry air to avoid overheating engine-housing parts, which could cause them to break away from the plane.
>> The Federal Aviation Administration says the risk to the flying public is serious enough that it will put the order into effect in just 15 days, and without allowing public comment first.
>>The FAA said if the engine inlet gets too hot, parts of the housing could come off and strike a window, causing decompression and a hazard to passengers in window seats.
>> Boeing said overheating of the inlets — which are made by Boeing, not CFM — can only happen under “very specific” conditions and wasn’t known until recently. <<
https://apnews.com/article/boeing-engine-cover-safety-requirement-faa-9ffb19fe9512f4ba46ff64064bbf4556
***
Most Scrutinized Plane in History ™
Bryce, the real question here is why is there not a dry/wet air sensor that prevents the problem……
Have a great day
“Boeing reveals 737 MAX sales breakdown for the first time”
“Boeing on Tuesday revealed for the first time the breakdown of its 4,339 gross unfilled 737 MAX orders by model.
MAX-10: 800
MAX-9: 137
MAX-8: 2700 + 344
MAX-7: 297
***
Further:
“Boeing’s July deliveries included 32 single-aisle 737 MAXs, four widebody 787 Dreamliners and six widebody freighter jets.”
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-reveals-737-max-sales-breakdown-for-the-first-time/
“Boeing’s official MAX backlog stands at 3,839 aircraft. That’s less than the gross total above because it omits orders for 500 jets that have become doubtful since the contracts were signed and can no longer be relied upon.”
So, almost 1/8 th of backlog is shaky…
Re : Boeing’s official MAX backlog
(And a fortiori, the A32Xneo)
—
(!) It is vert important to do your own analysis before sharing information.
The narrowbody market is the most colossal there is with airlines that number in the hundreds with improbable names, liveries in improbable colors.
Airlines among them in different states of financial health ranging from good to deplorable and others are on the way to bankruptcy and must cancel well before delivery, because it is the day when there is delivery that the bank transfer is carried out.
Many of them suffer bankruptcies or have to postpone their deliveries.
In other words,
(!)(!) it becomes absurd to believe that Boeing and its 737MAX is the only one affected by cancellation.
Only fanboys cannot understand this obviousness.
There is absolutely nothing to confirm that there are no questionable orders in the A32Xneo family’s oder book.
On the contrary, the A32Xneo’s order book is certainly made up of dubious orders.
We know for example that Airbus has a habit of hiding cancellations as well. We have seen it in the past.
Thks
“Boeing aircraft deliveries fall in July as company plans to raise output”
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/08/boeing-aircraft-deliveries-orders-for-july.html
“Boeing’s problem-plagued Starliner is delayed AGAIN as company pushes $410 million spacecraft’s maiden astronaut flight to next year”
》*NASA gave Boeing and SpaceX contracts to send crew to the ISS back in 2014.
》*Now nearly a decade later SpaceX is about to perform its seventh mission
》*Rival Boeing, meanwhile, is still having teething trouble with its Starliner vessel 《
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12385165/Boeings-problem-plagued-Starliner-delayed-company-pushes-410-million-spacecrafts-maiden-astronaut-flight-year.html
Humiliated! Boeing spent billions of dollars on Starliner but never beat SpaceX, NASA gives up!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhd7BvJqTSI
Re : FAA warns of safety hazard from overheating engine housing on Boeing Max jets during anti-icing
—-
What you don’t say unfortunately for you.
1. This is an old problem that has appeared on 737s (no-MAX).
2. Boeing is working with customer airlines to avoid this on the 737MAX.
3 That the problem was discovered during tests recently between Boeing and the FAA under extremely rare conditions.
4 A fix is in development by Boeing.
5. Does not allow the aircraft to be endangered.
Thks
“U.S. regulators are warning airlines to limit the use of an anti-icing system on Boeing 737 *MAX* jets”
“The finding affects LEAP-1B engines used on *all versions of the MAX*”.
Please make an effort to understand.
Where did I say the 737MAX is not affected. ?
I said it’s on the non-MAX first, and for the MAX, it was discovered recently during a test flight in very rare conditions, and a fix is being designed.
That there is NO danger for the passengers except near the engine but in rare conditions AGAIN.
Please, is it so hard to understand?
“Where did I say the 737MAX is not affected. ?”
Quoting your text above (emphasis added):
“1. This is an old problem that has appeared on 737s * (no-MAX) *.
2. Boeing is working with customer airlines *to avoid this on the 737MAX*.”
***
You said: “That there is NO danger for the passengers”
Quoting from the link above:
“The Federal Aviation Administration says the risk to the flying public is serious enough that it will put the order into effect in just 15 days, and without allowing public comment first”
***
The foreign legion of the BBO is on such a sugar high that it’s tripping over itself 🙈
There is no danger for the passengers indeed.
An aircraft does not necessarily crash when an engine explodes.
There is danger for only 1 passenger but not all pasengers.
This is what demonstrated an incident in 2018 on a non-MAX 737.
when a Passenger sitting by the window is dead
already even that the conditions met are rare.
Do not look for controversy
You are wrong
Re 777-8 variant
Could Flightglobal be reading us?
I don’t believe in coincidences
https://www.flightglobal.com/air-transport/boeing-stretches-777-8-passenger-jet-to-match-freighters-fuselage/154453.article?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=Sendible&utm_campaign= RSS
Bryce said
…”The 777X was launched in 2013…but we recently learned that the 777-8 won’t be coming until 2029.
16 years…and you think it’s strange that Emirates is “not happy”?..”
—-
The 777-8 is not a priority. The -9 and the -8F pass before the -8 due to the number of sales.
It’s not hard to understand…?
Pedro. The sections that are being temp exempted are for lightning strike and emp testing. The lightning strike requirement probably doesnt matter as the device flys around in a faraday cage and is immune from lightning. The EMP requirements are a bit more logical as the device does fly with an airborne radar and a failure of the tadar shielding could expose the unit to HIRF.
“The dedication to transparency, as evident in the ‘Ethics Statement,’ establishes trust with the audience.”